Talk:Genesis creation narrative/Archive 11

Key ideas
I think we need to remove the "key ideas" from the lead template as the claim that they really are the "key ideas" of this creation myth is highly debatable and completely unsourced. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you overstate this. The monotheistic outlook being key is not "highly debatable," and neither or the key ideas "completely unsourced." What specifically are you referring to? SAE (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Citations in the lead ...
Can we at least not fight over that? Here is what WP:LEAD says:

(The bolding is mine.) Hans Adler 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would be fine with this, if the lead followed anything else suggested in WP:LEAD. I.e. The lead should be a summary of the article body. This one is not. We need to write the body correctly first then we can rewrite the lead to summarize the body like it's supposed to. Padillah (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Abtract (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

General suggestion (stolen from Prof. M)
Can we try out the suggestion Prof. M made on this page recently and look at general reference works as guides when questions come up like those above about how we should present this text in terms of "factuality" or "how much weight should be given to this or that perspective". Yes we're all intelligent and opinionated people but at the end of the day aren't we supposed to look to these sources and not our own opinions? It would be nice if everyone had a look at some of these sources so we could have an informed conversation about how to move forward restructuring the entry, but at the very least, when there is something to be settled can we try to go to the mainstream sources first for our answers? There is way too much argumentative clutter here, from people like yours truly, and way too little constructive work going on. Who's with me?Griswaldo (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that support factuality. It is a creation myth as all others. People out of the Bronze and Iron ages (and people who haven't developed beyond that) believe(d) in this, but factuality of the entire Pentateuch is zero. And factuality is outside of the scope of this article anyways. · CUSH · 03:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush please do not read into my comment about "factuality". It was a generalization of a conversation above.  It would also be nice if you actually engaged my suggestion instead of once again simply offering an opinion.  If what you say is supported by the sources then they will show that.  That's the point.  Are you with me?  Will you provide source justification for your arguments about how this article should be written from now on?Griswaldo (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You ask for sources against the factuality of the Genesis creation myth?? Well, just randomly pick up any science book or any serious history book. Are you trying to be funny? · CUSH · 20:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No Cush I didn't ask for any such sources -- "against the factuality of the Genesis creation myth"? Huh?  I'm asking for you simply to look at how reliable mainstream reference sources that actually focus on this narrative treat it.  The point is to provide sources to justify inclusion or exclusion of a certain type of language or of a certain structure to the entry.  If  you say ... when we talk about this or that we ought to do it in this or that fasion, you should be able to show that there is a convention of doing so, and its not just something you decided because of your own POV.  Regarding "factuality", for instance, if you want to claim that you think current wording implies factuality and that this is a bad idea, show us how its done in another encyclopedia, a book about world mythology, a book about biblical scholarship, etc.  Get it?Griswaldo (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, except for the article renaming and how prominently "myth" should be described here, the "factuality" of a week long creation hasn't been the hurdle to overcome here. It's the "factuality" of ex nihilo, monotheism, over whether there is one account given or two, the "who" who was traditionally credited with writing it, which religions claim it--things like that. It would be nice to find some generally agreed upon features of the story because otherwise it's going to be a very tedious read stumbling over all the weasel words ("some say it is in the Bible", "some say it tells of a seven  six  sev en what some say is a six or seven day long creation", "some say it resembles what some say are earlier Babylonian myths, as some call them." We need a foundation to build from--there isn't one in place now. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC) edited to make clearer - 15:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should order the "who says what" by the number of adherents to an interpretation. So certainly the official position of Catholicism on these issues should be mentioned, then what Eastern Orthodox interpretations are. Then the larger Protestant groups, and the countless samller ones. Last of all fringe interpretations such as in Judaism and Mormonism. · CUSH · 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * These various differences of opinion I outlined go beyond what the various religious denominations views are, and even within those denominations the differences of opinion can't be neatly pegged. Differences in beliefs are one thing, while differences of opinion in scholarship is another.  To gauge consensus views in the related academic spheres, tertiary references are a good place to look.  Also, even though academics often will have strong points of view of their own, the good ones are usually very honest and straightforward describing what the "consensus" in the field would be even while they're disagreeing with it.  Such scholars won't be taken seriously if they're oblivious or misrepresent the field.  The problem in this article has been too much cherry picking of references and "claim staking" going on, with editors more absorbed in making their own voice heard or shutting up somebody else's, and scrounging up, sometimes in the unlikeliest of places, a particular quote or reference to suit the purpose. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush's last comment perfectly illustrates the pitfall we must avoid at all costs: Acting as something akin to a Second Council of Nicea, and attempting to make a determinination as to which denominations or sects are "heresy" or "fringe", and which are "mainstream".  That is not, and can never be, wikipedia's purview. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When and if different denominations have different views wikipedia can describe them without taking a "side". And of course, it should go without saying, no part of this article should be written as if there's a trial underway here to declare what's "true" and what isn't.  Anyone with that misunderstanding needs to change gears and treat this article no differently than this one,  this one, this one or this.  I'm not saying anyone here has this misunderstanding, but it does seem that a few are somewhat suspicious that's what others might be up to.  A little less hypersensitivity would go along way, because the edit warring acts like a choke hold here preventing much of any worthwhile work from getting done. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem of structure
The problem we are facing (all of us) is a problem of structure of the article. Before we start editing the main body I think we should at least have a preliminary article structure in mind and then work from there. My analysis of the current structure: Is this really the structure we want? Can we improve on it? My thesis is that if we agree in an article structure then the phase of article building will result in a much smoother experience. Right now there seem to be two camps of editors. One seems to like the theologians treatment of the subject while the other is pushing for a more encyclopedic one.--LexCorp (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead: definition + description + significant views + summary of main sections of article.
 * Overview: IMHO Perfect
 * The narratives: Why is this section in the article at all? What purpose does it serve in an encyclopedia a detail textual analysis of the Genesis Creation Myth. This really looks like a theology piece.
 * Structure and composition: fine maybe we should extend more on the historical relation with other myths and of the historical analysis of the two traditions.
 * Exegetical points: exegesis is an exercise in interpretation so why is this not in the Interpretation section?
 * Interpretation: this should contain the interpretations of the text. My main criticism is that it is overrun by the creationism view in clear breach of WP:weight.


 * This is where I highly suggest that people pick up another published reference work to compare. We do not need to copy other reference works but it would be a good baseline to have.  Also, since so many aspects of this entry appear to be contested it would also help us by providing mainstream examples to which we can point and say ... "look this is how it is normally done".Griswaldo (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What I think is muddled in the present version is that there are two main perspectives of the story (maybe three) with their own interpretative concerns. One is the more "literary" angle, another is doctrine (there are various religious "doctrines" of creation that derive from the story) - and the third may be the historical/anthropological/archaeological interpretations that view the text as a cultural artifact, rather than as literature or religion.  There will be some overlap, say from theologians who re-examine the texts through an interdisciplinary lens, but beyond a simple summary of the story, almost any thing else of interest about the genesis creation accounts come from the work done in interpreting it.


 * So now what we have is "Interpretation", "Exegesis", "structure and composition" and "The narratives" which aren't really informative here to use as separate categories, are they? Each of them emphasizes conclusions are based on "interpretation", much of it complicated by  peculiarities in language translation, and our incomplete understanding of its historical and/or cultural context.


 * I also think the "sub-sub-sections" in the creationism sub-section make false distinctions and lend undue weight to it. But I think sub-sub-sections are often overused at wikipedia--to me their overuse makes the text unnecessarily choppy, disjointed, and the articles start to look like a bulleted powerpoint presentation. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with references
Can someone help me convert the two citations in the introduction, which go to the same online book section, so that it is in line with formatting that is used in the rest of the entry. This is a bit beyond me. Thanks a ton.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Prof. I will take note of how you did that for the next time around.Griswaldo (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to other ANE myths
I think we need to remember that the introduction is not a place to get into the finer points of discussion over how extensive ANE influence is this particular story. I'm referring here to this. This should be dealt with the main body of the article where there is ample room to discuss the extent of influence. Does that sound reasonable?Griswaldo (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Til I fail to understand how you get this:
 * So then this source should go too by that reasoning, since it is pushing a religious agenda to say Genesis was plagiarized from Gilgamesh instead of both having a common origin as Wexler puts it. (Til)
 * ... from the following quote:
 * "To the extent that this myth was influenced by Mesopotamian concepts, it can be said that it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one." (Oxford)
 * The quote from Oxford does not say that the relationship was unidirectional and makes no specific mention of Gilgamesh. It certainly does not claim that the Genesis narrative was "plagiarized" from anything.Griswaldo (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I just thought this edit would add balance to Oxford's view:


 * "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling." -- Robert Wexler, 2001 Torah Commentary released by Conservative Movement of Judaism
 * Oxford's viewpoint does sound like the influence was uni-directional; it says "inflenced by", not "influenced each other". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nonsense:
 * Leeming 2004 says: "To the extent that". In other words, it leaves open whether there was any influence at all, and goes on to say that any influences by Mesopotamian concepts (whether they were present or not, strong or weak) must be seen in the light of a switch from polytheism to monotheism.
 * Leeming 2004 says: "influenced by Mesopotamian concepts". So it's not at all talking about Gilgamesh but about the concepts that underlie it.
 * It is true that Leeming 2004 also says the following: "There is, of course, a strong and direct Mesopotamian influence on the flood story that comes later in Genesis, as will be clear to any reader of the epic of Gilgamesh." But we are not citing this, and I would really appreciate it if we don't get an additional discussion about the flood myth. This is the article about the creation myth, not about all of Genesis.
 * Leeming 2004 is talking about our text, and in encyclopedic brevity. In that context there is no need to waste words explaining that there might also have been an influence the other way round. Whether one believes that or not, it's simply not relevant in that context. And since it's completely unrelated to the points that Leeming wants to make (that there was possibly only little influence and that the poly/mono shift makes it something new) we can't read anything out of the omission. Hans Adler 18:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Til_Eulenspiegel-this is making a mountain out of a molehill. And it's all goofed up-Gilgamesh is the flood epic, not the creation epic. You probably mean the Enuma Elish, but it and Genesis creation are two among several surviving creation stories from mesopotamia- so this brief Wexler quote is in harmony with the Oxford claim. So Wexler isn't even sourcing this claim.


 * Independent sources aren't the "enemy" at wikipedia. They are our prime resources. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC) - editing what I goofed up even further. 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't need to tell me independent sources are our prime sources, because I certainly know that, and I can actually follow your reasoning this time. And actually you're right, there is probably some better place for the Wexler quote than this article, so I'm not that pressed about it either.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My comment about independent sources is in response to your edit summaries accompanying the reverts. I'm glad we agree then. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Conservative Rabbi Wexler, vs. Leeming 2004 of Oxford U. as 'independent sources'
I have looked up the entire Torah commentary of Wexler from which the above quote was taken. As I suspected, he also gets into comparing the Mesopotamian creation stories, not just the Flood stories.

I do not mean to suggest that the opinion of Robert Wexler (rabbi) could ever be as significant to the topic as the ultimate impartial arbiter of fact and truth, Oxford University, as expressed by David A Leeming 2004 (sorry no article for him as yet!)

I'm just throwing some general points out here for our careful consideration.

It has been implied above that Leeming is not pushing any religious agenda, by his stating that monotheism developed out of polytheism.

We may conclude then that Leeming's observation is correct, impartial, and indeed not pushing a religious agenda by stating this. The traditional viewpoint as expressed in the Scripture itself, regarding the origin of Hebrew monotheism, is also that it developed out of polytheism - so there seems to be no significant disagreement here. Specifically, the scriptures pinpoint this development to one man, Abraham, for whom the Abrahamic faiths are named, who is said to have rejected polytheism at a time when it was near-universal among peoples, and begun a new tradition of monotheism. It is not necessary to agree in all these particulars to make an impartial statement like "Monotheism developed out of polytheism".

Wexler's writing "Ancient Near Eastern Mythology" is every bit as careful and scholarly as Leeming's, and I wonder if we could take another look at the weight of his perspective here. Lisa, what do you think?

Wexler:


 * "We conclude that the Flood story portrayed in Genesis is more likely of Mesopotamian than Palestinian origin. This Mesopotamian influence is evident not only in the Flood story, but throughout the first 11 chapters of Genesis" [...]
 * "Just as Utnapishtim is often called the Babylonian Noah, Adapa is occasionally referred to as the Babylonian Adam. Such a comparison does not really do justice to the much clearer parallels that exist between Noah and Gilgamesh.  All we can reasonably say about the sagas of Adam and Adapa is that they both explain why human beings did not achieve immortality." [...]
 * The biblical theme of rebellion against God has parallels in each of the two best-known Babylonian creation stories: Enuma Elish and Atrahasis. In these myths, the rebellion is not that of human beings against God but rather of one set of gods against another. In each case, the gods who mutiny strive to supplant other, more powerful gods to free themselves and secure their own hegemony."

Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No. It's unnecessary, and it's suggestive at best when focusing simply on the Creation story. Wexler is drawing strong parallels between the two Flood and Fall accounts. In the Adam/Adapa he's merely mentioning that they are "referred to" as related and moves on to the other two episodes. And your use of this to source the monotheist/polytheist business isn't appropriate. If Wexler verifies the claim about monotheism, you haven't shown it yet.  At the very least if a source isn't directly verifying the claim, you can't use it as the source of the claim. And besides-since Wexler is not even explicitly or implicitly disagreeing with Leeming, where's the beef?  Leeming is suitable and it can source the claim by itself. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this even a necessary issue for this particular article? Seems more like a question on the monotheism article.  It should be enough to show that 1) there are parallels with ancient near eastern myths and 2) some of those myths have earlier records than the Genesis narrative.  Yes, those other narratives are polytheistic and the Genesis narrative is monotheistic, but connecting this with a development of monotheism from polytheism seems beyond scope.EGMichaels (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's significant that it's a single creator, and the manner of the creation (a single god summoned it to be) is a significant difference from the other Babylonian accounts where creation is an outcome of war between the gods. The overarching monotheistic worldview/doctrine comes later-it's not laid out plain in Genesis creation. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wexler's point seems to have been missed. Correct, his point isn't so much about the development of monotheism.  But it is dead-on topic about the Genesis creation narrative.  And he doesn't merely state that Adam/Adapa are "referred to" as related and move on, he discusses them at length, and I merely excerpted a theme sentence.  Leeming is the source who gets into monytheism/polytheism, though as I said that statement of his does not seem that controversial or religious agenda-pushing, it is somewhat out of scope. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So trying to follow here...the claim that's currently in the article is that Genesis creation "is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook", and sourced to Leeming who says, "it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one". However you say Leeming is "out of scope"-you like Wexler better even when all you had at first was a quote of his talking about Genesis and Gilgamesh. And after failing with that one, went off to cherry pick a quote about "Adapa is occasionally referred to as the Babylonian Adam" and quote two paragraphs of completely unrelated material, and having again failed, put forth some handwaving that Wexler talks a lot more than this about Adam/Adapa but since he doesn't talk about monotheism, Leeming is "out of scope"? May I remind you that you used Wexler to source the monotheism claim-that's what started this in the first place?
 * This really isn't a content dispute-it's a dispute raised due to an extreme suspicion towards sources from outside Jewish or Christian theology. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think either of the sources are out of scope.EGMichaels (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PM, obviously you know your response about my motives does not logically address the question of whether or not Wexler is on-topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously Wexler isn't. You've envisioned something else entirely about what the topic "should be" (not the monotheism which you claim is "out of scope") to justify his not addressing it. If you're saying, "Wexler has other interesting analogies and contrasts between Adam/Adapa besides the monotheism"-well, maybe, maybe not.  You haven't shared them so far, you haven't offered use Wexler to source some other claim besides monotheistic creation, so who's to say?  It seems you like Wexler, and want to use him somehow, somewhere, in the article. And of course Wexler might be useful somehow, somewhere else--but not for this claim. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Leeming makes a statement about monotheism, and I commented on that in my own words. If Wexler is talking specifically about Mesopotamian and Genesis creation narratives, I still don't follow the argument that he is out of scope.  He discusses every detail in comparing the two, and these are only representative quotes. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You used Wexler to attach to a claim you say he didn't make. Anything and everything Wexler says which does not directly address the claim which he is used to reference is by definition "beyond the scope" of that claim. If he has other things of interest to say about comparisons between the Mesopotamian creation myths, that's fine.  What would be some of Wexler's ideas that you think need to be covered in this article here? Professor marginalia (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know when I "used Wexler to attach to a claim I say he didn't make". I wasn't attaching him to any particular claim as such.  Just wondering how his perspective on Genesis wrt Mesopotamian accounts could be called 'out of scope' or 'off topic'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to your using him as reference here. You may have been unaware of the dispute over the "monotheistic outlook" behind the "We need to stick to secondary source that do not have religious agenda" edit summary--Leeming replaced two references used earlier which had a somewhat overtly  "religious agenda" and who overstated the monotheism theme beyond where most in comparative religion/myth would go (further than Wexler would go, from sketch of his thought on it I read elsewhere). The discussion above shows that more independent or unaffiliated sources were deemed more suitable there to settle the question. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll have to look and see what the earlier sources were. But I should clarify that unlike yesterday, I am not arguing for Wexler's inclusion in the lead - really, just testing the suitability of his quotes above for the body of the article, probably the section on "Ancient Near East context".  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry then that we have been talking past each other. Yes, there's no blanket reason not to use Wexler for anything at all here, it's just he isn't appropriate for this claim about monotheistic outlook in the intro. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Most of the quotes Til has brought here from Wexler are absolutely out of scope because they refer to later narratives. On the question of why use Leeming as opposed to Wexler (if for instance they were both providing the same information) the answer has little to do with Leeming vs. Wexler, and pretty much everything to do with Oxford U Press and the type of publication that Leeming has created for them. Reliability and claims to mainstream POVs are not inherent to certain scholars but they are more or correlate with certain publishing processes. A large reference work published by Oxford can be relied on to be authoritative and mainstream. That's all that needs to be said on the topic. Lets move on please. If there is reason to use Wexler in the main text then great, but he's not needed anywhere near the introduction. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean Robert Wexler, president of the University of Judaism, he is a bona fide expert on Genesis. By this I mean, he has extensive knowledge of Ancient Near Eastern literature and history.  He has a Ph.D. from UCLA's Department of Near Eastern Languages (a secular institution).  Leeming, on the other hand, is an English professor.  I see no evidence that his has any credentials in Ancient Near Eastern Studies.  Does he know Akkadian? Uggaritic? Does he even know Biblical Hebrew?  I am sure he is an expert in English literature but the Bible ... well, the Biblical texts were composed at least 1500 years before the very earliest English literature, and in a place quite far from England.  It's pretty much a slam dunk that Wexler is a significant view on Genesis, and Leeming is not.  Wikipedia articles should be based on the best scholarly research, and written by editors who are willing to find out who the serious scholars are.


