Talk:Book of Genesis
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Genesis article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
BC or BCE?
Section "first phrase" should be deleted
The section headed "first phrase" should be deleted. Not because it's not correct, but because it's singling out three words from the entire book. There's already a pretty good article on the Genesis creation narrative, and there's even one on that phrase, not to mention one on creatio ex nihilo, so how can you justify this?
Besides which it's wrong in one important respect: it says that "some modern [translators] believe that a more accurate translation is 'When God began to create'". Some? That's about 99%. And who's this John Moore author of "From Genesis to Genetics"? Why not use a decent biblical scholar like John Walton? Or dozens of others.
- Keep it, and update the RS and text, those three words are important in understanding one of the central discussion about Genesis an creation ex nihilo. It is justfied as that claim is one of the things that anyone know about the book, and can except to find discussed. What you call the 99 per cent is not what 99 per cent of general readers understand. They would be surprised when they read important information.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- This phrase and its meaning is still important to many today. See this Haaretz article. http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-features/.premium-1.678408 This is the most well known phrase from all of the books in the HB.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The illustration is of Joshua! Need Genesis illustration
Not sure why the main illustration is a piece from the Book of Joshua. Can anyone supply an illustration that begins "B'reishit..."?
I found this lovely photo of Genesis from the Leningrad Codex, and it seems not to be copyrighted. It is offered on this page: http://tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/philological%20resources%20toc.htm Link on the page says "Genesis 1:10-26" but the actual text (in Hebrew on the photo of the page) begins with "B'reishit bara Elohim et hashamayim v'et ha'aretz" (In the beginning, G-d created the heavens and the earth) so, clearly it starts with 1:1, not 1:10.
On my computer I was able to edit the picture, to just show Genesis 1:1, but don't know how to put it up on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, here is the full page of Torah starting with 1:1
The full graphic would look muddy if used as is, so I'm not doing that.
Regarding from "When these texts were created"
A point of divergence from the dates of the Primitive History and evidently the scholarship given.
The argument is that the "PRIMITIVE HISTORY" chapters 1-11 of Genesis - at the very least the Edenic part - had to have been written before 850BCE. This is because that date marks the highly destructive theocratic confrontation of the (PURIST or UNITY subtypes of the) ELOHIST DOCTRINE of COSMOPOLITAN / Phoenician-Israeli origin (i.e. of queen Jezebel) versus the INTOLERANT / REACTIONARY PURIST YAHWIST DOCTRINE of the prophet Elijah of the still intact Judah Kingdom. The argument being, that had that "Primitive History" been written after 850 - it would not have presented any of the developing theories of a CHIEF ELOHIM GOD whether named or UNNAMED (which it is.) In Genesis that God is clearly one of the Creation's Gods or a chief among them - heretical to later dogma. it presents a midpoint theology of the first Mosaic Jews - hence must have dated (based on the later sub-type theology) between whatever date for Moses and the ELIJAH REVOLUTION of 850BCE. Thus I can find no reason why this part of the writing should not be sourced at the latest about 1000BCE.
It would seem an unthinkable act of creative history falsification to assume that a strictly Yahwist later kingdom would incorporate rejected theology into its core founding texts. (And if so - that would be a major revolution in scholarship itself.) And at the very minimum this needs to be mentioned here, on whatever basis (other than "original research") because it forms a definite reason to challenge the 600BCE DATE.
But I am not done. I find it remarkable as well that there is a story of Jerome (the father-in-law) visiting Moses and going with Moses to make sacrifices on the mountain to "the Elohim and to Yahweh" - which is an unthinkable thing to do in the days of the Temple (Solomon) - or at any period after that 850 date. And this particular theology represents a clearly somewhat later development (dare I say evolution?) of that found in the Edenic text. And this would then tend to push the "latest date" to centuries BEFORE MOSES - assuming the story recounts accurately.
Giving the Jerome/Moses story the benefit of the doubt, I am using 1500BCE because of the generations involved, and the dichotomy would indicate that the Edenic text actually PREDATES Moses. However that date is "very soft."
This possibility is given, by the mechanism of incorporation of earlier (undated and unspecified) texts. But also is most emphatic that its use in Jewish doctrinal material could not have occurred after 850BCE.
Sources are general knowledge based on Bible history.
- Xgenei You need to read WP:VERIFY and no original research. Neither general knowledge nor the Bible can be used for such an argument. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I assume you didn't edit my sources statement? Because that's not what it says. It says Bible History, not "the Bible" as a source - two different things. And COMMON CONSENSUS is in fact an accepted source. And this is not ORIGINAL RESEARCH but an argument for considering an update. AS THIS IS NOT THE ARTICLE - IT IS THE TALK PAGE. I am borderline with the idea of going off to search for an academic source because of time constraints, in order to do that.
- I have no idea what you mean by "Bible history" but we need "reliably published sources", not your knowledge of "common consensus". Sources need to be specific. You want an update, bring your sources and your text here for discussion. Doug Weller talk 09:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Bias in themes
I've actually just read Genesis (NRSV). Your section on themes has a clear bias in favor of the authors and intended audience of the text.
However, two themes that are missing, but are throughout Genesis are:
1. Sex and marriage are free-for-alls, for God's favored people. You can marry your sibling. You can marry your cousin. Heck, marry two or three. Have sex with your wife's servants! You can rape your parents. You can offer your virgin daughters for sex with a mob of horny men.
2. God doesn't care about other people. You can have their land. You can have their stuff. You can kill them all. Or God will do it, maybe even twice! Doesn't matter. It's OK.
Wikipedia is supposed to have NPOV, but this page clearly adopts the perspective of the authors and intended audience.
- I think that sort of critique is a better fit for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Besides, those aren't so much "themes" as they are perceived shortcomings in the rulemaking/morality of the Old Testament. Genesis is meant to be taken as part of a whole, and the rules are primarily set down in other books of the Pentateuch. I'm not sure why it should be mentioned that Genesis lacks any proscription on certain forms of marriage. Ultimately, this comes down to attempting to apply modern-day morality (or New Testament morality, even) to ancient times. Why wouldn't it be okay, for instance, to kill neighboring tribes of a different god, especially when they'd jump at the chance to kill you and take your stuff first? clpo13(talk) 06:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)