Talk:Genesis creation narrative

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2024

Make sure the 'G's in 'God' are capitalized. Goober112 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:GOD (and just regular English grammar), when god is used as a common noun and not as a title, it should not be capitalised. If there's a specific occurrence that is incorrect, you should open a new edit request referencing that instance. Liu1126 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

2 creation narratives

Question isn't that whole 2 creation myths based on the whole Documentary hypothesis? Hasn't the consensus for the documentary hypothesis collapsed since the 1970s?CycoMa1 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the documentary hypothesis has fallen out of favor, but I don't think anyone is saying that there is only 1 narrative. The Documentary Hypothesis' basic idea (that the Pentateuch was derived from different sources later edited together) hasn't been completely repudiated; the popular alternatives are all variations of the original theory. Ltwin (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The Documentary hypothesis argued that the Pentateuch is a compilation of four source documents, and that at least one of them was as old as the 10th century BCE(!). The consensus collapsed due to a view that the Pentateuch is "a compilation of short, independent narratives" rather than a synthesis of extensive works, and that the editing process took place not in the Kingdoms of Israel or Judah but in either the Achaemenid Empire (5th-4th century BCE) or the Hellenistic period (4th century-1st century BCE). In other words, the Pentateuch's sources were more fragmented than the Documentary hypothesis believed, and the Pentateuch itself is not as old as the Documentary hypothesis believed. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

This article contains bias towards critical scholarship

This article fails at WP:NPOV, because it presents contested assertions as facts, namely the conclusions of biblical criticism regarding Genesis. As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally. In addition, many biblical scholars (generally those who are not critical scholars) would reject those statements anyway.

The leading critical scholar Bart Ehrman has written on this issue (https://ehrmanblog.org/how-do-we-know-what-most-scholars-think/), 'Then what does it mean to say that “most” scholars hold one view or another?  It always depends.  If you mean “most scholars total” then you would have to include fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals.  And I frankly don’t know the proportion of evangelical to non-evangelical scholars in the country.  That’s why I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John).  What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think, and when I say that, I’m usually pretty sure what I’m talking about.' My proposed additions below (in bold), reflect Ehrman's practice. They would not only meet the expectation of WP:NPOV, but they would be informative to readers in demonstrating that the qualified statements originated in critical scholarship, rather than scholarship in general.

Objection courtesy of tgeorgescu: These additions should not be made because the opposing (traditional/conservative/evangelical) views are fringe, that is, they are marginalised in reliable sources (WP:NOTNEUTRAL). WP:GEVAL states that 'Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship.'

Response: In Ehrman's blog post, he states, 'I do not at all discount what conservative evangelical scholars such as Bock and Keener have to say. (They are smart people and they know a lot about biblical studies.) As a critical scholar myself, I believe in listening to all sides and weighing the evidence to reach a decision – whatever that decision happens to be – i.e. whether it supports a traditional Christian view (about Ephesians, or John, or the dats [sic] of NT writings) or not.' Thus, it appears that an authority does regard evangelical views as worthy of legitimation through comparison to accepted scholarship. Therefore, my proposed additions would not violate WP:NOTNEUTRAL.

Lead (Line 6) According to most critical scholars, The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, but adapted them to their unique belief in one God. Critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy) view the first major comprehensive draft as having been composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BCE (the Jahwist source), then later expanded by other authors (the Priestly source) into a work very like Genesis as known today. The two sources are identified in the creation narrative: Priestly and Jahwistic. The combined narrative is considered a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation:

Composition: Sources (Line 20) Although tradition attributes Genesis to Moses, most critical scholars hold that it, together with the following four books (making up what Jews call the Torah and biblical scholars call the Pentateuch), is "a composite work, the product of many hands and periods." The creation narrative is analysed as consisting of two separate accounts drawn from different sources. The first account in Genesis 1:1–2:4 is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P). The second account, which takes up the rest of Genesis 2, is largely from the Jahwist source (J).