 * Please, please, please, please please do not tell me you use Leeming because his book is on-line, while books by real Bible scholars are in those oh-so-hard to find places called "libraries."


 * If we really want to improve this article further, I wish someone would get a hold of EA Speiser's commentary on Genesis for the Anchor Bible - a bit dated, but truly authoritative. Nahum Sarna's work is also respected. Ditto Robert Alter. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * LOL I was wondering who might pick up on the distinction - while the other 99% of commentators all fall for it pretty hard, or demonstrate how rapidly they solidify their "educated" judgement for dogmatic reasons... This discussion has sorted out the men from the boys, as my headmaster used to say...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That glee is just depressing Til. FYI.  Robert Alter's, The Five Books of Moses, pg. xii -- "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins--Creation and the Garden Story--that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ...", Nahum Sarna's "The Mists of Time: Genesis I-II " In Genesis: World of Myths and Patriarchs, pg. 50 -- "In order to develop their beliefs, the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."  Thought you might like some feedback from one of the boys.  Enjoy.Griswaldo (talk) 03:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the authors of the first two chapters of Genesis were monotheists is actually debated among (non-Orthodox) scholars (of course, according to Orthodoxy the Torah has one author and the Israelite religion was always monotheist). But I think most major critical scholars still accept Kaufmann's argument that what distinguishes the Biblical from other related accounts is that God created humanity with deliberaton.  I added this uncontroversial view; perhaps we can add a better discussion of monotheism versus henotheism as debated among major Bible scholars. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have the Speiser book. This process doesn't have to be so grueling simply for the sake of it. The editor who disputed the contrast between creation in the other Babylonian creation myths to Hebrew genesis setting the Hebrew apart as "monotheistic" requested an independent source and one was found that satisfied the concern. Leeming is an expert in comparative myths. The claim pertains to comparison between these Near Eastern myths.  The myth describes a creation at the hands of a single supreme creator.  The others involved many dieties.  Almost everyone agrees the authors were monotheists in that they worshiped a single god.  There is some dispute whether the authors or Hebrews at the time believed that theirs was the only god in existence.  Does anyone here now still continue to dispute the creation event itself in the story was monotheistic? (It's irrelevant what the authors believed, the sentence focuses on the story elements.) If not, everyone should be satisfied that the claim is sourced just fine.  How about we focus on rebuilding the rest of the article? Professor marginalia (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PM, I really have no comment on the earlier dispute which seems to be about how to interpret Wexler's claims. My point is just that Wexler is a better source on Genesis, as he is an expert, than Leeming.  Otherwise I think I sympathize with your points.  I do not mean to make things grueling.  Do you think the Speiser book is of use here? (here the article, not just here some specific dispute)?Slrubenstein   |  Talk


 * @Slrubenstein-I think I need to help explain here what seems to be confusion about Wexler. He was used as a reference for the "monotheistic" claim and subsequently removed, with an edit summary asking for a more unaffiliated scholarly reference.  This, like virtually every tiny change to this article I've witnessed, initiated an edit war.  From the outset, and in all the material from Wexler cited so far after, it is unrelated to Genesis creation myth .  The Adam/Adapa discussion quoted from Wexler is extremely tangential to the Creation myth--Wexler discusses them in the context of The Fall-the expulsion from the Garden, Adam's quest for knowledge and as a result losing immortality.  None of this happens in the creation myth-it happens later.  At the end of Gen 2, the end of creation (creation is supposedly completed by close of Genesis 2) - Adam is still immortal.  The whole Wexler brouhaha is a distraction--his piece introduced here was irrelevant to the "monotheistic outlook" or any dispute over what sets Genesis creation apart from the other Mesopotamian creation stories.  We need to drop that whole line of argument involving Wexler.


 * But fine, let's use Speiser. Use Oxford-there are two now. There will probably be dozens of other well-qualified references that make the claim, and I'm sure somebody will find some excuse to object. The feature you describe from Kaufman (who I'm not familiar with) seems relevant as well.  I've seen it elsewhere, though not quite with this same emphasis as you've briefly sketched above. (Marduk deliberately creates man, for example, but there was a kind of self-serving expedient motive behind it. In Genesis no ulterior motive is evident-the deliberation has a kind of aesthetic motive-only motive evident in the systematic creation is to bring a "good" order out of chaos for its own sake, and man is given dominion over it thereafter.)  I'm all for saying more here because so far this article remains rudderless, beginning with the pretty dull and aimless start in the intro. Most tweets have more content than the intro here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no longer a dispute about "monotheism" and no reason to make the change so I reverted it.Griswaldo (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is your proof that the dispute has been resolved? Please do not revert an accurate statement correctly sourced to one of the most renouned Bible scholar and a book published by a very credible university press. Kaufmann was an extraordinarily respected Bible scholar and his work is still assigned and cited.  Leeming is not an expert on the Hebrew Bible, Israelite religion, or the Ancient Near East. Kaufmann was.  You cannot but the two names in the same sentence, let alone the same category. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert just because you are too lazy to go to a library and read a real book. If you want to read encyclopedia articles to pass your time, that is fine.  But if you want to write them, you have to read real books by the real experts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:ScienceApologist was the only person disputing the monotheism addition, and that dispute was resolved with the addition of Leeming. It's right there on the talk page if you care to read it.  Til and Prof. M were disagreeing over sources that were both being used to source the very same statement.  The only dispute between them was over the sources, not the statement itself.   I'm going to bid you farewell however as a conversant here.  After the fiasco over at Talk:Judaism I think its best we don't correspond, especially because this page has been plagued by ceaseless arguing and little sourcing.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But Griswaldo, if you read the above carefully, "montheism" was given as a pretext for Wexler supposedly being "irrelevant" and "off topic", even when he didn't mention it, and Leeming does! We've got some professional spin doctors working this talkpage, I tell you... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See my reply to Slrubenstein regarding the disputes. Best.Griswaldo (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wexler is relevant because he is a significant view, a real expert, and thus an important source for an encyclopedia article. If he says something about monotheism I could hardly object to our adding it. But if real experts do not make the claims you like about monotheism, an editor with any integrity does NOT then go around looking for non'experts who support their POV. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please narrow down what is the difference (from the source)in the "deliberation with which God creates the world" from the others? Stating that it differs but not pointing out the salient points makes this sentence pointless IMHO.--LexCorp (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For pity's sake. Leeming was used to satisfy the concern that the "monotheism" claim was a religiously biased claim and not necessarily a conclusion formed by a consensus of independent, non-aligned authoritative sources.  Wexler was completely unnecessary at this point-adding him has triggered a protracted dispute that would otherwise have ended long ago.  And yes, Til Eulenspiegel, the cite you added from Wexler was irrelevant and unrelated (talked about Gilgamesh, not creation, and his "scholar" bona fides don't remedy that) and of course it was reverted-it failed to support the claim.  When this was explained, you insisted you understood your mistake and were no longer pressing to use it to cite the claim.  Yet here we are--you're still rehashing this?  Speiser, for whatever worth this serves, describes it thus: "P's statement about Creation differs from its Mesopotamian analogue by its overriding concept of an omnipotent Creator."  Oxford's Guide to the Bible makes the same assertion as Leeming and its author is a theologian, J. R. Porter. There is no dispute over the claim and the continued fist pumping and chestbeating over whether Wexler or Leeming's got a bigger "Bible scholar" claim is childish (and beside the point).  This is WP:TE at its worst-it serves no purpose whatsoever. Professor marginalia (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I mean by spin-doctoring. You are very quick to jump in and utterly mischaracterize everything I say to make it sound as foolish as possible.  One more time:  I'm not really concerned about the "monotheism" debate.  The overwhelming consensus of scholars of all stripes is that it is indeed a "distinguishing feature", right?  So what is the problem?  Why was "monotheism" used as a pretext to "disqualify" Wexler's viewpoint as "off-topic", when he doesn't even use the term, and Leeming does?  What does monotheism have anything to do with the actual issue I wanted to raise, which is pure and simple, Wexler's credibility?  All this talk of "monotheism" is just a distraction to create smoke and confuse what the real question is, apparently.  Now back to the real issue: Wexler's credibility.  Doesn't this statement I already quoted by Wexler contradict, or present a directly opposing viewpoint, to a quote by another scholar used in our article? "Just as Utnapishtim is often called the Babylonian Noah, Adapa is occasionally referred to as the Babylonian Adam.  Such a comparison does not really do justice to the much clearer parallels that exist between Noah and Gilgamesh.  All we can reasonably say about the sagas of Adam and Adapa is that they both explain why human beings did not achieve immortality." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Til Eulenspiegel: To the contrary, the "monotheism" question is the real question here-not Wexler. The quotes you shared from Wexler did not address either the monotheism, or any contrary "central distinguishing feature" of the Genesis narrative.  You initially used it to cite the claim--now you say it expresses a view "contrary" to it.  I've hunted down Wexler's quote-it is from Robert Wexler's essay "Ancient Near Eastern Mythology".  This essay is reprinted in Etz hayim by Blumenthal, Liss.  The very first sentence introducing the essay reads, "In this essay Robert Wexler explores the similarities between monotheistic biblical narratives and ancient Near Eastern polytheistic myths."  After the quotes you shared appeared, Wexler then writes, "The affinity between biblical and Mesopotamian literature in no way diminishes the special character of Israelite religion.  By introducing the concept of monotheism into the ancient Near East, Israelite religion made a unique contribution to human civilization."  Neither of them contradict Leeming, and Leeming is more to the point-he is explicitly speaking of Genesis creation, not merely Adam/Adapa or the book of Genesis broadly speaking-we don't have to infer Wexler meant the creation stories even though he didn't refer to them specifically. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nahum Sarna and Robert Alter support this as well. (copied from my last comment above) -- Robert Alter's, The Five Books of Moses, pg. xii -- "Genesis opens with a narrative of origins--Creation and the Garden Story--that is compelling in its archetypal character, its adaptation of myth to monotheistic ends ...", Nahum Sarna's "The Mists of Time: Genesis I-II " In Genesis: World of Myths and Patriarchs, pg. 50 -- "In order to develop their beliefs, the Hebrews borrowed some Mesopotamian themes but adapted them to the unique conception of their one God."Griswaldo (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said, I have no objection to the view being added back in when it comes from real experts. That said, i hope you can find a way to keep kaufmann's view in as well; he too is a major scholar still. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Monotheism redux
After being alerted to this discussion on my talk page, I have to say that the current lead of this article does overstate the case for monotheism being a distinguishing feature. However, I think that the place to fight this battle is in the article text. I think monotheism may bear mentioning in the lead, but it is unclear to me what the sum total of reliable sources would say about its relevance to the story. To some extent, the establishment of the Sabbath concept is much more apparent as a "distinguishing feature". I'm no biblical scholar though. A survey of all the biblical critiques -- especially those from respected academic institutions -- would be very beneficial as a section in our article. Could we start working on that instead of bickering over single phrases in the lead? ScienceApologist (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * SA, I think the "monotheistic outlook" may not be as clearly worded as it should be, but there's no question, any any scholar's mind that I've seen, that this is a distinguishing feature setting it apart from the other Mesopotamian accounts. Genesis is a Hebrew creation account, and this one creator god is clearly paramount, not only in the sources talking about the Hebrew creation stories, but in how it was received/interpreted in the Hebrew context.  From Abraham and throughout the rest of the Bible texts, and in the religious traditions that stemmed from it (and there are no surviving traces of a Genesis creation that exist outside this Abrahamic context)-the centrality of this one god is all important.  There are other departures that deserve mention as well but there's no hope of any progress for describing any of them if this one element proves to be such a sticking point.  It's by far the most universally remarked upon distinguishing feature - again, I want to emphasize, in comparison to its Mesopotamian counterparts.  Professor marginalia (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply disagree that this was a particularly distinguishing feature because artificially limiting ourselves to Mesopotamian counterparts is not justifiable. There is a lot of evidence that there was cross-pollination of mythologies in the ancient world including, for example, a lot of parallels between Sumerian, Egyptian, Hittite, and Greek mythologies. Ignoring, for example, Ancient Egyptian religion, is what we seem to be doing by trying to claim that the Genesis account is somehow "distinguished" by its monotheism. Please do not misunderstand me, I agree that the monotheistic nature of the creation myth in Genesis is of particular import, but we should not mislead the reader into thinking that this is the only monotheistic creation myth from that time and place. Especially when there are other agendas nakedly present in the myth which are rather dramatically on display. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "we should not mislead the reader into thinking that this is the only monotheistic creation myth from that time and place." (ScienceApologist) Good point. We can say that Genesis 1 is monotheistic without claiming it's uniquely so. Also, by the way, Genesis 1 culminates in the institution of the Sabbath, not the creation of man - man was indeed made for the Sabbath, despite what the NT says. PiCo (talk) 10:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * PiCo, you cannot put your own views into the article. Yes, some hold these views, but they must be presented as views and properly attributed, and other views must be included. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not planning on putting that in the article. PiCo (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment The fact that all of these scholars agree with Leeming on this very uncontroversial mainstream view should not be a surprise to anyone. This is exactly what one can rely on a reference work to represent, especially one published by Oxford University Press. And that is exactly why Wikipedia's policies like WP:NPOV state that a majority view is to be verified by reference works in the first place. Leeming vs. ... has nothing to do with the reliability of a reference work published by Oxford or other mainstream academic publishers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Griswaldo, I do agree with you that the publisher matters. But it is not the only thing that matters.  NPOV requires us to provide all significant views from reliable sources.  Your point about the value of a publication by a university press speaks to "reliable sources" and certainly is important.  My point about Leeming vs. various others speaks to "significant views."  Leeming's view is not significant among experts on Genesis.  Other views (and you have provided a few) certainly are.  This also matters. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @SA-I'm just telling you what most of the authorities writing about the Genesis creation myth from a comparative rather than an apologetic perspective emphasize. In most cases, the Genesis accounts are compared almost at the outset to the larger body Mesopotamian creation myths, and the monotheistic creation theme is the anomalous feature prominently described in most of them.  The wording we use here should make it clear that it refers to the themes of the Mesopotamian creation myths which are compared, leaving aside any meta claims about how "unique" religious monotheism is.  And I'm just interested in getting some kind of substantive, informative, sourced content in this article somehow.  It needs content, and I'm not clear how that will ever happen if we try to break from the pack and try to craft this article completely differently than most other tertiary sources do. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, "apologetic." Who are you referring to?  I agree that the wording should cover work by ancient near eastern scholars who have compared Genesis to other ancient myths.  But it doesn't matter what other encyclopedias say, WP has an NPOV policy that requires us to provide all significant views.  SA certainly should agree with this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @slrubenstein-This is what I'm referring to by "apologetic". I am at a loss for words to describe how bewilderingly unnecessary/bizarre this whole "dispute" looks from my seat.  It's quite simple in my mind. We can't use Wexler talking about Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark to cite a claim about the how "unique" the Genesis creation myth is compared to other Mesopotamian creation myths. All the rest--all the thousands of words exchanged arguing over Wexler--don't seem concerned about the key criteria for any reference, that being it verifies the claim it's referencing. Please see my comment above-we need to drop Wexler asap.  It's not helpful to dwell on it.  Professor marginalia (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you that a comment on the Noah narrative has no bearing on the first two chapters of Genesis. On that we agree.  But Wexler is nevertheless speaking from a critical perspective, I don't see how he is an aopologist.  From what I have read he actually supports the point about monotheism, as do other significant views.  Kaufman has a different view, but just as significant, (and also from a critical perspective) and I don't see why both views cannot be in the article.  I hope nothing I have written ever suggested anything else. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It was SA that raised the "apologist" concerns, and my comment to him was that regardless of whether Wexler is or isn't one, the "monotheistic" opinion is shared by experts whose work is authoritative apart from any particular religious tradition. If you've read Wexler agrees as well, it wasn't here, or if so, I didn't see it. Here on the talk page, nobody as of yet has quoted or cited passages of him saying he does or doesn't agree.  All the quotes from Wexler shared here are about other things, not genesis creation. So the situation we're in now is that the one authority SA disputed because he didn't think Wexler qualified as sufficiently independent, the only reference so far put forth to cite this passage which we do NOT even know would support or not support (either one) the claim we need references in the first place, is the be-all/end-all to battle over in the belly of the scrum. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, re Kaufman. I don't see why more can't be said about this than just the "monotheism" thing either. There are many other elements I think should be said about it.  Nobody will get much of value from reading what's been said in the intro there now. But that's not going to happen in this highly charged atmosphere.  We'll need to fill the candy dish with Chill Pills before anything can ever get done here.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Need for reliable sources
I've deleted this clause from the beginning of the Structure section as lacking reliable sources:

"Genesis 1 consists of an indeterminate time period that God created space and time ex nihilo (out of nothing)[6]"

Footnote 6, which should contain the sources for this statement, has the following instead:
 * Fain 2007, pp. 30-36
 * Heeren 2000, pp. 107-108, 121, 135, 157
 * Schaff 1995
 * Clontz 2008
 * Ellis 1993, p. 97

None of these are useable sources supporting this statement - Fain is a physicist, Heeren is a journalist, and Ellis a mathematician; Clontz is a very scholarly guide to the New Testament with concordances to all sorts of primary but irrelevant sources from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Dammapada; and Schaff is a collection of works by St Augustine.

