Talk:Book of Genesis

image

Is it okay to put an image at the top?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the image. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

OkaySetabepiw3547747 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Book of Genesis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Question - I know we include summaries for "fiction" books but I haven't seen the section of MOS that would permit a summary for a philosophy/religious text without citations, can you please point me towards the policy you relied on so I can review it? It also, after a preliminary read through, does seem that the summary is considerably too long relative to the length of the rest of the article. Thanks, Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I haven't forgotten about this, but it is taking me a little time. I have some bible resources I want to consult to see if the themes section is missing anything - it doesn't have to be complete to pass GA but it does need to have a substantial and broad coverage and address the main aspects. I am also noting that the Third Epistle of John is a GA article where the summary has citations to secondary sources. Likewise, there should be citations to secondary sources here, as summarizing the Bible for ourselves could be considered WP:OR - if there is no policy that speaks to this, I think the best policy is to follow WP:V as usual. Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Seraphim System. I just chanced upon this. I can see some things in the article that need improvement if it's to get GA - the summary needs to focus on the theology rather than on dramatic incidents, the structure needs more detail, and the origins/composition needs updating (documentary hypothesis isn't enough in itself). I'll work at little by little.PiCo (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The review has been open for a long time and I am not going to pass it this round because it is undergoing significant revision and also needs considerable work. As stated above the structure sections needs more detail, and the issue about documentary hypothesis and composition should be discussed on talk with other editors, and there should be a consensus for the changes.

Regarding the lede I would say this statement has some NPOV issues

• Tradition credits Moses as the author of Genesis, as well as Exodus, Book of Leviticus, Numbers and most of Book of Deuteronomy, but modern scholars increasingly see them as a product of the 6th and 5th centuries BC.[6][7]

Most of the sources I have looked at do not emphasize "Tradition" (which Tradition btw? The Tradition?) - even religious sources I am looking at like Baker distinguish between religious tradition and biblical scholarship - it is not "modern scholars increasingly see", it is an overwhelming academic consensus (at least as far as the books were not written by Moses). Baker's commentary, which is itself a Christian religious study source prepared by university affiliated academics, uses the language "Most scholars" if that is any help.

Regarding structure:

• "These are the generations" is covered, but more could be said about the structure. The source I am looking at explains it as there are 10 sections introduced this way. Perhaps these verses could be added in a reference note. The article seems to cover the breakdown - 5 of these verses is followed by narrative, and five are followed by genealogy. The source also notes that all 10 end with the the name of a person except one - but I found the wording in the article ("with the first use of the phrase referring to the "generations of heaven and earth") to be confusing.
• Consider whether "Ancestral history" is DUE/NPOV and standardize use throughout the article. Other terms that are used are "Patriarchal history", noting that Genesis still deals with multiple generations in the first books. The source I am looking at does not say anything about: (The stories of Isaac do not make up a coherent cycle of stories and function as a bridge between the cycles of Abraham and Jacob) so consider looking at multiple sources to see if this view is a majority position.

Regarding the summary section:

• Personally, I would find inline references that link to the chapter and verses helpful for the summary section, because I do look up verses when I am reading articles. Also, I don't really think this falls under the sourcing exception for fiction summaries, so I think it should not be left unreferenced for a GA article.

Themes:

• The themes section is missing major issues, most notably "beginnings", but also sin/fall
• "Promises to the ancestors" has problems as a subheading, and the entire use of the word "ancestors" (ancestors or patriarchs) - I think Patriarchs is generally more in use, but either way the usage in the article should be standardized.
• There is also the issue of the "Promises" section not covering the Christian interpretation of those sections, for which the themes might be grace/redemption.
• It is broken up into "Promises to the ancestors" and "God's chosen people" - isn't this one theme?

• Overall I think the prose could be improved for conciseness and clarity, for example:
• Scholars generally agree that the theme of divine promise unites the patriarchal cycles, but many would dispute the efficacy of trying to examine Genesis' theology by pursuing a single overarching theme, instead citing as more productive the analysis of the Abraham cycle, the Jacob cycle, and the Joseph cycle, and the Yahwist and Priestly sources. should be broken up into shorter sentences
• The first covenant is between God and all living creatures, and is marked by the sign of the rainbow; the second is with the descendants of Abraham (Ishmaelites and others as well as Israelites), and its sign is circumcision; and the last, which doesn't appear until the book of Exodus, is with Israel alone, and its sign is Sabbath. - the distinctive "sign" are not clearly linked to the subheading
• The patriarchs, or ancestors, are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with their wives (Joseph is normally excluded). I think this is trying to be inclusive of women, but the sentence it has produced is confusing, and I'm not sure the wives themselves are included based on the majority of WP:RS
• It is, however, worth noting that in the Jahwist source the patriarchs refer to deity by the name YHWH, for example in Genesis 15.) I am not sure that is worth noting in a parenthetical break in the themes section about "promises", and should probably be discussed in the composition section.