Composition: Structure (Line 27) Consistency was evidently not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary, with the first (the Priestly story) concerned with the creation of the entire cosmos while the second (the Jahwist story) focuses on man as moral agent and cultivator of his environment. The highly regimented seven-day narrative of Genesis 1 features an omnipotent God who creates a god-resembling humanity, while the one-day creation of Genesis 2 uses a simple linear narrative, a God who can fail as well as succeed, and a humanity which is not god-like but is punished for attempting to become god-like, although not all scholars share these interpretations. Even the order and method of creation differs. "Together, this combination of parallel character and contrasting profile point to the different origin of materials in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, however elegantly they have now been combined." These differences motivate critical scholars to conclude that consistency was not seen as essential to storytelling in ancient Near Eastern literature. (Note b: Levenson 2004) Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you. The current article does violate WP:NPOV by presenting contested scholarly interpretations as facts. Your proposed edits would better align with NPOV by clarifying that these views are held by "most critical scholars" rather than presenting their conclusions as undisputed facts. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, "biased statements of opinion can be presented only with inline attribution."

WP:DUE is also relevant here. While we shouldn't give undue weight to "minority" views, we also shouldn't present "majority" views as universal facts. Your proposal strikes a better balance. The WP:SCHOLARSHIP guideline encourages presenting multiple scholarly viewpoints when they exist as well. ViolanteMD 21:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to respond in any detail today due to some horrible chemotherapy. But, and I don't mean to be rude, both of you are very new editors and I'm not convinced you understand our policy. More tomorrow if I feel well enough. Doug Weller talk 06:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:MAINSTREAM, WP:CHOPSY. And please read pseudohistory. Wikipedia is not a venue for ventilating pseudohistory. What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is well to recognize that the dominant viewpoint among scientists is not the only one. There are various minority viewpoints, represented by qualified scientists, but these viewpoints are largely suppressed by majority voices, by active persecution, and by selective reporting in the media.

Poythress, Vern S.. Interpreting Eden: A Guide to Faithfully Reading and Understanding Genesis 1-3 (p. 21). Crossway. Kindle Edition. ViolanteMD 10:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. My proposal does not include any additions of content, so I believe the charge of 'ventilating pseudohistory' is irrelevant. I merely proposed attribution to certain claims which are both controversial and contested in biblical scholarship, and do not represent a consensus of experts, even within critical scholarship (cf. Ehrman). Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm no theologian, but an experienced Wikipedian, and to me the most important point here is that Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. Biblical criticism, "the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible without appealing to the supernatural" is the mainstream academic approach to the Bible. That's the reason I reverted Violoncello's edit here, where they added phrasing like "According to mainstream biblical scholars, the authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc" to the previous "The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative borrowed themes, etc", added "most biblical scholars" to "biblical scholars" and turned the phrasing "The creation narrative consists of two separate accounts" into "Scholars analyse the creation narrative as consisting of two separate accounts". All of these changes tend to create a false balance between mainstream scholars (again, Biblical criticism) and the Documentary hypothesis and similar theories. It unduly legitimizes the documentary hypothesis. Violoncello10104 and ViolanteMD, I'm not saying your use of the word "neutral", as in "As an article in the category 'Religious cosmologies', such statements ought to be presented neutrally", is wrong (and it's very, very common amongst new users). But its implication that Wikipedia should not take sides between non-religious and religious criticism goes completely against Wikipedia's policy Neutral point of view, which may be designated a term of art. I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue." We should actually present the mainstream consensus as undisputed facts. Bishonen | tålk 08:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC).

It is called "neutral point of view", but a proper name would be "normative point of view". Like a civics teacher does not teach his/her own opinions, nor a mixed bag of all opinions, but the normative views of the society. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for your input on this matter. I appreciate the references to various Wikipedia policies, but I believe there's still a crucial point being overlooked.

I'm not advocating for the promotion of pseudohistory or fringe theories. I fully agree that Wikipedia should rely on mainstream academic sources and not be a platform for marginal or discredited ideas.

However, there's a critical distinction we need to make when dealing with religious topics. The purpose of an encyclopedic article about a religious concept or belief is primarily to explain what that belief entails, not to debate its historical accuracy or scientific validity.

When we describe what Christians believe about the Trinity or what Muslims believe about the Night Journey, we're not making historical claims. We're representing the content of a belief system. This is not pseudohistory.