If you want to include the idea that Genesis has some indeterminate period of pre-creation, you need reliable modern sources.PiCo (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with these comments - most Bible scholars reject the view that Genesis is an ex nihilo account, although later (much later) theologians have made the claim. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 09:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All traditional Jewish sources view Genesis as being ex nihilo. I suspect they mostly predate your "much later theologians" as well as whatever Bible scholars you have in mind.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wenham has been cited numerous times supporting ex nihilo. Has he been deleted from the footnotes?EGMichaels (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I corrected and clarified a paragraph in the ex nihilo section. Wenham serves as a modern source here.EGMichaels (talk) 03:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the point I'd make is that the article needs first to establish what the original author/s intended by the first few lines of Genesis; there's no doubt that theologians from Philo onwards interpreted it as ex nihilo, and I support making that point in the article, but it should begin with contemporary scholarly understanding of the original meaning. (Wenham, by the way, although certainly a respected scholar who personally supports the ex nihilo reading, doesn't represent the mainstream on this - and he more or less says as much in his "Exploring the Old Testament: Pentateuch" volume, where he says: "To start with the Earth was shrouded in darkness and covered with water; as soon as God speaks this dark chaos is turned to order." Not a word there from Wenham about God creating the heaven and earth out of nothing. On the other hand we have major tertiary reference sources like the NJPS Torah, the Anchor series, the Oxford Bible Commentary and the Mercer Bible Dictionary, all stating unequivocally that Genesis 1 begins with a state of chaos.PiCo (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with PiCo and believe that this is standard. From Oxford's A Dictionary of the Bible -- "There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation by God. Neither deals with the question whether the creation was out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo); the first (Gen. 1: 1–2: 3) which was compiled later, the P source, supposes the pre‐existence of an abyss of infinite and formless waters, a chaos out of which God creates order; in the second, and earlier, story, the J source, God forms Adam from the soil of a damp, barren plain (Gen. 2: 6) but there is nothing about an existing chaos of waters."Griswaldo (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We've beaten this to death. I have no problem with creation from chaos and creation ex nihilo both being discussed.  I have a huge problem with our dictating one or the other.


 * For months we've gone through this cycle in which sources and POVs are simply deleted. We have a huge fight and when the dust settles both views are still there -- and then the fight crops up again trying to send ex nihilo eis nihilo.  What in heaven's name is so offensive about the existence of the traditional view?  And why must we dictate the meaning of the "original" author in a heavily redacted text?  There is no original author, nor necessarily an original view.  There is the text which finally remained after centuries of redaction and after centuries of theology.  Let's just list the possibilities, with a few sources, and move on.  And if you don't like a source, REPLACE it with a better one.  Simple deletion will get this article nihilo.EGMichaels (talk) 11:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM reliable sources do not treat the views as two currently competing views. They are not really views of the same kind at all.  The idea of creation out of chaos (or something similar) is presented as more clearly apparent in the text itself and is most likely the view held prior to the types of theological developments which lead to the second view, ex nihilo.  EGM, especially on a page like this, we need to get past the idea that just because a horse was severely beaten on on this talk page in the past does not mean it is dead.  The intensity of beating does not correlate with the death of the horse either.  I think many issues will be revisited, indeed they need to be revisited, now that things seem to have cooled down a bit.  What we need to do as consciously as possible at this point is to rely on high quality sources when we make arguments.  PiCo's first point, which others seem to agree with as well, is that sourcing for ex nihilo as presented was, and remains, piss poor.  Let's find the sources and reflect what they say. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All I'm going to say here is if one has to resort to Fain, Heeren, Clontz and/or Ellis to reference the claim that ex nihilo is a "prevailing view", they've fatally wounded their own argument. I'm going to remove them again.  Professor marginalia (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am with Griswaldo and Professor Marginalia on this one. Rashi points out the grammatical problem with the first sentence of Genesis 1:1, and all major critical Bible scholars agree that Genesis 1 is not about creatio ex nihilo, it is about a deity that brings order to the universe.  Modern translators like Fox and Alter share this view.  Creatio ex nihilo is a theological view that, as others have pointed out, perhaps dates to Hellenic times.  It may have a place in the article but is not of the same status or kind of claim as the other.  I suggest that we begin with a discussion of the grammatical challenge of Genesis 1:1 (which can include some traditional sources like Rashi or Ibn Ezra) and provide a sample of different translations, then provide an account of how critical Bible scholars interpret the account, and then a discussion of theological commentaries. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Folks, all we need to do is to list the views, show who said what and when they said it, and move on. Keep in mind that there were many stages to the present text.

For instance -- this hypothetical model:


 * Original near eastern myths describe creation from chaos.
 * Original egyptian myths describe creation ex nihilo.
 * One of the genesis sources writes and either...
 * Adopts the near eastern formula of creation from chaos
 * Adapts the near eastern formula to an egyptian ex nihilo formula
 * Merely fuses the two without knowing what he is doing
 * Deliberately repudiates one, the other, or both


 * Later documentary strands are overlaid on the genesis narrative, either...
 * Adding more detail to the existing formula
 * Supplementing one (chaos or ex nihilo) strain with another
 * Contradicts the original without knowing what he is doing.


 * Later theologians interpret this text as either...
 * Ex nihilo, or
 * Chaos


 * Copyists transmit the text either...
 * Altered according to the predominant theological view, or...
 * Leaving it unaltered.

The question of WHAT view the "writer" had begs the question of WHO that writer is and WHEN he stands in the tradition. Are we talking about the source texts, the ur texts, the redacted texts, or the standardized masoretic texts? We KNOW that the source texts are closer to the near eastern ones, but we ALSO know that the Israelis claimed contact with both Mesopotamia and Egypt in the Torah itself. We also know that ex nihilo existed in one of those potential sources (Egypt) just as surely as chaos existed in the other (Mesopotamia). We ALSO know that much of the text was written before any concrete record of ex nihilo in extra biblical Jewish thought, while much of it was redacted and masoretically standardized afterwards.

There are too many variables involved. The pointing of the Hebrew and the syntax of the LXX both support ex nihilo, but that should be expected from the mere fact that the concept was widespread before the LXX and the Masoretic pointing.

So where does that leave us?

Simple -- we list the options, who says what, and move on.

This edit warring over sources and theological surety is a senseless waste of time, and WAY beyond our pay grade.EGMichaels (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, you say that "all we need to do is to list the views." This is basically true, but we need to have a reliable source for those views. That's why we go to academic reference books, like the Anchor series or whatever, for our information - and why we don't go quoting Philo of Alexandria. PiCo (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If you don't like a source, UPGRADE it, rather than delete it. Deletion only eliminates the view -- which is a no no in this case.EGMichaels (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, you don't actually have a source. I'll repeat what Slrubenstein notes: "All major critical Bible scholars agree that Genesis 1 is not about creatio ex nihilo, it is about a deity that brings order to the universe."


 * PiCo -- I was the one who added Wenham. Regardless, ALL major critical Bible scholars at least address ex nihilo, even if they disagree with it.  We're merely listing the existence of the traditional historical view which was embedded in the syntax of the LXX and pointing of the Masoretic text.  I don't care what view you prefer, you can't just go around pretending that NO major Bible scholar is even aware of the ex nihilo view they may be disagreeing with.  Pick a source -- any source.  They'll all either agree or disagree with it, but none of them are as ignorant of the view as you would like this article to appear.EGMichaels (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pico -- we've been doing this for four months. It would have taken you four MINUTES to find a source you approved of.  I'd suggest you do it.  I can't read your mind.  You'll have to do it for me.EGMichaels (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your Wenham reference is to his contribution to the Word Biblical Commentary (he wrote the commentary to Genesis 1-15). So far as it goes, that's fine; but what are Philo, Augustine, et al doing in that paragraph? None of them are biblical scholars, none of them are modern. Put that paragraph in the ex nihilo article by all means, but it doesn't belong in this section of this article, which is discussing the intended meaning of the original author or authors of Genesis 1.
 * Now as for Wenham: he's a respected scholar, but his views on this question are not mainstream. He's a devout Evangelical Christian, and the WBC is a Baptist/Evangelical publication - religious belief, not secular scholarship, is what the series is about. "The Word Biblical Commentary delivers the best in biblical scholarship, from the leading scholars of our day who share a commitment to Scripture as divine revelation" - it's about using scholarship to support faith, and the Christian faith requires creation ex nihilo.
 * If you go to the Oxford Bible Commentary or the Mercer Bible Dictionary or just about any other similar publication you'll find the mainstream understanding of what the original authors, who were not Christians, understood they were writing. So we have:
 * "It is doubtful that the notion of creation out of nothing is meant" (Eerdman's bible dictionary, p.293)
 * "...Genesis 1 does not teach Creation ex nihilo, ... although a minority of recent commentators still prefer the older view." (Eerdman's Bible Commentary, p.38 - with an apparent reference to Wenham)
 * "There is no question here of a creation ex nihilo (Oxford Bible Commentary, p.38)
 * In short, ex nihilo is a minority viewpoint among modern scholars; if we mention it all, we need to make that clear. PiCo (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * PiCo, I don't think you get the whole NPOV thing. I really, truly, honestly, emphatically, do not care which view your prefer.  Quite honestly I don't think it can ever be satisfactorily untangled from the fact that the text itself is a redacted smorgasborg of diachronic views.  The Mesopotamian foundational materials were polytheistic-chaos.  Check.  The final redactors/transcribers were ex-nihilo-monotheists.  Check.  At what point do you want to speak of a "text"?  I really don't care.  Just show the range, cite some sources, and move along.  Why are you so fixated on a view you don't even believe in?EGMichaels (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "It would have taken you four MINUTES to find a source." Let me put this to you then, EGMichaels. It should only take you four minutes to find more good sources, right? So why do you continue to weary everyone on the talk page defending bad ones?  I spent I don't know how many ridiculously squandered hours defending my edits-to you-when I removed sources put to support the claim ex nihilo here that talked exclusively about Einstein, Stephen Hawking and the Big Bang rather than "prevailing interpretation" of Genesis 1.  For what it's worth, I think that ex nihilo isn't an abstract theoretical concept that the original authors troubled themselves to ponder at all...they were focused on other story elements.  It rose to the fore later, from the philosophical influences on theology, and dominated for quite some time, only to more recently to recede as a consensus interpretation as the much more multi-faceted, empirical and interdisciplinary body of information now available to interpretative scholarship was absorbed. I think all of it is interesting.  But not if it relies on crap sources.  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Marginalia -- I gave Wenham, and for fun I threw in Campbell because he was a mythologist. I might have put in another, but I don't think you've argued against any of my sources.
 * As for the other sources -- UPDATE anything you don't like. But simple deletion is lazy.  Just find better sources.  I really don't care.EGMichaels (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As emotions seem to be entering in here, let me just say that I enjoy civilised discussion, and I respect EGM's intelligence and knowledge and find it a pleasure trading views with him. Let's keep in mind that ultimately, Christ enjoins us to love one another, and so for that matter does my beloved Dammapada.
 * Ok, sources and deleting them. EGM, it's not lazy to delete bad and irrelevant sources. Einstein et al are irrelevant to biblical study, or do you not think so? Philo, Augustine, and John Wesley are also irrelevant when it comes to discussing the intentions of ancient writers - they simply weren't in a position to know. Wenham is relevant, but he's the only relevant one there. (Campbell I don't know about - is he really in a position to discuss Hebrew grammar? Could he discourse learnedly for ten minutes on the origins and uses of the verb bara?) PiCo (talk) 05:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There we go again...a completely worthless reference doesn't prevail in a vacuum. A completely worthless reference when we're talking about what's by any measure the most exhaustively, thoroughly examined book in all of recorded history is not only still worthless--its idiosyncrasy only serves to emphasize its worthlessness. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC) And to clarify, Wenham and Campbell were not involved in the protracted dispute between us two.  I'm not asserting they're worthless references.  But those we argued over were.  Professor marginalia (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Pico re Campbell. His view probably isn't notable here-certainly not to source what is or isn't the "prevailing" view in biblical scholarship. He came at it from a completely different angle, and even in the field of comparative mythology I don't think he can be described as representing a "consensus" view.   Professor marginalia (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Right -- as I said, Campbell was more for fun. He's certainly very notable in the field of mythology and his reference added a bit of imagery to the article.  But it wouldn't have wrecked my feelings to see him replaced with something better.  A lot of times a reference is just that -- someone's initial shot to be upgraded by something better later.  It's a lot less overhead to HELP a person find a better reference than to merely complain and edit war over it.  Most folks really don't mind your improving their work.  But it's not very collaborative to just go around deleting anything that's not perfect.  Imagine the months that would have been saved had you simply upgraded it to a few sources you liked better.EGMichaels (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Campbell I would seriously caution against using Joseph Campbell to source anything here. For non-contentious issues he's not needed and for contentious issues he's a poor choice. Campbell is highly "notable" in the sense that he is of great popular renown. His books were widely read by the public and his various television productions have probably taught more people about myth than any other source. However, within the study of religion no one takes his theories seriously at all anymore. Scholars would also never have considered him an expert on most (if not all) of the individual traditions or myths that he utilized as examples either. Campbell found a way to get people excited about myth by taking so many liberties with difference that he was able to cram various motifs neatly into an overarching psychologically universal human reality. Apply Jungian psychoanalysis to comparative myth, and do it with pizazz, and you get Joseph Campbell. I have no problem with him personally because I think he helped people get excited about myth, but he's not someone we should be using to source contentious issues with.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Griswaldo, and for what it is worth, Professor Marginalia and PiCo. EGMichaels, it sounds like you have not studied the Bible from a critical perspective.  You seem to be using sources that are popular in the sense that they are easy to find, but these are not actually the best sources for this article.  Personally, I would start with the Anchor Bible and Speiser's commentary on Genesis.  In addition to Speiser's own commentary, he discusses other points of view and summarises major debates.  I do not think there has been any real major advance in philology or comparative literature that has had any big impact on this debate since Speiser's time.  I wouldn't mind going back to the major early views - Wellhausen and Gunkel, as well as 20th century views like Kaufmann.  We should use Nahum Sarna and perhaps Umberto Cassuto.  Maybe Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth.


 * EGMichales talks about NPOV. yes, we should provide all significatn views.  But we need to classify different kinds of views.  The views of modern critical Bible scholars represent the best attempt to understand the text in the context in which it first took shape, and none of these scholars argue for creatio ex nihilo.  Certainly, the views of traditional authorities (Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Christian commentaries) and theologians (past and present) are important and should be provided in the article, but I think in their own sections.  I also think we could do a better job explaining the grammatical ambiguity - this is not logic, this is syntax and then provide a wider range of contemporary translations.  But EGMichaels, there is a clear consensus about how to open the article and you really seem not to be paying attention to other people's points. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sl -- my POINT is that we should include all notable POINTS in the article, and exclude any contentious ones from the lede (basically the same point I made in the Judaism article). As I said, Campbell was a toss out for color -- although his work tracing the significance of Egyptian mythology for its influence on eastern myths is pretty good.  I've read it in detail and he did a good job (better than much of his other work).


 * As for not having studied the Bible from a critical perspective... I'm not sure how you could get that from my simple comments that we include all notable views, giving precendence in the BODY of the article to those views which are more in line with scholastic consensus. For what it's worth, I've authored material on Biblical criticism, and one of my books is being tested for a textbook in Catholic universities.  But I have no interest in imposing some view that I prefer in a way that excludes other notable views -- so I'll champion notable views that I see getting stepped on, even if I may agree with the conclusions of the editor attempting the inappropriate censorship.


 * For instance -- I personally believe that Judaism is a "religion", but I'll fight strongly to allow your view in the article. In the same way, I personally believe that the Genesis accounts were adapted from ancient near eastern myth, but that the masoretes probably believed in ex nihilo -- and that some shift may have occurred through time.  If that's sourced somewhere, great.  In the meantime I'm making sure that views like Wenham's are included in the article, regardless of whether I agree with his conclusion about the Ur texts or not.