These are a few points to consider, but certainly not exhaustive. Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Composition: Origins

The matter of 'Origins' (subheading of 'Compositions') continues to contradict related articles (Jahwist, et al.). This issue was mentioned here over a year ago but doesn't seem to have been addressed since. I'm only pointing this out as a reminder to more experienced editors as the difference between articles is so obvious. RobotBoy66 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it could be true what you say but the consensus seems to be that there was more than one Yahwist, etc., etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Article fails to note specific points

The article fails to explain specific points given from chapters due to the fact that the parts this is split into are way to large. If the parts are made smaller it would be greatly appreciated. Logawinner (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Two Pages Don't Jive

Know that Wiki isn't a scholarly site and we merely recount the views of others, but this page and the page of [[Josiah|Biblical King Josiah] do not match as to the origins of the Pentateuch and specifically the book of Genesis. On this page in the Origins section it states: "but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist is from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after." However, on the Josiah page it states in the Religeous reforms section: "While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure room of the Temple he discovered a scroll described as "the book of the Law" or as "the book of the law of Yahweh by the hand of Moses".

Regardless of what portion of the Bible was found, with the reference to the "Book of the Law", this period was around 623/622 (18th year of Josiah's reign). So "late in the Exilic period" (circa 520 BC) as this page states for the Yahwist writing and a recounting the reign during circa 622 BC as the Josiah page states are off by app 100 yrs. It might be a simple matter of subjugating the test that I copy to show this as a fringe viewpoint, but either way Wikipedia should probably agree with itself. Ckruschke (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Ckruschke - the commonest theory of the document found in the Temple is that it was a version of the law-code in Deuteronomy - the central spine of the modern Book of Deuteronomy, to which a few additions were later made to fit it into the Torah. I think the article Book of Deuteronomy explains, in its section on the composition-history of that book. There's also a pretty widely held suspicion that he law code wasn't found at that time, but was actually written then and passed off as an old code from the hand of Moses in order to justify Josiah's reform program - but at this point in time, who could possibly know. Have a look at Documentary hypothesis. though I'm not sure what's in that. Better maybe to look up Ska's book on the Pentateuch - it should be in the bibliography of that article.

Hi - I'm not saying I'm disagree with either sections so although I may be "interested" in your theories, they are irrelevant to the question. I'm saying that the Josiah page and this page don't agree and they should since the stated sections deal with the same subject matter. Ckruschke (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Majority view

By "majority view" Wikipedia means WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not popular opinion. Speaking of popular opinion, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalists, nor biblical inerrantists. The accusation of non-biblical scholarship is addressed at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Vaxorian, I suggest that you read the above, it concerns your tendentious editing by claiming that you restore neutrality to the article. You are not restoring neutrality, you're ruining it. And no, WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal validity to WP:CHOPSY and true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Neutrality by definition means not taking a side, according to the Oxford dictionary Neutrality is "the state of not supporting either side in a disagreement, competition or war," and providing the opinion of both sides doesn't give validity, but rather leaves it to the reader to chose validity. You cannot make up your own definitions for Neutrality to fit your opinion, if you claim that secularism is given precedence over those that participate in the religion on religious articles, you are showing a lack of neutrality. Secular scholars are not all that should be represented, regardless of your personal "highbrowdness" or opinion. Showing only one side, and accurate information being removed due to it bringing neutrality is one of the reasons no reputable Universities permit Wikipedia for citations. Also for the fact that biased people on both ends of the spectrum (Biased toward religion via only showing the religious side, and biased towards secularism via only showing the secular side) can freely edit and remove accurate information from those truly bringing neutrality to an article by bringing a representation of both opinions from the scholars, and clarifying the difference between the two. Vaxorian (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vaxorian: We do take a side, the aggregate POV of WP:Reliable sources, see WP:NOTNEUTRAL and WP:FIXBIAS. You arguments seem nothing new. We are used to POV-pushers who claim they are restoring neutrality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Just call it NPOV 2014 style... " Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)