I agree that "What is fine and dandy as theology could be utter crap as history." But that's precisely why we need to clearly delineate between theological claims and historical ones. A statement like "Christians believe Jesus rose from the dead" is not a historical claim; it's an accurate representation of a Christian belief.

While I understand the importance of WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MAINSTREAM, we must apply these carefully in religious contexts. Presenting mainstream academic criticism of religious beliefs as the primary content, rather than the beliefs themselves, could be seen as violating NPOV by unduly favoring one perspective (academic) over another (believer's).

I'm not suggesting we ignore academic or critical perspectives. But they should not overshadow or replace the primary explanation of what the belief actually entails.

Most readers coming to an article about a religious concept are likely seeking to understand what that concept means within its religious context, not primarily its academic critiques. It originated in its religious context.

I'm advocating for a nuanced approach that accurately represents religious beliefs as they are understood by adherents, clearly distinguishes between claims of faith and historical/scientific claims and includes relevant academic perspectives and criticisms where appropriate, without letting these dominate the main explanation of the belief.

This approach, I believe, better serves our readers and more accurately fulfills the role of an encyclopedia in explaining religious concepts. I hope this clarifies my position and opens up a constructive dialogue on how we can best handle these sensitive topics. Or you could just call me "too new to know better" again and not address my actual points. ViolanteMD 10:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

'I quote the policy: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice'

It seems to me that our disagreement lies in whether the non-critical claims in question are uncontested and uncontroversial, and not in whether fringe views should be given validity. If they are not uncontested and uncontroversial, then they ought to be attributed to a school of thought or scholar. In my original post, I gave Ehrman (a leading critical scholar) as an authority to determine this. He states, 'I do not say (or at least try not to say) that “most” scholars think x, y, or z, unless I’m sure that even evangelicals agree on the point (for example, whether the woman taken in adultery was originally in the Gospel of John).  What I do say is what most “critical” scholars think'. It appears that Ehrman regards matters in which critical and traditional scholars disagree to be controversial, and thus will attribute a view to a school of thought, not presenting it as if it were an uncontested fact. Given this authoritative judgment, we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial.

I also agree with @ViolanteMD's reply to you which has some great arguments, such as how the current article is misleading to people who are interested in what traditional Christians/Jews believe, since it presents critical assertions (e.g. Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than Mosaic) without attribution as if they were uncontested by traditional scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

we should accordingly change our view of what is mainstream and fringe, or controversial and uncontroversial—this talk page isn't meant for changing WP:PAGs.

About the Documentary Hypothesis: it is no longer the only game in town, but not because mainstream scholars are now more inclined with biblicist scholars.

Biblicism says that the Bible is historically accurate, despite the actual historical and archaeological record. Therefore, when biblicist scholars write the history of the Bible, they are writing pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your point that the Documentary Hypothesis is "no longer the only game in town." This actually reinforces the argument for a more nuanced presentation. If there are multiple scholarly perspectives within mainstream Biblical criticism, shouldn't we aim to represent that diversity of thought? Maybe we could:

1. Present the traditional religious understanding of the text held by those who are of the faith
2. Introduce mainstream critical scholarship, noting that the Documentary Hypothesis was once dominant and that there are now multiple scholarly approaches within Biblical criticism
3. Briefly outline areas of agreement/disagreement

This approach would adhere to existing policies and provide readers with a more comprehensive understanding of both the religious significance and the current state of academic discourse around this topic. ViolanteMD 11:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I was not at all proposing a change of policy. I was saying that the current application of the policy is incorrect given what an authority in biblical scholarship says about what is controversial and uncontroversial in his field. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

To your second point, there's a difference between saying:

1. "The Bible is historically accurate in all details." (a Biblicist claim)
2. "Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." (a statement about religious belief)
3. "Archaeological and historical evidence supports some Biblical accounts while contradicting others." (a summary of scholarly historical research)

My concern is that by presenting only critical scholarly views without clear attribution, we might inadvertently misrepresent the beliefs held by many religious adherents. I think I've stated this on other pages related to Christianity that we've run into one another on. ViolanteMD 12:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"Many Christians believe the Bible to be historically accurate." —true, but misleading: liberal theology does not claim that the Bible is historically accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

That's why I used the word "many". ViolanteMD 12:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I hope you feel better. ViolanteMD 10:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)