 * That's NPOV. You make sure even those views you may not agree with are included, as long as they are notable.  If they aren't reliably sourced -- then upgrade the sources.  But don't eliminate the notable view just because you don't like the source.  Find a better one.EGMichaels (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what your argument is. Have I not said that the view that "the Genesis accounts were adapted from ancient near eastern myth" should be prominent in the article?  Have I not agreed that the belief in ex nihilo belongs in the article?  Have i not agreed that the ex nihilo belief appears during the Hellensitic period, or later?  It sounds like we agree, so what is your point?  Wenham was a theologian, not a critical Bible scholar - but still, have I not said that the article should include the views of theologians?  As for what the Masoretes believe, I am curious - NOR aside, what data are you using?  John Wenham's expertise was really on the NT.  Gordon Wenham has written on the OT but is still an evangelical theologian and not a critical Bible scholar, and again, I have no objection to adding his views properly contextualized.  The masoretic text itself suggests the order out of chaos and not the ex nihilo view, but to my knowledge the Masoretes themselves did not leave any written commentary so what data do we have?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to add -- there is an order of precendence for adding information:


 * From worst to best:


 * Misleading or wrong information.
 * No information.
 * Unsourced information.
 * Badly sourced information.
 * Well sourced information.


 * What I see to be your problem here is that you view the existence of a (currently) minority view (even a notable one) to be misleading or wrong and so you are trying to improve upon it by moving up to No information.


 * But the only problem with ex nihilo is that it cannot be presented as the dominant view among Biblical scholars (unless it were). Certainly it's dominant historically and theologically -- so we should mention that.


 * That leaves the way forward to be beefing up the sourced information for chaos.


 * As for Badly sourced vs. Unsourced -- something is "Bad" when you can do better. Better is not "Unsourced" but "Well sourced."  Just find a better source.  I don't understand why this is so difficult.  Do you not have access to books?  Find something you like better.EGMichaels (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which "Text" are you talking about?

 * 1) Foundational Mesopotamian literature -- Chaos
 * 2) Foundational Egyptian literature -- Ex Nihilo
 * 3) Original Genesis texts -- hypothetical, perhaps Chaos... perhaps even polytheistic (who knows?)
 * 4) Redacted Genesis text -- monotheistic (or at least henotheistic) and either chaos or ex nihilo
 * 5) LXX translated Genesis text -- leans strongly to ex nihilo, but this was in a Hellenistic backdrop, so why not?
 * 6) Masoretic pointing -- ex nihilo.

Which text is the "text"? The Ur text? The source texts? The first redacted text? Without those texts or any kind of pointing (which didn't exist), no scholar can really say either way. They could point to chaos because of mesopotamia, but what about Egypt, and what about monotheism? If they must be chaos then why not polytheistic?

Or do we talk about the texts we ACTUALLY have?

That's the LXX and the Masoretic -- both ex nihilo.

I think the scholars are arguing apples and oranges. No one disagrees that the Mesopotamian texts were both polytheistic and chaos based. No one disagrees that the final Masoretic text was pointed by people who were both monotheists and ex nihilo thinkers.

And no one disagrees that the proto texts are gone, that pointing didn't exist, and any view is merely theoretical.

And, finally -- no one disagrees that there are centuries upon centuries separating the proto texts from the final transmitted text.

Why not simply source all of that, throw in the Mesopotamian backdrop and the later Hellenistic backdrop to show that the transmitters may not have had the same worldview as the original writers, and that the redactors could have gone either way.

Isn't it more interesting to research and REFERENCE a transformation from theoretical non-pointed chaos based ur texts based on a mesopotamian worldview to a fully formed hellenistic ex nihilo worldview by the time you get to the masoretes?

I really don't care which view you prefer -- and I barely care which text you are talking about. I merely care that you list any notable view you can find (and the view embedded into the pointing is certainly notable), show a range and history, and move on.EGMichaels (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, if you think that the Masoretic text, pointed or not, embodies an ex nihilo view, you need to read more widely. It would be far more accurate to say that it allows such a reading. Yes, it's a legitimate reading in terms of Hebrew grammar - but no more so than the second reading, which is along the lines: "In the beginning of God's creating of the heavens and the earth, (a merism for "everything", not literally the plural heavens and the single earth), when these were chaos..." That's a very free rendering, but the idea is clear: no ex nihilo. I repeat, the grammar allows both, both are valid. So how tom decide which was intended? Several pointers: elsewhere in the HB there are unambiguous references to God beginning creation from chaos; the rest of Gen.1 is all about a series of separations and orderings, with perfect order and rest on the seventh day (and this, by the way, and not the creation of man, is the culmination of the creation account); and Gen.1's reliance on the concepts contained in the Enuma Elish makes it persuasive to see its purpose as an attack on the Babylonian cosmology, not the Egyptian. (Incidentally, although there is one Egyptian ex nihilo myth, it's definitely in the minority, and Gen.1 references the EE, not the Egyptians). For these reasons, the majority of modern scholars conclude that Genesis 1, while grammatically ambiguous, embodies creation out of chaos.PiCo (talk) 05:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why the heck are you putting that here? Why not just add details and sources to the article?  I thought what you just wrote to be very interesting.  Merely deleting ex nihilo leaves you no decent place to discuss it in the terms you just gave.EGMichaels (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM "merely deleting" is an unfair description of what is going on. Several editors are trying to tell you that the sourcing was horrible.  There is another issue that your breakdown does not deal with.  Biblical scholars are not divided on ex nihilo.  Theologians, proper, might be, I don't know.  But only theologians would push ex nihilo at this point because it is required by their tradition to do so.  This is why reference sources make it clear that the text does not contain ex nihilo.  These simply are not two comparable views, they are two very different views because they serve very different ends.  One represents scholarly consensus (chaos) and the other represents theological and religious consensus (ex nihilo).Griswaldo (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep missing what I'm saying. I'm not arguing that the sourcing isn't horrible, but that the way to improve sources is to upgrade them.  That takes a lot less time than what you're doing now -- yes, it involves real work, but that's what we're here to do.  As for Biblical scholars, Wenham is a Biblical scholar.  You can't claim unanimity when there is an exception.  Give PRECEDENCE to your view, certainly, but don't try to pretend that ex nihilo isn't notable.  It was quite ubiquitous historically, certainly theologically, and is now being argued against.  Put whatever nuance you want, but don't pretend the people arguing for chaos are arguing in a vaccuum.  They are rejecting ex nihilo -- MENTION what they are rejecting, why they are rejecting it, how they are rejecting it, and who's views they are rejecting.EGMichaels (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "I'm not arguing that the sourcing isn't horrible, but that the way to improve sources is to upgrade them. That takes a lot less time than what you're doing now -- yes, it involves real work, but that's what we're here to do." How about instead of preaching it just do it. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Professor -- I haven't deleted any sources without replacing them with something I liked better. I've been practicing what I preach here.  If you like something better -- go for it!EGMichaels (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to belabor this but you continue to recycle this imposition to editors here but this idea that bad sources are good enough to reference any claim until a better source replaces it is not policy, it's not even realistic. If I source a claim in this article to a Marvel comic book would you then be forced to leave it be until you find a better one to take its place? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Professor -- exactly how long will it take you to upgrade a marvel comic to something you like better? Ten seconds more?  Look, you have to remember that you are working with other editors, and WHY other editors add sources.  They normally don't add sources because they are in love with the source, but because they want the information to be retained.  Simply removing the source MIGHT work if you feel the information doesn't need a citation at all and can simply stand on its own.  But if the information keeps being deleted, the editor is obviously trying to anchor it, and deleting his source will merely prompt him to add more sources.  The trick is to come as a helper to that other editor rather than merely insulting his work.  Instead of "this is crap" how about "I like what you are trying to do and this might get us there better."  Instead of a fight the other editor will usually appreciate what you have done.  If you like to fight, fine -- but that's not really what Wikipedia is here for.  If you don't like a source, obviously you can think of something better.  Help the other editor out.  It's called "collaboration."EGMichaels (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I give up. For you, every claim is valid, every claim is notable, every dispute is just an excuse to fight, every redaction in this ceaselessly revised encyclopedia is a personal insult hurled at the user who first put it there, and simply removing poor material is a tremendous waste of time whereas protesting ad nauseum on the talk page against removing anything, ever, from the article, regardless of how bad it is, is to be a true "helper" to the project.  We'll never see eye-to-eye on this.  Me, I'm simply going to remove comic book and other bad references on sight. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * EGM, I've gotta agree with the Professor (though not in word, in meaning). Just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in this article. I can properly, and strongly, source the statement "Heroes had the highest rating for an NBC drama premiere in five years. " but that doesn't mean this statement belongs in this article. Wikipedia isn't run on the principle that "once you get it in an article it's there to stay". If the sources are bad or the point is contentious then there may be reason to remove the material. That doesn't mean the other editor wants to fight, it means they have a different oppinion of the sources and at the very least discussion should follow (hence WP:BRD). Please don't consider the arguments against inclusion of the idea evidence of the importance or acceptance of the idea. It's merely a observation that the citation is not suited for this part of this article. Padillah (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, sure -- I'd agree with what you're agreeing with. I never disagreed with that.  The Professor raised a straw man that we all agree with.  Not everything belongs.  That's why the question of ex nihilo revolved around historical notability.  As the predominant historical and theological view, it should be mentioned as the pre-existing dominant view that has now been replaced among Biblical scholars.  I ran into this same problem on the microevolution article where it said that creationists were wrong, but didn't say what the heck they were wrong about.  You have to at least REFERENCE the view you are DISPROVING.  So, ex nihilo is both notably historical and (according to perhaps most biblical scholars and certainly most mythologists) notably wrong.  Uh, now that we're done with straw men, can we start collaborating with real editors instead of fantasy editors the Professor is making up on the fly?EGMichaels (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only thing which was "deleted" was one of the multiple instances in which ex nihilo was addressed where 4 of the 5 references given were about Big Bang creation, not genesis creation and the fifth was abt 2000 years old. There were another 5 or 6 additional references for it which were as bad or worse which you edit warred to retain here.  (Joseph Campbell is still in the article -seems to contradict ex nihilo in that example btw- and so is Wenham--they haven't been deleted.) You so vigorously defended the Big Bang references that my comic book hypothetical example wasn't facetious.  I really can't understand your rationale for putting the burden of proof on those who expect quality references, not those that source claims with silly placeholders.  Simply put, the burden of sourcing claims falls on the editor making the claim.  It makes no sense at all to expect the editor who is challenging the claim as unsupported by good sources to be the one responsible to reference the claim.  Professor marginalia (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Burden of proof for what? The article initially spoke of ex nihilo, and all that was needed was some fleshing out of chaos and the primacy of chaos among modern Biblical scholars.  No big deal.  Maybe a day or two of fleshing out and working on wording.  Instead, ex nihilo got deleted over and over again, so an editor or two added sources to establish notability.  When the sources were challenged, one of the editors compromised with the sources and the next day ex nihilo was removed as not being notable.  I'm sorry -- but ex nihilo is very notable.  It's so notable that it's historically dominant, theologically significant, and even noted outside of the fields of biblical scholars.  All of the listed sources establish these dimensions of notability.  Are they essential to the article?  They SHOULDN'T be.  But with all of this backdoor edit warring I'm suggesting that you either do a straightforward attack or try collaboration instead.  A straightforward attack is NOT "I don't like those sources" but rather "I don't think the subject is notable."  I'd add another point of notability: even the modern writers that PiCo likes take the time to argue AGAINST it.  Does all this mean that we must retain all the sources?  No -- it merely means that we need to stop the backdoor edit war, improve the sources, put in PiCo's points (which I think are very good), and move on.EGMichaels (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article still speaks of ex nihilo--in three separate sections! A fourth one was removed, in a fourth section, where it was not only supported with the weird Big Bang references, there was no mention of chaos either. Nobody has said it isn't notable-nobody has said it shouldn't be described.  What was removed was a poorly sourced (and ill placed) claim implying ex nihilo was the exclusive meaning in the text. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Professor -- I was going back through the whole torrid anhiliation of ex nihilo. There were numerous occasions in which it was removed from the article entirely.  The edit war is how it got embedded in so many places.  I have no problem with your pruning and sourcing and even caveating as no longer the prevailing view.  My only problem has been and still is a penchant for removing it entirely, with complaints about sources coming after the edit war created them.  In any case, if it is true that you merely want to put it in one or two places rather than four, with sources more to your liking, then it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.  I haven't seen Deadtotruth for a while, but I doubt you'd get any push back from him either if he comes back around.  What are we arguing about?  Upgrade the sources, concatenate the locations, and caveat at will.EGMichaels (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involved when the annihilation took place, and to be honest, when I tried to look back to understand what you were talking about, that's not at all the situation as I found it. There weren't any signs of an annihilation of ex nihilo that I could find. It began, actually, with an annihilation of chaos, a very definitive claim "Chaos, then, is not the basis for creation, as in Babylonian myths, but the result".  And yes, that was disputed.  About the same time there was this annihilation of a prologue about some period of "pre-creation" alleging wp:Undue weight given to Philo.  Beginning here and continuing here, ,here and here the article was then bloated to repeat basically the same sentence 4 times, supported in each case by these garbage references. At no point following could I find any evidence ex nihilo had been annihilated altogether--that's not what happened. In fact, it's been here for a long long time. Instead, these references were used to argue that ex nihilo had more support than non-nihilo because "lookee there are 10 references saying ex nihilo against 2 for chaos".  Yes, ten references about Big Bang.  That's what I found in the edit history.  Professor marginalia (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You missed the PiCo edit war. Deadtotruth discussed this with PiCo on his talk page. Just look at the huge PiCo deletions restored by either Deadtotruth or myself. In any case, my invitation to you to do as you said you would do is still open. I've repeatedly argued for both views being represented, in balance, even with preeminence given to chaos.EGMichaels (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Ex nihilo is highly notable, as the predominant theological interpretation, and that's how it should be presented. I think the issue is placing it next to the interpretation that is common amongst secular scholars who are trying to get at the final text.  It belongs in a section on theological interpretation and not secular exegesis.  If you agree with this then I don't see a problem and I don't think others do either.Griswaldo (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Wenham fits the Biblical scholar qualification.  We should place him in the minority, but not treat his view as non-existent in Biblical scholarship.EGMichaels (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No not quite right back at you. PiCo pointed out to you explicitly that when writing for a standard secular publication as a scholar Wenham does not mention ex nihilo at all .  Only in an evangelical publication with explicit religious aims does he mention it .  This is quite exactly what I mean.Griswaldo (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You can't use a failure to mention something to contradict when he does. I don't mention everything I think about everything at all times.  I don't know anyone who does (other than my mother).EGMichaels (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You consider explicitly describing creation out of chaos the same thing as "not mentioning" ex nihilo? Here's the quote that PiCo provided from Wenham: "To start with the Earth was shrouded in darkness and covered with water; as soon as God speaks this dark chaos is turned to order."  I haven't verified this personally but if PiCo isn't misquoting we can see plainly that Wenham describes creation as out of chaos instead of ex nihilo in Exploring the Old Testament: A Guide to the Pentateuch.  We all know that these views are mutually exclusive.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They aren't mutual exclusive at all. While creation from chaos excludes ex nihilo, ex nihilo does not exclude chaos, but rather establishes it.  There is nothing in this statement that contradicts Wenham's painfully detailed support for ex nihilo in his commentary.EGMichaels (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation
The joys of editing Wikipedia are limited - one is right (ie. sees one words in print) only for the briefest of moments, and there's no real human contact. I do it because it's an alternative to work - but unfortunately it means the work doesn't get done. So for all these reasons, I'm retiring (again) from that article. And I'll even try to retire from Wikipedia. I'll try, honest I will...PiCo (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The supernatural
Back when we were discussing whether to rename the article, the meaning of the term "myth" came up a lot. I tried to add something to the intro, touching on the idea that the Genesis account was a supernatural one, but apparently I failed to convey the idea that just about all creation narratives involve the supernatural. So here's what I propose:


 * Let's clarify that scholars use myth to refer to ancient stories which describe how things came into being.
 * Let's deal with common usage of the word "myth" to contrast a false belief with what experts have found to be true
 * Let's decide whether to mention whether the Genesis account is a supernatural one.
 * If we do say so, let's indicate how many of other such accounts are also supernatural

This isn't too much to ask, is it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Scholars do not use the word myth to refer to ancient stories which describe how things came into being. Do you have a source that says that this understanding of "myth" is common among schoalrs?


 * Moreover, I am not sure that people four thousand years ago made the natural/supernatural distinction we make today (remember, this distinction depends on a belief that some things are "natural," something which not everyone believes/people have not always believed). The Genesis acount is about making distinctions e.g. between light and dark, more specifically between the sun, moon and stars vs. empty space.  This comes up later in the Bible in the distinction between the holy and the profane.  I think the authors of the Bible were more concerned with the holy/profane distinction than the supernatural/natural distinction.  What is your source? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would using dictionary definitions clarify debates over "myth" semantics? For instance, Wiktionary's myth: What do you think of this suggestion? Keahapana (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred  narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.
 * 2) (uncountable) such stories as a genre
 * 3) A commonly-held but false belief, a common misconception; a fictitious or imaginary person or thing; a popular conception about a real person or event which exaggerates or idealizes reality.
 * 4) A person or thing held in excessive or quasi-religious awe or admiration based on popular legend


 * I am not sure this definition helps us understand what critical Bible scholars, major sources for this article, mean by "myth." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing is needed except for that is already there -- linking to creation myth.Griswaldo (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, SLR, I meant "creation myth" as in:
 * A creation myth or creation story is a symbolic narrative of a culture, tradition or people that describes their earliest beginnings, how the world they know began and how they first came into it.(Encyclopaedia Britannica), (Womack|2005) They are stories expressing, usually through metaphor and imagery, how the world came to be and what humanity’s place and role is in it. (Leeming|2005)


 * I was trying to say that when scholars call an account of creation or beginnings a "myth", they don't necessarily mean a "false account" - just that all such ancient stories about earliest beginnings are "myths", just to have a category to put them in.


 * It's an entirely different question whether modern scholarship also maintains that these creation myths are obviously unreliable (and should be entirely disregarded) since they are not "scientific". --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)`


 * This is better. First of all, you are being more specific (a "creation myth" is not the same thing as "myth" which is obviously more general) and you are also providing a source.  I still am not sure that the article needs this; a link to our article on myth may be sufficient.  But I welcome the views of others.  But you have satisfactorily responded to  two of my objections to your original suggestion. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to get pedantic but per WP:EGG this article should have something to say if it wants to get the information out there. I don't think we need half an article but some prose stating that a creation myth is not to be construed as marking the story false... or a creation myth is a scholastic term meaning... some thing like that. Something that makes it so the reader doesn't have to follow the link if they don't want to. Also, remember spoken word WP. Padillah (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The Focus of this Article
I wonder if we have all lost focus on what this article is all about. People are fighting and claiming that it doesn't agree with modern science and cosmology, -- but should that make any difference whatsoever for this article? Except for a small, minor section pointing us to other articles, the subject as to the verifiability of this belongs in Creationism, Young Earth creationism, Old Earth creationism, Gap creationism, or Book of Genesis and the rest.

It appears as if there are editors who want to replicate the arguments in those articles here, and I think you are here for the wrong reasons. We're not here to evaluate whether or not the claims of Genesis 1-2 are true -- that's done plenty elsewhere. This should be a literary analysis of the Genesis 1-2 creation myth, or else it's simply a redundant article. This article deserves to be written like Atra-Hasis and Enûma Eliš -- as an analysis of the text, and it's relationship with other ANE creation myths.

Let's focus. SAE (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more; unfortunately that's not what a lot of people scared of the word "myth" agree with. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that it is treated as a "creation myth" at various points in the article, including the very first sentence, the infobox, and a paragraph called "Creation myth." Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And the Parable of the Mustard Seed is treated as a "parable" at various points in the article, including the first sentence and, gasp, the title! Is that also a problem? Should we always avoid mentioning the literary genre of a text or only if it is "owned" by people who like to define terms such as "myth" as disparaging words that can only apply to the competition? Hans Adler 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure the article should focus on the literature aspect as radically as you propose (since this is probably the best place for a general overview over reception of the text; it's not in Book of Genesis), but it's clear that it needs to start with it. The overall structure of the article (content of the story - literary criticism - religious reception) is fine; I am not so sure about the relative weight of these aspects. In any case we can't go into details about the reception of a text before describing its story and its (in this case very interesting) structure and history. Hans Adler 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to listening to you. You say the general overview over reception of the text is not in Book of Genesis, but it is here, here, here (specifically here), here, here... do I need to keep going?  There is so much of this stuff on wikipedia already. SAE (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those other articles should all have a short section that summarises what this article has to say about the matter, to put their more special topics into context. I am not sure if that's the current situation and the differences are due to (sensible) different weighting depending on context, or if we have the usual situation of things being written completely independently. Only one of those sections points here, as they all should. Hans Adler 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just pointing out that its identity as a "creation myth" is treated in the article. I wouldn't know if it is given too much or too little treatment in this regard. Bus stop (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Hans, I hear you, but I think that those sections, (and a similar small section in this article), should rather all point to Framework interpretation (Genesis) and Day-Age creationism. Those article specifically deal with the interpretation(s) of Genesis 1-2. That leaves this article open for strict literary analysis. SAE (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course the focus of this article is the creation myth contained in the opening chapters of Genesis. This article does not have to care about the scientific evaluation of the claims made in this part of the Bible. However, the wording must in all places be consistent with conveying the narrative as mythical and unreal. As soon as it implies that the narrative has whatsoever credibility as a possible and probable explanation of the world's origin, it derails and becomes a creationist/religionist proselytization pamphlet. That is be avoided. · CUSH · 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cush, I agree with you. But I'm asking for permission to allow the text to speak its own claims without having to have a lengthy discussion after each claim, as to whether it's true or not.  The Atra-Hasis makes huge claims, and they're analyzed in the context of the view it gives us how ancient Babylon saw things.  It talks about the mother goddess Mami who created humans -- but it doesn't have a lengthy argument, that the Babylonians were wrong, that Mami doesn't exist, and if she did she certainly didn't create humans, etc. SAE (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot Cush. That's exactly what I meant. :) -- Cycl o pia talk  19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean, without disclaimers, people might believe what they won't believe with disclaimers? I don't think people are so easily swayed. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No more with the "mythical" versus "unreal" argument. They aren't antonyms synonyms.  What you probably mean is that the text shouldn't imply that it's "factual", and in "scientifically factual". That's true.  But it isn't that hard--regular encyclopedias do it-and they manage to actually retain informative and significant content at the same time.  But the edit battles I've watched go on here certainly haven't accomplished it.  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ?? · CUSH · 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Synonym I should say. I hate it when that happens. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since the narrative includes the supernatural and conveys a (hi)story that is fabricated its content can be classified mythical as well as unreal. The origin of the world did *not* come about as Genesis describes it. And WP must not allow creationist and religionist editors to water down the article text to create a fake neutrality that is only designed to give religionist positions a similar standing as actual research. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 21:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the following statement - However, the wording must in all places be consistent with conveying the narrative as mythical and unreal. If we take the less extreme view of this, as I'm assuming SAE is doing (e.g. that doesn't conflate "myth" and "unreal") I think we need to be cautious in both directions. On the whole we should never give the impression that these events actually happened, but on the other hand we don't need to qualify every statement in this way. See for instance the last paragraph in the "Genesis Creation" entry from The Oxford Companion to World Mythology: In other words it is entirely appropriate when retelling a story to simply retell as it is told. Just so we are clear on that.Griswaldo (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After God creates the man he orders him to name the other animals he has created, and eventually he creates a proper companion for the man out of the man's rib. The man, Adam, named this being—a woman—Eve, and only with her existence does the human being become complete. The rest of the story is the familiar one of the Serpent convincing Eve to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which God had forbidden to couple to eat. The punishment for this act is expulsion from the garden and the condemnation of humans to work, pain, and death. So the J authors present life as we know it, one of choices and consequences. Although it is canonical for both Christians and Jews, and in part for followers of Islam, different emphases are placed on the story by the three religions.
 * Absolutely. We normally do that with all obviously fictional texts, and there is no valid reason to make an exception for this one. That's not to say it's wrong to add reminders that it's just what the text is saying, but generally they are simply not necessary. Hans Adler 23:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't take a stand on truth, as far as I know. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The onus would equally be on the statement (and its source) asserting that a particular part of Genesis was false. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may personally feel that the Genesis creation story is obviously fictional, but that's only your take on it. There are many scholars who disagree with you, and while you're allowed to express your bias on this talk page, you may not force it into Wikipedia.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand where this protest comes from. Perhaps we are using different definitions of "fictional"? I confess I didn't have a specific technical one in mind. My point is this:
 * In an article about Little Red Riding Hood we can simply present the story without any markers for indirect speech because everybody knows we are not actually trying to say it really happened.
 * In an article about a political book that makes controversial claims we don't have this luxury, so we must repeat constructions such as "according to the author" over and over.
 * The Genesis creation story is clearly of the first type. There are a few people who take it literally, but that's extreme fringe and needn't concern us any more than the possibility that somebody could take Little Red Riding Hood or the Spaghetti Monster for real. Note that I am not denying concepts such as "allegorical truth" or whatever it's called, that are actually mainstream Christian doctrine. Hans Adler 00:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the Genesis creation story is obviously fictional there are numerous people who have no comprehension of that. While other creation myths have long been discarded, unfortunately this one is still assigned credibility by some, well, uneducated people. WP need not actively reject the story as obviously fictional but instead only needs to avoid giving the impression that it could be real. Just as in other articles about creation myths. · CUSH · 03:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also assigned credibility by countless educated people. And their perspective should also be reflected in the article. HokieRNB 07:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We mention fringe in related articles to the extent that it is notable and relevant (see WP:UNDUE), and creationism is clearly notable and relevant enough to be mentioned here. But that doesn't mean that we formulate the entire article with the fringe in mind, and perhaps even as to be compatible with the fringe ideas, if that's what you have in mind. Hans Adler 08:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As a zealous anti-creationist, I have to say I agree with SAE. This article is about the narrative in Genesis, and should address it on its own terms and mention the scholarly studies of the text, the story contained therein and its context and impact. Whilst it should be clear that the veracity of the story is equivalent to any other creation myth, the article isn't the place to take on the creationist lobby - there are plenty of articles dealing with those people elsewhere, and those articles are the place to constantly reinforce how wrong they are. Whilst we should use language similar to that used in describing other myths and stories, we shouldn't be adding constant warnings of "remember, kids, this is just a fairy tale". As it happens, I think the Creationism section at the end is still too long, but I suspect trying to shorten it would create more grief than it's worth.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Lisa: Genesis being fictional is not "my take on it", it's the scientific consensus of cosmology, astronomy, physics, biology, geology etc. combined.
 * @HokieRNB: Whoever assigns credibility to that story is uneducated by definition, at least scientifically.
 * @Dr Marcus Hill: I entirely agree. The problem is when people like Lisa or HokieRNB try to push their fringe theories as respectable ones into the article. I should thank her for commenting, her comment makes people clear what are the problems that plague this article. I don't want to use this article against creationists. I'd like only for the article to make it clear that we talk of what is considered at large a fictional narrative. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's be a bit more careful with the words. I apologise for having introduced the word "fictional" into the debate, as it may well be too narrow. I am not sure that an allegorical reading of the creation myth ("God actually created the world in 7 days, but they are not really days in the sense of anything like 24 hours, and "created" just means that he was somehow involved, and it's all true, but can we change the topic, please?"), which seems to be part of current Christian mainstream doctrine, is covered by the word. I guess this story is a key problem for Christians because on one hand it's so hard to deny that it's fictional, and on the other hand it's kind of hard to maintain that a god who didn't create the universe is "almighty". When I said "fictional" my main point was that it can obviously not be read literally. I am not sure how to express this, perhaps "literary"?
 * Also, we shouldn't think of this article as having to make it clear that it's a fictional narrative. Of course it is a fictional narrative, and it's enough to just treat it like any other. Except, of course, that we explain in the appropriate places that there are also people with eccentric views. Hans Adler 09:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly my outlook. This is simply a "Genesis says ..." article. This particular article isn't about proof, it's about the story as laid out in the scripture. Truth doesn't enter into it. Padillah (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Literary" is a perfect word, in my opinion: I agree that interpretations of the Genesis as metaphor can make its definition of purely fictional problematic. Agree also with all the other points. My only concern was that someone wants to skew the thing towards giving the eccentric views a false academic respectability. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jastrow
Okay....why Jastrow for ex nihilo and Genesis creation exactly? What is his claim to fame in biblical scholarship? Does he read hebrew or classical greek? Has he written any books on Biblical interpretation? Any theology? What is his "expertise" in this area? And where exactly in this book is the distinction between ex nihilo versus "primordial chaos" discussed. Because "flash of light and energy" would certainly seem to be an "atypical" allusion to either. Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that it's been restored a 2nd time, how long do we wait to get answer? Professor marginalia (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Pausing in wait for an answer, I'm quote from the policy page, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is indeed a shame that this policy did not apply to those who wrote Genesis. · CUSH · 09:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Marginalia. This knee-jerk reverting of helpful edits really needs to stop. Guilty of reverting a revert myself, I decide to weigh in here. Jastrow doesn't belong on this page. He is not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination. Having met the man, I can also say that he'd probably be horrified to see himself quoted in this article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I'm not about to remove this again myself though.Griswaldo (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article isn't just about biblical scholarship. The article which simply applies biblical scholarship to Genesis is called Genesis. He's a physicist who's made a comment about Genesis, which is relevent to the scope of the article. Claritas (talk) 11:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have made comments about Genesis so why include a physicist? And, above all, why include a physicist to source a statement that already has 4 other sources attached to it and isn't controversial?  It really makes absolutely no sense.Griswaldo (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why include what physicists have to say? Because they perform the reality checks on creation myths. That is why. · CUSH · 09:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need to perform any "reality checks" on creation myths. They are not presented as the physical origins of the universe.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Never heard of Creationism ?? · CUSH · 21:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is not about whether the universe was created the way Genesis says. It's about the book. We don't need to address if the claims it makes are true or not, simply present them and the scholarly examination of them. Much like a book review, what does it say and why is that significant. Padillah (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Asking for a citation and then removing the result after one was provided
What is this business with removing a sourced statement and replacing it with the previous non-sourced -taggad version? If someone doesn't like the data or the source, then they can (1) find a better citation and use the talk page to propose it, or (2) put a tag and use the talk page to explain what is unreliable about the source. But don't undo sourced statements you don't like with edit summaries like "let's stick w. wider date range, and don't pretend scholarly consensus" or "Oh, stop pushing your agenda", or "removed informationless and speculative dates", "I actually prefer Cush's edit - better to have no dates here at all then assert dates that are disputable, though referenced". DVdm (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to get myself involved with all the messy policy editing going on here, but as far as I'm concerned, I added the date range because a respected academic work, which is cited, suggests that 1000-500 B.C.E is most likely. If someone can find multiple reliable sources which contradict that, please edit. Claiming that there is "no scholarly consensus" without providing any sources in justification reverting to the previous arbitrary range is not productive editing. Claritas (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have provided more details in the ref with a pointer to the text itself. DVdm (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems sensible to me. In Robert Alter's Five Books of Moses, he points out some significant aspects of past and current scholarship on this -- 1) there is (or particularly there was) much debate about the actual dating, 2) but the oldest date he proposes is circa 1000 BCE and finally 3) current scholarship doesn't focus on source criticism much anymore anyway (instead treating the redacted text as a whole).  Without reliable sources I don't think it is prudent to go older than the current dating.Griswaldo (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Radday assigns authorship to biblical patriarchs?? Including antediluvians? Is that so?? Any claim that the Genesis creation story was written prior to the Babylonian Captivity requires hard evidence, i.e. that is scientifically sound and not based on religious suppositions. If no-one can come up with evidence, it is better to have no date in the info box at all. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Any claim that it was written after the Babylonian Captivity requires hard evidence. And there is none.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a funny thing to say. In fact there is no hard evidence that *any* part of the bible was written prior to 450 BCE. All there ever is, are Jewish claims. But Jewish sources on Judaism or related issues are by definition unreliable. That would be like trying to rely on Scientologists about the story of Xenu. What you need is independent contemporary sources for the existence and authorship of the texts (e.g. quotations in non-Jewish works would be good). &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 09:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, once again I see we are debating about a subject that always has been, and forevermore shall be, highly controversial and hotly disputed, namely the date of composition of Genesis - and each trying to argue as if our own respective POVs enjoyed some sort of mythical "consensus" - when in fact there could never be such a thing as "consensus", among the entire range of scholarship and significant povs here. All answers are only hypotheses, and hypotheses don't simply harden into proven fact when they have aged with time.  The source that says 1000-500 BC is not good to endorse in a table, because there are some (including Cush) who feel this range is too early, while other significant POVs would put it, and the Exodus, earlier still. These are circumstances that need attribution and full explanation in the appropriate section, not endorsement of one particular view in a table.  Policy specifically cautions us not to assume some intermediary view is correct as an artificial consensus, but rather, if there really is no consensus, simply to say that there is no consensus or that something is controversial or disputed.  There's few things more disputed than this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A range the covers all mainstream scholarly views does not amount to "one particular view". Here's a reliable source on this particular section of Genesis.  Oxford's A Dictionary of the Bible. --
 * "The biblical myth of the origin of the universe. There are two accounts in Genesis of the creation by God. Neither deals with the question whether the creation was out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo); the first (Gen. 1: 1–2: 3) which was compiled later, the P source, supposes the pre‐existence of an abyss of infinite and formless waters, a chaos out of which God creates order; in the second, and earlier, story, the J source, God forms Adam from the soil of a damp, barren plain (Gen. 2: 6) but there is nothing about an existing chaos of waters."
 * Here's a reliable source on all "J" related materials in Genesis (like the second creation narrative). The Oxford Companion to the Bible --
 * "J. The abbreviation for the Yahwist “source” in the Pentateuch ... As this analysis matured, the J tradition was traced in the rest of the Pentateuch (and by some in the books of Joshua and Judges and beyond), and was dated to the ninth (or perhaps the tenth) century BCE, though presumably using earlier sources ... More recently, several scholars have questioned much of the above analysis, particularly J's date, which has been set by some after the exile."
 * And here is Oxford's A Dictionary of the Bible on "P" --
 * "P. Symbol used by OT scholars to designate the Priestly source or Priestly Writer who is regarded by the majority of OT scholars as being one of the four main sources of the Pentateuch ... P was probably compiled (but the date is in dispute) in the exilic century (6th cent. BCE). Linguistic arguments for an earlier date have not proved decisive ..."
 * It is really frustrating when completely uncontroversial mainstream views are discussed as if they are just one view of many. Where are the reliable sources that support a different range?  Above you can see roughly 1000-500 BCE once again. Robert Alter also discusses these dates as if they represent the extent of the mainstream dispute.  Please provide reliable mainstream sources that say otherwise.  This simply is not controversial.Griswaldo (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A large (non-fringe) minority of scholars supports circa 1450 BC as the date of writing by Moses (with minor updates following his death). In The New Testament, Jesus refers to the writings as being from Moses. If Jesus is not trustworthy, then no one is! rossnixon 02:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If indeed "a large (non-fringe) minority of scholars supports circa 1450 BC", then it should be easy to produce a large number of citations for that. Meanwhile we have a source that says otherwise, so we keep that. That is how Wikipedia works. By the way, Wikipedia does not accept what Jesus according to the evangelists allegedly said about this in the NT as a trustworthy source, not even by far. Don't confuse the Wikipedia with the Conservapedia. DVdm (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with DVdm. Scholars do not support the idea that Moses actually wrote these books, and scholars certainly do not use Jesus as a reliable source on authorship questions in the Hebrew bible.  Those who do are textbook "fringe" and not "a small minority".Griswaldo (talk) 10:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Gris, it is highly insulting when you label every group who adheres to the Nicene Creed (for example) as "fringe" and claim your "scholars" for backup as if we at wikipedia are some sort of grand tribunal to determine whose beliefs are heresy, and whose get the stamp of approval. Once again, there has been found no autographed first edition of Genesis with a copyright date of either 300 BC or 1400 BC, and if one were allegedly found, surely it would prove equally controversial.  Again, nothing has been more controversial for 2000 years.  I have been on the internet since 1990 when it was only USENET and e-mail (no web) and what was the one thing everyone was disputing and arguing about then that everyone is still disputing, arguing about, and saying "only our scholars are the true scholars"?  You guessed it, it was the date of the composition of Genesis.  Twenty years later, it shows no signs of abating. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources Til ... please provide some sources. Scholarship about religion is secular Til, and when it isn't it isn't considered mainstream.  Scholars of religion can be religious in every which way ... no problem, but the academy expects their scholarship not to be influenced by theological claims of divine authority.  Only Biblical scholars interested in supporting such claims would attribute these texts to Moses.  If you have sources that prove me wrong then please do bring them here.  Until then I'll follow the lead of prominent Biblical scholars like Robert Alter and reference works like those put out by Oxford in trying to figure out what is considered mainstream.  In general I will not engage you in conversation unless you provide sourced justification for your position.  I have done so in good faith, and I wont sit here and listen to what amounts to your personal opinions and abuse of my character.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You have no right to define "scholarship" to suit your terms. There has been Christian scholarship. jewish scholarship. Muslim scholarship, and it didn't just dissapear overnight.  All are significant on wikipedia.  I will not provide your demand for sources if you cannot accept this basic foundation. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It is very simple. If you "will not provide the demand for sources", then you clearly and explicitly belong elsewhere. Now please stop disrupting this talk page? Thanks. DVdm (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, stop disruptng the talkpage because you want to useit as a tribunal to determine whose beliefs should be stamped "heresy" by wikipedia because you don't approve of them... Yeah, right...  DvDm, I'vetold you before, and I'm telling you again now since you apparently didn't get it the first time:  I am on this talkpage to stay, and I will not be silent because "you" say so.  Some people really need to come down from their high horses, look past the end of their snooty, bigoted noses, and perceive that there really are points of view and schools of thought other than their own. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense Til, but it would be much more productive to provide for your point of view than to attack the personage of others. We can't put anything in the article that doesn't start with a valid source. Padillah (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment As a general principle trolling ought to be ignored. Arguments that are meant to illicit a response but do not function within Wikipedia guidelines and policy to help improve article content should be considered trolling and should be ignored by others so real work can be done. If someone edit wars without having policy on their side I'm sure they will be dealt with administratively so that should never be a worry. Let's not feed discussions that go no where. Take this advice as you wish. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 12:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not inclined to provide any sources at this pont, because I don't get sucked into the game of providing sources for those who are demanding sources while setting themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner of the sources, and they have already indicated that they consider any sources that will be found to be illegitimate. Why bother then?  It is a circular "logic", and a task you should better give to a fool:  "You must find sources for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim viewpoint - but if they are sources for the Jewish/Christian/Muslim viewpoint, they do not count, and thus do not exist."  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then you admit to working outside of the bounds of convention here. Our policies demand sources.  When statements are sourced reliably they are not removed unless other sources are brought forth.  If you are not willing to honor this then you can either keep on rattling off your unsubstantiated opinions here and get ignored or edit war without backing and reap whatever that produces.  All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me point out that no version of the Nicene Creed mentions the Bible, or Genesis, or any kind of Scripture. Modern mainstream academic views about the composition of the Torah are entirely compatible with the Nicene Creed and with most current interpretations of Christianity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. The irony in Til's statement is readily seen in the publisher of the source he removed -- the Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Griswaldo (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No - It's not that I have no sources - it's that refuse to play this game when it is obvious that the same peopel demanding sources are judge, jury and executioner who have already pre-declared them illegitimate.  What need is there to look for sources then, if the widely held POV is pre-declared "heresy" and "anathema" and "unreliable" and "not to be believed" by the savants on wikipedia?  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Then why are you here, except to stir the pot? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm here to protest the blatant end-run around neutrality that is being done by picking your favorite sources, declaring their date ranges "authoritative" when all dates are contested and based entirely on conjectures. When you do this, other editors are generally going to cry foul though no doubt you would prefer there would be no opposition to this stunt.Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You do realize that just trying to make a WP:POINT is a blockable offense, right? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hans, the article on Book of Genesis reads as I have stated with regard to the date of Genesis' composition, in a way that most people would find neutral, and it does not agree with this article which is pushing a POV. Why don't you focus on the issue, without trying to get me blocked for pointing it out? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828 - DVdm (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editors are being completely unreasonable
Some editors are now being completely unreasonable. This has been a BC article, and editors who are not familiar with our date era rules should familiarize themselves with them - articles are not to be changed from one equivalent format to the other without thorough consensus, and must be consistent throughout the article. The edit also balances NPOV by adding "controversial; some estimates fall outside this range" to the estimate 1000-500 BC. It is inarguable that this is controversial, and that some estimates fall outside of this range, so why don;t you want it told honestly? Sorry, you don't get to adopt the hypothetical estimates of your favorite scholars as the undisputed gospel truth. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a source which meets WP:RS which gives a date range outside 1000-560 B.C.E and you can widen the range. Claritas (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Common Era. Again, this is not the Conservapedia. Please stop this. DVdm (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, the source itself uses B.C.E. DVdm (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter, nor does it matter what Conservapedia policy is. Wikipedia policy, (developed after about a year of incessant date-warring by scores of parties), is clear. BC and BCE are both acceptable on wikipedia as long as they are consistent within an article, and if a "BC article" is changed into a "BCE article" (or vice versa), it is to be immediately changed back, unless there is clear and thorough consensus on the talkpage - I must have missed the thorough consensus discussion to change this into a BCE article.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If this is correct then please quote the relevant policy or guideline. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure it was an arbcom decision, but I forget the correct WP link for the resultant policy - I'm sure someone will find it soon though Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I found the style guideline, and it is WP:ERA. There is absolutely good reason to make this change and I'm sure most sources used here use this notation.  I'll start a thread on this for you.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1000-560 BC(E) - "Controversial"?
While we're at it, can we also get multiple comments about whether it would be fair to say the estimated date of composition is "controversial" as I tried to do?

I support calling it controversial, because the dating is controversial, per WP:SPADE. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - broad consensus that the date range is 1000-560 BCE among scholars. I'll rescind that if anyone can provide reliable sources which show that a controversy exists among serious scholars. It's best not to teach the controversy. Claritas (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Policies are not open for voting. Find a source. While we're at it, stop disrupting and abusing this talk page for making a WP:POINT. DVdm (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What policy says we have to pretend there is no controversy about asserting something that is obviously controversial in the extreme? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Til WP:V says we assert what we can verify in sources. The opinions of editors are not enough to claim that something is controversial.  Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:RS says that we need sources. That way we do not "have to pretend" anything. If there is a significant and notable controversy, then it should be easy to find multiple reliable sources for that. That is not open for discussion, let alone for voting. DVdm (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

One dubious source is not enough to establish 1000-560 BCE as any kind of consensus. If there is not more reliable material to be referenced, then this article is better off without dates. And including the assumed reigns of David and Solomon in the range is dubious as well, as those kings are absent from the archaeological and historical records. BTW a huge date range such as 440 years rather indicates that the source has no fucking clue as to the actual date of origin. Same as dates for the Exodus. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Oh, and we are only discussing the Genesis creation narrative, not Genesis as a whole. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Robert Alter and Oxford University Press reference works are not "one dubious source".Griswaldo (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not what the dates in the info box are referenced to.
 * Radday, Yehuda Thomas; Shore, Haim (1985). "Genesis: an authorship study in computer-assisted statistical linguistics" seems to accept patriarchs such as Adam, Noah, and Abraham as possible authors of the Creation Narrative. I call that dubious. At best. In private, I call that bullshit. &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah but don't pretend like those sources have not been brought forth to substantiate that range.Griswaldo (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no indication that any part of the Creation Narrative predates the 7th century BC. Where do the sources substantiate such a date range? &equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Oxford sources are above. The traditional view has been that one of the narratives is from P and the other is from J.  The Oxford source says this about J:
 * was dated to the ninth (or perhaps the tenth) century BCE, though presumably using earlier sources ... More recently, several scholars have questioned much of the above analysis, particularly J's date, which has been set by some after the exile.
 * and this about P
 * P was probably compiled (but the date is in dispute) in the exilic century (6th cent. BCE). Linguistic arguments for an earlier date have not proved decisive ...
 * This is what I quoted above already. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does this not say that dates before the 'exilic century' are unconfirmed, if not unsupported? How do you read 1000 BCE as a reliable date out of this??<span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Has it occurred to anyone to compare with Book of Genesis, where this question belongs and the most neutral possible assessment has already been hashed out infinitum?
 * "Scholars date the text of Genesis and the Pentateuch, in its present form, to between 1450 and 450 BC. A minority opinion known as biblical minimalism argues for a more recent date within the last three centuries BC. Traditional Jewish and Christian scholarship from the medieval period to current times, still supports Mosaic authorship."
 * Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Mosaic authorship is an unscientific and purely religious position. It is irrelevant for actual dates.
 * 2. This article is only about the Creation Narrative, not the rest of Genesis. The question here is when the Creation Narrative was prefixed to the text. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the pov is relevant. It may surprise you to learn, Cush, that Wikipedia is not just made up of atheist wikipedians who support secular povs, but also a wide spectrum of theist wikipedians. Reliable sources for significant theological povs are not branded as illegitimate for any purpose simply because they are religious, nor preference given to "secular" hypotheses; this is neutral ground, and relevant theological viewpoints are significantly represented and described on all religious topics here.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The quoted text has no reliable sourcing to support it. Comparing today's religious claims about "Mosaic authorship" to the traditional belief in such authorship amongst Medieval scholars is profoundly confused.  That it  has always been a religious position is unquestioned, but the fact is that mainstream scholarship has moved away from the realm of religious apologetics.Griswaldo (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * @Til: Nope. Theological viewpoints are irrelevant when dating the origin of a biblical text snippet. Theology deals with what the text says, not with when it was written. Either you have a working method to determine the age of the text or you don't. Just "believing" that it was written somehwen is insufficient. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I know that you consider theological viewpoints irrelevant, Cush, but I take this as a prime example of bigotry. Wikipedia does not consider theological viewpoints irrelevant; it neutrally covers all points of view significant to a topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Theology has NOTHING to say about when the Creation Narrative was written. Your religionist inability of logic and your obvious scientific illiteracy is annoying beyond words. Theological viewpoints are not significant to this topic AT ALL. Since theology does not ever provide evidence it is irrelevant when making statements about anything in the real world. Theology is just circle wank, nothing else. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 10:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that is your personal opinion of theology. The inability here is your inability to realize we as an encyclopedia don't endorse your opinion, we are neutral between ALL the significant opinions in theology today (Including not just your atheism, but also Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam etc etc etc).  Our "prime directive" is definitely to describe the complete state of world thought and opinion as it currently is - not to try try to push it to where you think it "ought" to be. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The viewpoints of scholars from certain fields are only reliably used in certain contexts. For instance weeks ago we removed references from a physicist that were being used to support ex nihilo.  Theology isn't BS Cush, but it isn't a field that trains people to reliably date ancient texts Til. But you both know that don't you?  Stop trolling each other on this talk page.  You're wasting everyone's time and patience.Griswaldo (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course theology is BS. It is the study of something that does not exist. It dwells on circular reasoning and despises evidence. Since this is a encyclopedia, one may well describe theology and what is says about deities (i.e. made-up stuff), but never use it as a source for anything in the real world, simply because its reliability in the context of reality is always ZERO. And for dating a text I ask experts in ancient literature and archaeologists (for the dating of the medium), but certainly not theologians. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words you are being pointy in order to push your POV about religion. I don't see how religious editors could see what you posted above and not feel attacked. This may shock you Cush (and Til, for that matter), but your opinion of religion has no place on this talk page or in this article. Or on Wikipedia for that matter. This particular article is about the creation narrative presented in the book of Genesis. Unless you have some source to present regarding that subject, please find somewhere else to "help". Padillah (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which begs the question: "Are theological points of view significant to the question of when the Genesis creation narrative was composed?" Gabbe (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No. It's a historical question. And by "theological points of view", you're not referring to the mainstream theological position but what is essentially a fringe theory held by fundamentalist theologians. The purpose of theological study of the bible is hermeneutical - it's about interpretation, and most respected theologians accept that Genesis was written somewhere between the reign of King David (c. 1000 BCE) and the exile period (560 BCE). Claritas (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, Claritas. One group that still holds to Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch for sure is the Ethiopian Orthodox.  I do not know how many others, but they are scattered about everywhere, even while some of the liberal "churches" may have repudiated Genesis (though it's still in their Bible last I checked.)  Your calling the Ethiopian Orthodox and all the other churches that hold to Mosaic authorship "fringe" is you practicing marginalization tactics to push your point of view. These groups are NOT fringe.  They are valid points of view.  There has been absolutely nothing produced by any scholar, at any time, to nail down the date of Genesis.  All there is, is hypothesis, hypothesis, hypothesis, and this amounts to you saying "Yay for my hypothesis, and my sources, they are better than all other POVs".  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about the majority position among respected academic theologians, not what particular or any denominations believe. No-one's "nailed down" the date of Genesis, but if you read the source I cited, the idea that Genesis existed in anything like its present form in 1450 BCE is frankly crazy. Claritas (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Claritas, I must have missed the compelling and conclusive proof that it WASN'T composed in 1450 BC. What is that proof?  (Other than the sheer authoritativeness of the authoritative types who authoritatively assure us that it wasn't, equally authoritatively to those who insist it was?) What makes them equal?  Because all any of them has is authoritativeness behind them, and no proof.  The date of Genesis is not a settled question by any stretch. And trying to banish those who disagree with your hypothesis isn't rally going to settle it, either, I'm afraid...  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are very good reasons to suppose that the Pentateuch could not have been written as early as 1450 BCE. Firstly, see Gen. 12:6 - "And the Canaanite was then (still) in the land". In the time of Moses, the Canaanites had not yet been expelled, so this sentence wouldn't make any sense. Also, Gen. 23:2- "In Kirjathaba: the same that is Hebron" - Hebron being a name which biblically date after the time of Moses - it was mythologically given to the city by Caleb (see Numbers) when he conquered it, after his son. That's also incompatible with Mosaic authorship. You can find these, and many other justifications here . The Hebrew of Genesis is also too similar to that of later books to differ so significantly in date range. Claritas (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Unwrap) Claritas, I think you are confusing piss-poor hypothetical reasoning like that, with "compelling and conclusive proof" that is could not have been written in 1450 BC. Claritas, reasoning like that might be compelling and convincing to you, but clearly it has not been compelling to everybody in the world to abandon the dates handed down by tradition.  I still fail to see why it could not have been written well before 1000 BC, all I see is a lot of handwaving that "MY authorities are more authoritative than YOUR authorities, and Teveryone who doesn't accept MY authorities should be banned and excommunicated".  Give me a break, this is wikipedia, this is web 2.0, this isn't the old school where all people had to accept whatever the elite scholars told them to think.  WHat we see here is just yet another case of (as a recent letter to BAR brilliantly put it) the false logical principle  of "it can't possibly be x, because that would mean the Bible is right" yet again being put forth by intolerant bigots who can barely suffer the existence of other POVs being mentioned, for fear of losing their former ability to dictate beliefs, such as basically saying "It was written after 1000 BC, BECAUSE I SAY SO" and never providing a valid reason why.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Til, did you even bother to read what I wrote ? That's conclusive evidence that it wasn't written in the time of Moses. I'm not going to continue discussing this with you, because you obviously aren't actually very interested in what I have to say, but simply in trying to provoke a reaction from me by accusing me of intellectual fallacies which I'm not guilty of. The fact that you can't find a single source to support your views speaks for itself. Claritas (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The date range is not controversial. It is wide, but it is well established. 1000 BC is stretching the upper margin a bit, to be on the safe side. Also, this is rather off topic. Don't try to rewrite the Genesis article here. WP:SPADE? Here is WP:SPADE for you Til: You are trolling. You heve been trolling habitually, for several years. You are wasting people's time with these games. --dab (𒁳) 22:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. I've seen the heat get turned up on lots of other editors with this ad hominem fallacy once logical arguments run out.  But as long as this pretends to be a neutral encyclopedia for all the people and not just the elites, I'm going to stick around and see how so that is. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Til, you hold a WP:FRINGE theory about this, you're trying to create controversy where there isn't any, you're editing articles in an non-constructive way. Whether you believe what you say or not, you're still a troll. And there's one very logical argument against everything you've been saying, which we've been putting forward for the last few days. You can't find a single source to back any of it up. Claritas (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fwiw, I tried to do something about it at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive828 but there hasn't been much administrator's notice. DVdm (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just in case this is useful in the present context, this is what I found on the dating in one specific volume: Hans Adler 00:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The growing consensus among scholars concerning the dating of the final redaction of Genesis in the exilic period strengthens the possibility that the Jacob cycle was ultimately fashioned to highlight the connections between the life of Jacob and the situation of Israel in the Babylonian exile." Page 80 of:.
 * "When, then, was the FCS [= First Creation Story] in its present seven days pattern composed? All indications point to the time of Ezra." Page 51 of:.


 * I originally added the new date range, because I thought 1450 BCE was essentiality fictious, and unsupported by scholarship. Although I agree it is unlikely that Genesis was in its current form by 1000 BCE, it seems that many scholars believe the story existed as an oral tradition around then, including the work cited. Genesis was likely to have been in something close to its current state by the exile period at the latest. Claritas (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to question the necessity of this claim in this article. What does this have to do with the story we are covering in this article? Padillah (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Is the talk page automatically archived by a bot or not? Otherwise, I'd be happy to archive it -it has became unbeareably long and takes ages to load even on a fast connection. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the archive box (top left), discussions older than 10 days are automatically archived. However, I don't see any such archiving in the last 15 days. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think someone turned this off. Archive away.  Also perhaps re-institute the archiving bot.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, /Archive 10. I hope not to break anything; I don't know how to restart the bot. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I think the bot is just running behind right now, as it hasn't archived on my Talk page for quite some time either. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the change in name broke the bot?Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That was probably it. Gabbe (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"It is untrue"
Apparently everybody editing this article views themselves as experts on the subject. But please make no mistake-this expertise doesn't count at wikipedia. We rely on published, authoritative, "elitist" if you will, research to source claims. The reverts and word changes to sourced claims still must be accurately and appropriately justified -- with sources! Editors need to stop speaking as if they "know" what's what and start "showing" it-with sources. This is not web 2.0 "Everybody's opinion is equal to the elites." It's web 2.0 "Everybody can contribute to making a free content encyclopedia."

So please--this is just an encyclopedia, not a manifesto. Crack open a few books. Seek out the best sources and then present your properly sourced, cited, and most unbiased case what the article should say to accurately represent the opinions in those sources. The "it is untrue" is meaningless unless it is sourced, and more than this, when there already is a source for a claim you think is "untrue" be prepared to come with contrary sources to back it up. OK? Professor marginalia (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. The fact that there is a source for a claim makes neither the claim nor the source valid. A reliable source is a source that can show, by using evidence, why a claim is substantiated. There is tons of books that support a claim, but still cannot substantiate said claim. E.g. Mosaic authorship of Genesis: there exists just no evidence for that. However, there are innumerable books that still hang on to Mosaic authorship out of tradition, religionism, or the plain inability to conduct proper research.
 * So, books don't necessarily validate a substanceless claim. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 18:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * But we're not here to make claims. We're here to report what sources say. We have a source that says X, so we write that a source says X. DVdm (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia exists to convey accurate information. It is not a random collection of source quotes that have no merit whatsoever. A reader comes here for education. If WP cannot provide accuracy, it is not only superfluous, but dangerous. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 19:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "An encyclopedia exists to convey accurate information". => Not this one. See WP:Verifiability, not truth and WP:TRUTH. If it would indeed only exist to convey accurate information, it would have died a long time ago. DVdm (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cush, try and think of it as a book review. No one expects Stephen King to defend his latest epic, neither should we expect empirical defense of the contents of this book. To your point above, when it was written is something that can be falsified but it does not speak to the contents of the book so there's a question why we are bringing that up. There are some aspects of the book that can be empirically evidenced but we have to weigh each of those against their relevance to the story, which is what we are reporting on. Padillah (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be as blunt as I can be to those "but it isn't true" banner wavers editing here: if you can't research and write about this topic the same way you research any and every other article at wikipedia, you don't belong here. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In all other WP articles reliable scientific sources are required. So why not require that for this article? Why accept religious sources although their reliability is zero? <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv; 19:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? All other WP articles? I have no idea what you mean referring to "reliable scientific sources" or what relevance they have to any dispute raised here.  This isn't about any tension between science and religion (at least none of the disputes raised here)--it's about identifying the most authoritative sources that pertain to this subject. When we write articles about music, we look to music experts for sources.  When we write articles about art, we look to art experts for sources.  Etcetera. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Exactly where I was going Professor - Not scientific, just reliable. No where was MSNBC.com or any other website provided as a scientific resource for American Idol. Or Glee. Or Gadsby: Champion of Youth. Or any other of a number of fictitious or frivolous article topics. There is no requirement for scientific evidence on WP. In point of fact there is no where on WP that requires evidence, only sources. If you've got a reliable source, it goes in. If not, try harder. I often bring up the fact that there is an article on my father in WP but, as much as I know about the man I can't contribute much because I can't find a source for others to verify. Padillah (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the point that religious sources on a religious subject are, ehm, biased? -- Cycl o pia talk  11:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Bible obviously doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS. Claritas § 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That completely depends on what you would use it as a source for. Since the Bible is a primary source, it should only be cited with caution. Gabbe (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing in WP:IRS, WP:V or WP:NOR prohibits "biased" sources. Wikipedia articles should be neutral, but their sources don't always have to be. We aren't disallowed from using a source simply because it has an opinion on something. We do, however, have to be careful in such cases over how we attribute statements in the article to that source. Now, if a source expresses a tiny minority opinion, however – that's a different issue. Gabbe (talk) 11:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment Let me be blunt here. Cush should be banned from this page and I'm very surprised that s/he hasn't been already. All Cush ever does is push a POV and then troll the talk page. ENOUGH.Griswaldo (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To me Cush seems one of the sane, reasonable voices in this endless debate. Regardless, I frankly would be happy if you can retract/amend your personal attacks. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry Cyclopedia I will not retract that comment, and I do not consider it a personal attack. I'm sick and tired of how editors turn this talk page into a webforum for their personal views on religion and science.  When Cush starts making productive suggestions that are backed up by reliable sources instead of simply spewing unsubstantiated opinions that are meant to elicit controversy all over the talk page I'll stop describing what he's doing as trolling.  He's thumbing his nose at WP:TALK pretty much every time he posts anything and it needs to stop.  It's just disruptive.  You think his perspective is sane and that's very nice, but the encyclopedia doesn't run on your version of sanity it runs on verified notable content.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is my POV ? That I don't want readers to be misinformed after reading an article on WP? I am sick and tired of religionist and otherwise unreasonable editors who dig up dubious sources so they can abuse WP as a platform to spread religious doctrine. No evidence is no evidence, no matter how many books make funny suggestions. Those books are not reliable. Books whose authors have actually conducted research using scientific methods are reliable, all others are just further religious propaganda aimed at either making the Bible true or aggrandizing biblical history. This has to stop. Way too many articles read like proselytism already. <span style="padding:0px 8px 0px 8px;background-color:#eeeedd;border:1px solid #ddddcc;color:#880000;font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Arial;font-weight:bold;text-shadow:0 0 7px #666666;">&equiv; CUSH &equiv;  14:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This talk page is not the proper venue to discuss user behaviour. There are other forums for that, such as WP:RFC/USER. Gabbe (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

BC vs. B.C.E.
Til has pointed out that BC was used in this article (instead of B.C.E.) until today. The style guideline on this, WP:ERA says that either are acceptable at Wikipedia and that articles should not be changed unless there is good reason to do so. I believe there is very good reason to do so. Scholars are almost completely using this dating system now, and this story originates from Jewish tradition and not Christian. Why BC was used prior to today is the mystery if you ask me. That said do people support the use of B.C.E? Yes or no?
 * Support B.C.E. for the reasons stated above.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support B.C.E. It is neutral, and the article has a mere three (3!) occurrences. That cannot possibly turn this article into a so-called "BC-article" or "B.C.E.-article". The first relevant source uses B.C.E., so let's stick with that. DVdm (talk) 14:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first relevant source uses B.C.E., so let's stick with that"? Please. This must be the silliest non-argument I have heard in five years of pointless bickering over WP:ERA. --dab (𒁳) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support BC as status quo ante because it's ridiculous to say "scholars are almost completely using this dating system now." Last I heard it was still a minority using BCE - but now here goes another argument about whose scholars pass some artificial litmus test of reliability. I should point out that there are several kilotons of debate on this very question from hundreds of editors on archive pages from back in '05, which is how we got the current compromise. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Last I heard it was still a minority" Again, source please? DVdm (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Til there is nothing on Wikipedia that says that every entry currently using BCE or BC should stay that way from here to eternity. If there is not a consensus to make the change then I'll be the first person to say it needs to go back to BC.Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep status quo ante, i.e. keep BC. If there was ever a conceivably "good reason" to pick either of these equivalent notations, it would be picking BC in this article, since it is about a topic of classical biblical scholarship. But even this wouldn't be good enough to switch to BC if the established status quo was BCE. Seeing that the established status quo is BC already, there is really nothing to discuss here. --dab (𒁳) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a fair argument, but the status quo may change on Wikipedia like it does in scholarship. It is my understanding that BCE is much more universal than BC in scholarship and reference works produced in the last two decades, certainly presently. When I argued for the title change I did so based on what was reflected in the sources, and I think this should be no different.  I have nothing definitive right now except the anecdotal evidence from the Oxford University Press line of Biblical reference works (which use BCE).Griswaldo (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support BCE per MOS, not the dotted version. BCE is nearly universal in recent academic treatment of the subject. Moreover, given that this is, to a significant degree, a Jewish topic, BC is very inappropriate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: How does "becoming more common in academic and some religious writing" translate to "nearly" universal in academia? And how is "BC" very inappropriate in a Judaism-related topic? Is using Wednesday to describe the third day of the week inappropriate in all non-Norse mythology related pages?. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support BCE without periods. Exclusively used by modern biblical scholars. Claritas (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No it is not! What hogwash! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar shows ~40000 hits for "BC -BCE" among humanities articles published since 2005, but all on the first two pages are false positives (most have BC as author initials, one refers to British Columbia). There are ~15000 for "-BC BCE", and most on the first page are obvious real hits, none is an obviously false hit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Support BCE Seems like a new norm. Though I can't say I know much on the subject. NickCT (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support status quo ante (BC). WP:ERA notes that BCE is "becoming more common in academic and some religious writing" but that nevertheless Wikipedia gives no preference to either style. Furthermore, an article should not be changed from one style to another "unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." So far I haven't seen a convincing reason for changing this specific article. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough and if there is no consensus to make the change well reinstate BC ... in fact it might make more sense to reinstate it now given what the guideline says. I think it is important to run through this discussion however because the issue will doubtlessly arise again.Griswaldo (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support BC No grounds to change under WP guidelines.Mk5384 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Disinterested - The only impetus for changing from BC to BCE is to avoid religious bias. But, since it's very difficult to get Christians to stop forcing their religion on people, most will simply choose to interpret BCE as "Before Christs' Era" so it doesn't actually matter. Padillah (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Suppoort BCE though I doubt it will stick. There was quite a row last time someone tried to make this change, and I expect we'll be swamped with folks decrying the change rather shortly. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support BCE. "BC" is acceptable in general topics and in Christian topics, but in this topic it would give the impression that we might be marginalising the Jewish aspects. Hans Adler 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support BCE as a Christian. In fact, I should go so far as to say I think we should just make BCE wikipedia wide policy if for no other reason than to end this issue once and for all (and because it's more scholarly, which wikipedia should strive towards).Farsight001 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support BC as it is valid by WP guidelines and there is no good reason to change it. rossnixon 02:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Support BC This still remains the majority of scholarship, contrary to claims by other editors.  this, plus the fact the WP sees it as valid give 2 good reasons not to change it in this article. SAE (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 *  Disinterested  No substantive difference so why care? WP:ERA says either is ok, and given the sorry state of the article as a whole, even keeping consistency within the article over this teensy bit is a lesser priority. I'm interested in saying something worth reading in this article and delivering it within a somewhat cogent structure, and with battles and page blocks persisting over the nothing disputes, that's never going to happen. It's like George Lakoff's subliminals count for more than substantive, legitimate, sourced content around here. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support for BC. Wikipedia policy favors BC and BCE equally. The year/century namespaces all use BC (i.e. 1st century BC, 1 BC), and I find BCE/CE to be a pointless neologism. If we aren't changing the religious names for Tuesday, Wednesday, etc., then why change the epoch reference notation for a calendar that is still clearly based on an estimated year of birth of Jesus? Admittedly an atheist, I am still vehemently against the BCE/CE system. And as per User:rossnixon, there is no good reason to change it other than a feeling of political correctness, and Wikipedia is not censored. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong support for BC. I see absolutely no compelling reason why the BC/AD system should be replaced. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong BC support: There's no reason to change it just because theres an alternative for those who aren't religious. In the UK, most people don't know what BCE means so BC is more universally understood and would be better. The C of E.          God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Support BC. Wikipedia policy is to leave it alone. There is no compelling reason to make a variation from the policy. If the policy should be changed, then this is not the way to do it. I did not say strong support only because my support is for leave it alone, not for BC. TomS TDotO (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong disinterested: There are far, far more important things to deal with in this article than this! Just as with the interminable naming arguments, the grief you'll get from the faith-heads is more than it's worth even if you think it's something worth changing.Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 12:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment There seems to be an even split here with several disinterested parties. In this case, per guidelines, we should keep it at BC. We should keep this discussion handy though because if this comes up again too soon it is a good thing to point to and say ... there is no strong reason for changing it at the time.Griswaldo (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Claim that "Genesis differs from other ANE myths due to its monotheistic outlook"
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't true. For example, the Great Hymn to the Aten is an example of a monotheistic creation myth from at least 300 years before the writing of Genesis. - see. Furthermore, it is disputed whether early Judaism was really monotheistic in the same sense that modern Judaism is - see and  - Anath-Yahu was most likely still an important figure in a polytheistic Judaism. Hence I think the situation is a lot more complicated than the article makes it out - I propose removing the statement and writing a section in the article concerning whether Genesis is really uniquely monotheistic or monotheistic at all. Claritas (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is an uncontroversial and well sourced claim from reference works (tertiary sources) that cover biblical and mythological fields of study, as well as renowned Bible scholars like Robert Alter, etc. (secondary sources). We had this discussion already.Griswaldo (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Start here Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative/Archive_11. The sections that follow are relevant as well.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an uncontroversial claim, because both the sources I've provided openly contradict it. The discussion you've provided me with doesn't seem to cover quite the same ground, either. Claritas §  11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They do not contradict anything Claritas, because it is original research to draw the conclusion you are drawing. You need sources connecting the monotheism of the bible with these myths directly, or directly challenging the statements of these other sources.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . The second source states quite clearly that Genesis is about as monotheistic as the Babylonian creation myths. That's a direct connection. Claritas §  14:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Claritas the issue is not whether the original story was polytheistic or not. The redacted text is clearly monotheistic and there is absolutely no dispute about that.  The first source you quote yourself, for instance, talks about a prevailing polytheism until the 7th century BCE.  I'm unclear what your second source says about this, but it seems also to be talking about polytheism in the environment that first produced this myth.  The exact point at which the text took its monotheistic turn is not the point, because it clearly did so before the text was complete.  Wikipedia also establishes guidelines regarding how to discern a mainstream POV, and it is exactly by reference to tertiary sources like the ones you are arguing against -- see WP:NPOV.  Once again this is not controversial.Griswaldo (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * um yes, the redacted text is monotheistic, but the redacted text is not "Ancient Near Eastern", which still invalidates the statement in the section title. Genesis as it survives is a monotheistic redaction of an Ancient Near Eastern creation myth. If you're going to argue that the "Ancient Near East" period can be stretched as far as the Hellenistic period, or even as far as the rise of Islam, you are just clouding the issue. The point is that Genesis was redacted in a time (Hellenism) when monotheism became typical, but its core text dates to a time (the Early Iron Age) when polytheism was typical. It thus preserves reflections of the "typical" theology of more than one epoch.
 * It is undisputed that Judaism was monotheistic from the Hellenistic period (3rd century BC). It is also undisputed that Hebrew religion ("Proto-Judaism") was based on polytheism, even if it was "monolatry", prior to the 7th century. The 7th to 4th centuries BC are a period of transition where you can "dispute" the label pinned on the theology, but such a dispute will not be interesting because it will be one over the definitions of the terms used. --dab (𒁳) 15:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Egyptian Monotheism, I don't regard the term "Ancient Near East" to be particularly, strict, and I think it probably also could cover Saharan Egypt. Claritas § 16:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * sure. But we are supposed to discuss the statement "Genesis differs from other ANE myths due to its monotheistic outlook". This statement is not very meaningful, and its problem lies with "other ANE myths", not with "monotheistic outlook". A more meaningful version of that statement would be something like "a peculiarity of Genesis is its diachronic combination of ANE polytheism with the monotheistic outlook of later redactions".
 * even more to the point, I do not think this article is the proper place to discuss the evolution of monotheism in Jewish thought. These questions belong to articles such as monotheism, God in Judaism, Elohim etc. --dab (𒁳) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Say "differs from the other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths" instead of Ancient Near East and everybody's happy. Besides, it's totally relevant since the Genesis version is commonly compared and contrasted to those, as discussed in the article. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the most appropriate statement would be something on the lines of "Genesis, unlike most ancient Mesopotamian creation myths, has a monotheistic outlook" and then footnote a fuller explanation of the situation. Claritas § 18:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The source cited states, as in the footnotes, that "To the extent that this myth was influenced by Mesopotamian concepts, it can be said that it purposely establishes a monotheistic creation as opposed to the Babylonian polytheistic one". However, Laurence Browne's Early Judaism states, in effective contradiction to this that "In all probability, other gods were associated with Yahweh-worship in at Jerusalem as late as 400 BC, and traces of such polytheism have simply been removed from the Bible by later editors" -, and there is strong evidence to support this, noticeably some broadly polytheistic references which have survived into the modern bible - see this source, for example, on the title The Most High -. Hence the current stance of comparing Genesis to other ancient Mesopotamian myths is flawed, since in its ancient state (say, at the time of the exile), it was probably similarly polytheistic. Claritas § 19:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reminder-this article is simply about the Genesis creation part of the Bible. And if in Genesis the polytheistic traces "have been removed" then it's different from the others, no?  The in all probability these elements were removed by later editors is probably the case, but why do we want to continue to add caveats, qualifiers, maybes, and nitpicks into the very opening sentence of this article?  It's already so choked with defensive over-cautiousness even we the editors can't move past it to sentence number 2.  Breathe!  Say something here to work with--and then fine, go ahead and chock it full of the "maybe's" and "who says what when" to elaborate the countless different analyses on it later. But look at this vacuous intro there now!! It's a month out now and frozen at the starting gate!  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Claritas is clearly trying to add some original research in here. We need to work with sources, and sources across the board claim Jewish mythology as differing from ANE (not Mesopotamian, but ANE) mythology in its monotheistic outlook. SAE (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a source. The source is cited (has been for some time now) and is quoted verbatim in the footnote.  It says Mesopotamian.  And Claritas didn't make the edit to the text to make it say Mesopotamian.  Professor marginalia (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to introduce original research. I've just provided two sources which contradict the claim in the article. How about changing the sentence in the lead to:


 * " Although there may have been polytheistic elements in the original narrative, the modern formulation is characterised by its strong monotheistic outlook, in contrast to other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths"


 * I think this quite accurately portrays the situation. Claritas § 07:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I disagree. The sources that you have provided above do not explicitly say what you are claiming they say.  you're piecing them together, which is OR.  And certainly they are not clear enough to contradict our Oxford source. SAE (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with SAE on the whole here about what you are doing Claritas, but besides this there is another issue. None of your sources justify adding this information to the lead.  The basic distinction we have added to the lead is stated and restated over and over again by reference works and mainstream scholars when they introduce this myth.  The details about the remnants of polytheism, about Isrealite worship before the final text was redacted, etc. belong in the entry itself but there is absolutely no indication that they belong in the lead.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop accusing me of original research, and explain exactly what is wrong with the statement's factual accuracy and my sourcing of it, compared to the factual inaccuracy of the current statement (which claims that the modern version of Genesis can be directly and uncontroversially compared to ancient versions of other myths). Claritas § 17:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was hardly an "accusation", but I'll strike it so as not to get bogged down on that particular issue. You haven't answered the question that I'm more serious about.  Also, for the record "modern version" is at best meaningless and at worst misleading.  "Final version" sure, but it is certainly not "modern". I have no problem with including well sources material about the beliefs and practices that most likely predated the "final version" and were most likely reflected in earlier versions of this myth, but the narrative in question here is, first and foremost, the final version.  That other stuff doesn't belong in the lead.  Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then the comparison to other ANE myths doesn't belong in the lead, so I'll remove it. It's not really a relevant comparison if we're only dealing with the final version. Claritas § 18:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How did you understand that to be what I said? I clearly said that your argument doesn't trump common practice in reliable sources.  You're going against that when you remove that sentence and I'm reverting you.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What these sources are comparing are known versions (final versions) of different myths from that same region. They, the reliable sources, are comparing them despite the fact that these myths may have been finalized hundreds of years apart.  The notion that this should not be done is of your own manufacture, clearly not reflected in the very sources that are doing it.Griswaldo (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way you are claiming that mainstream sources tend to introduce this myth in a "factually inaccurate" way. I just want to make sure you realize that those types of arguments go nowhere because we rely on their expertise and not yours or mine.Griswaldo (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm curios. You say these sources claim monotheism but the one I just looked up ("Pagan monotheism in late antiquity") seems to argue against it. I'm struck by the sentence "Whether this amounts to a denial of the existence of other gods, as is sometimes maintained, I am doubtful". The author you are quoting is, it appears, saying that while some people think the entry about being a "unique god" is a declaration of monotheistic views, he holds it is simply pandering to the god in question's vanity. How do you see this lining up with a citation representing monotheistic views? Padillah (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Padillah who is that directed to? Do you mean in the final text?  I don't think that's what the source is arguing against -- monotheism in the final text.  When and how things went from polytheism to monotheism among the ancient Israelites is a matter of speculation.  I'm sure there are more agreed upon theories than others, but as far as I know there is no dispute about the monotheism of the final text.  In fact most of the people who discuss polytheism in earlier versions suggest precisely that later editors consciously removed the traces of polytheism.Griswaldo (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was directed at Claritas. The indention on this talk page is a joke. It's quite impossible to tell where any given thread is headed. Padillah (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's quite clear that both myself and the author are talking about polytheism in the original text, as Griswaldo pointed out. Regards. Claritas § 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you'd be mistaken in my view. It's not "clear" at all. What I understood from your original statement was that your argument is that Genesis is not alone in it's monotheistic viewpoint. You go on to use a quote from "Pagan monotheism in late antiquity" as a source to back up this argument. I am confused how one can use a source that denounces perceived monotheism in support of monotheism. Padillah (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Claritas, we have an Oxford source claiming this main distinction. This by far is not the only source (look at previous discussions) -- there are many, many, who say this. For you counter this source with your own claim, you need a source that directly speaks to this issue (one that you don't piece together implication from, which then enters into becoming your own research). It needs to explicitly counter and interact with the majority claim that the Genesis narrative does not promote monotheism in the face of the other ANE myths. As of now it Oxford vs. Claritas. SAE (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Swell. The intro is been pared down even further.  It's a wonder there's anything left in it at all. @claritas, you've talked about polytheism in early Judaism, you've talked about polytheism in Genesis, do you have notable sources pointing to polytheistic creation in the Genesis creation myth.  Thank you. BTW, the "redacted" Genesis creation is still considered "ancient" as far as I'm aware.  Professor marginalia (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are two sources -, Claritas §  18:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first source says -- "I believe that the myth itself carries within it the Hebraic memory of prehistory when the ancestors of the Hebrews were still polytheistic ..." This is hardly what you are trying to use it for.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The second sources says -- "Now since we have, furthermore, found a polytheistic echo in the myth ('we'), it should seem appropriate to hypothesize that the narrative was once polytheistic." Neither of these sources say that the text of the actual myth in question here is actually polytheistic.  They say it exhibits evidence of a past polytheism, and they do so very ambiguously.Griswaldo (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the whole chapter, not the just the first page. Claritas § 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? Are they going to contradict themselves later and say that the introductory remarks are incorrect?Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because they are going to make statements like "Certainly the use of Elohim in the first creation story refers to a God-head, and not a single deity." which is definitively in support of polytheism in the Genesis narrative. Padillah (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, read all the relevant sections of the source. Claritas § 19:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) The first source is on another topic completely, and deals with Genesis in passing. I doubt the author is an expert in the field.
 * (2) The second source deals with the subject at hand specifically. However his point is actually arguing for the fact that the Genesis creation narrative that we know, is monotheistic.  He talks about "hypothosis" and "assumption," with relation to polytheism, meaning the current data show monotheism.  SAE (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, after now reading extensive portions of this 2nd source, the author continually refers to "God" as a singular -- this use dominates chapter 10, "Creation Account in P." He says things like "the Jewish narrator refers to God" (singular).  Clearly this author's position is that a Jewish writer wrote this to promote a (singular) God, but borrowed from many parts of other written and/or spoken myths. He does not explicitly deny our current intro to this article, and neither does he even implicitly contradict it. SAE (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "hypothesize". Yes. Look at what I wrote back then as a substitute sentence:
 * " Although there may have been polytheistic elements in the original narrative, the modern formulation is characterised by its strong monotheistic outlook, in contrast to other ancient Mesopotamian creation myths" Claritas § 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The neutrality issues have not gone away and the tag should be there to indicate that this is not agreed by all editors to be a neutral article. It should only be removed when everyone agrees that this is a neutral article. If attempts to find a compromise among all editors have stagnated, this should proceed up the process of arbitration. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. You can't enforce these tags unilaterally Til.  Who else thinks there are neutrality issues?  I'm removing the tag because unless there is a real discussion going on it's just disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, despite not being an arbitrator, Griswaldo has unilaterally "decided" that as an editor I have no right to challenge the neutrality of this article that I don't feel is neutral, unless someone else agrees with me. A look at previous conversation here tells me I am not alone, but to prove it to Griswaldo, I was wondering if we could hear again from you other editors who agree with me that that article still has neutrality / NPOV problems, and nothing has been done about them. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbitrators won't be riding in on a white horse to resolve something so trivial as a NPOV tag. Rather than arguing over the tag, why not try this again.  Identify the specific problems you think should be addressed and present a case for how they should be changed.  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to have misunderstood me... I wasn't suggesting that the arbitrators ride in on a white horse to resolve the tag issue. What I am saying is that all of the previous argument shows we are at an impasse, editors who insist the POV that Genesis meets the criteria of "mythology" despite several reliable references showing other opinions exist, are clearly uninterested in compromise, so as a last resort, the only possible recourse is arbitration.
 * Put simply: The article correctly has a section stating that there are differing opinions as to the correct genre classification. But the lede sentence is obviously taking sides, by telling us readers which one of those differing opinions is "correct". Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The creation myth issue again? Problem is that we have so many scholarly references that say it is one (hundreds). Line up the scholarly references you've found that say that it isn't one and set alongside with those references that say it is, so they can be compared. Then do another round with RFC.  Accept whatever consensus results.  How's that plan look? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Til, I am in support of Arbitration or more MediationCabal Times since no matter what we do i have a feeling this dispute is not going to be resolved by any other means. I am sorry i you feel my removal of NPOV tag was inappropriate. I saw a Two Content Disputes on the page but no NPOV dispute thus i removed it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"Oppositional cites"
Many of the citations listed by Til are not very good. Quotes are necessary. I have no doubt that many of the theologians and bible-scholars cited probably believe that Genesis is close to being either "literally true" or "based on revealed knowledge directly from God" and thus not a myth, but distinguishing between this and pointing out that these conservative scholars are in the extreme minority is important. Right now, they're over-weighted. See WP:UW. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course they are a minority among the "set of scholars who agree that Genesis is a 'myth'"... In fact, they are 0% of that set, no argument with that logic.  But there are some special considerations here:


 * This is a book that is officially called the word of God by the Council of Nicea and that has not been repudiated by any major Church that I have heard of. All Churches agree that this is part of the Bible, their sacred book.  We don't, or should not, declare the Quran a myth, or declare the Bible a myth, or declare the Talmud or Gita or the Buddhist sutras or Book of Mormon or even the Book of Scientology a  myth. Those are sacred books of widespread religions with millions of adherents (except Scientology), and it is a blatant violation of neutrality policy, because millions of people do not believe the word "myth" should be applied to various of these books, and the self-styled "scholars" who presume to tell these adherents authoritatively what to believe as if they were priests, are far outnumbered by those who don't want to listen to them.  So this brings us back to the question of "Is wikipedia supposed to reflect ALL significant and widespread points of view, or is it supposed to take the side of these scholars who tell adherents what to believe"? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to provide some quotes that illustrate that each of the sources you cited actually specifically take issue with the term "myth" being applied specifically to the Genesis creation myth. If you do not provide that, we cannot use the text as written. I just got one text and did not find any indication that the author did this specific thing. In fact, the author just reaffirmed a traditional belief in Genesis, but not an unqualified rejection of academic labels. Wikipedia is not here to not offend. The most reliable sources on a subject are the academic sources. That's the sad state in which we exist. The majority of the people in the world may take issue with the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe, but the reliable sources which discuss the cosmological context of the earth (read, "academic sources") affirm such a statement and so Wikipedia reports that fact plainly and simply weighting the vast majority of the planet's opinions to obscurity. That's the name of the game, and it will be the way we proceed here, like it or lump it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Til, I meant to suggest you line them up here for discussion. Try to keep your own arguments based on what "myth" means to you in your pocket.  What reasons do the sources give in their opinions?  Professor marginalia (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is becoming facetious because I think everyone (unless they live in a box) knows perfectly well what a significant and widespread opinion this represents, but you are looking for quibbling little technical reasons now, to try to prevent this significant and widespread opiniomn from even being mentioned in any way shape or form. It really doesn't matter what reasons the sources give, or even if they give no reasons at all. Per our RS policy, as the kindly folks at WP:RS/N will certainly confirm, they are reliable as evidence of a POV existing whatever the reason, that is all. Asking their reasons, suggests that you as an editor want to debate logic with the published sources, which means you're still missing the point. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The POV may be relevant, but it needs to be properly sourced and conform to what is actually said. That there are literalist believers in Genesis is directly relevant to this page and, indeed, is already mentioned here. That there are people who hate academics who study their views from a positivist, literary, cross-cultural, critical or skeptical perspective is certainly verifiable, but not necessarily relevant to various aspects of the article you think are relevant. Editorializing at every possible turn is neither necessary nor desirable. Many true-believers in the bible may take issue with an academic treatment of their sacred text, but they do not directly dispute the nuts-and-bolts of the treatment and it would be an original synthesis to pretend otherwise. As far as I can tell, you have a bunch of Christian believers who have stated various things about their particular beliefs in Genesis, but these sources do not directly dispute the actual point being made (that Genesis is properly, in a strict academic sense, a member of the set of stories known as "creation myths"). The primacy, uniqueness, and emotional connection that these believers have to the text notwithstanding, it is not Wikipedia's job to prevent believers from being offended when the sources simply are not there which counter the claim. You seem to be saying that the point you are making is "obvious". If that's true, you should be able to provide a direct quote from one of your sources which makes that clear and you should be able to find independent sources (that is, sources who are not in an advocacy or believer's-camp) who agree to this formulation. Until such time, I submit it is not a decent edit for this encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So you're still saying it has been agreed to everyone's complete and mutual satisfaction that the definition of "myth" should include the GCN, because anyone who disagrees doesn't count, and I'm still saying that is a pretense and a farce, man... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this any different than saying that it has been agreed to everyone's complete and mutual satisfaction that the definition of "pseudoscience" should include "creation science", because anyone who disagrees doesn't count? If you are looking for "fair and balanced", there's always Conservapedia or Wikinfo. We aren't here to sympathize with the deprecated sources, we're here to report on the sources which are not deprecated. NPOV does not enjoin us to right great wrongs perpetuated against a certain class of sources. We must merely go by the impeachment of such sources and move forward. After the conservative Christians revolt and overthrow the secularist academicians, then Wikipedia will change. Until then, we're bound to the game of judging reliability in such a way that the religious sources will always end up being treated as examples of opinions rather than decent scholarship. It's not fair, but it's the way Wikipedia works. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Till is trolling. I don't really see any value in engaging in this conversation. Till wants us to look outside of the experts, outside of the academy to a POV that comes from faith and not any form of scholarship. This is unacceptable at an encyclopedia and he knows it. Stop taking the bait people. Enough is enough.Griswaldo (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe this, then you need to escalate the dispute resolution process. E.g. WP:RFCU or WP:AN. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I need to escalate dispute resolution? Exqueeze me?  Quite the opposite I'm saying ignore him.  If you think that is necessary then please go ahead.  I'll gladly participate if it stops this behavior.Griswaldo (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, that's also the way Wikipedia works. We cannot simply ignore Til because he is making edits and discussing. To simply ignore him and call him names will, in the long run, cause more problems and may end up with a bad outcome for the wrong people. I personally do not have the evidence that Til is trolling, but I'm not around Til all that often. I've clashed with him in the past, but if he truly meets the definition of WP:TROLL then he needs to be removed from the situation. I'm not equipped at this time to make that argument. If you know better than I, please, for the good of Wikipedia, make the argument at one of those other locations. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Without arbitration, this is NEVER going to end as long as wikipedia can be edited by the masses and not just by the elite experts, because the masses are always going to have their say. If you want an encyclopedia that can only be edited by elite experts, and only reflects their crapola while ignoring or belittling widespread POVs, make one.  This ain't it.  Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is straying very close to WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:POINT territory. Elite sourcing will always triumph over the prevailing notions of the general public. This does require a certain amount of diligence, but such a status quo is now more-or-less built in to the Wikipedia system. There will always be people arguing against the experts, but, in the end, the experts tend to win since their sources tend to be the most reliable according to our own policies and guidelines. If you want to keep fighting against that idealization, you will fast find yourself on the unpleasant side of an administrative action. You won't be the first nor the last to go that way. Fair warning. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)This is getting too convoluted. Why is it most of the cites for this aren't checking out? I've only come close with Anderson-the rest I either can't match at all or they're talking about the Bible in general, not the Genesis creation (most scholarly sources agree most, though not all, of the Bible has more in keeping with "historical" narrative rather than a mythological-without implying either term connotes it to be "truth" or "untruth".) Anderson's talking about Genesis creation as a "demythologized" revision to older ancient myths. The rest of the sources are either inadequately described or the claims are inapplicable. The content tossed in the article as it reads at this moment doesn't appear properly sourced to me. We need to be faithful to the sources used. So I'm going to remove them for now-and ask they be quoted here before they're to be put back. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with this comment and go further to say that the text itself ought to be removed. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)