Talk:Genesis creation narrative

This article contains bias towards critical scholarship

Arbitrary header #1

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)

We aren't going to be using something published by Crossway as a guiding light. This is an encyclopedia, not a campus bible study. jps (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Amen! ;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:31, 21 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)

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. I don't agree that this is likely, and think that most readers consult Wikipedia for mainstream academic consensus on their topics of interest. Wikipedia is built upon mainstream scholarship.

I might be biased here because I have a lot of experience with textual history, and early Biblical narratives are super interesting in critical literature studies.

As an aside, I do identify as a person of faith, and I never edit in the topic area of my own faith. It's upsetting, unwinnable, and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, whether I like it or not. That's good, in that it makes the project stronger with respect to the terms on which it is constituted. We should all avoid editing in areas where we feel a strong emotional response, or possess experiential knowledge that is not grounded in published sources informed by Western / scientific ways of knowing.

Content policies do in fact stipulate that academic and critical perspectives form the bulk of our prose, and overshadow religious teachings. Placing published mainstream scholarship on the same level as religious beliefs is WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV does not mean "median point of view", nor "attributing to named individuals everything disagreed with by anyone". We don't really have special carveouts for religious topics. We still treat them as encyclopaedia topics.

I'm sorry if you're feeling stung for being called out for rookie misunderstandings. I hope you stick around and continue learning how our community operates. Blessings, Folly Mox (talk) 01:27, 9 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)

@ViolanteMD@Violoncello10104 Ok. Two WP:Administrators disagree with you, me and Bishonen, and together we have made over 300,000 edits. A main reason we were elected was that our knowledge of policy and guidelines was good enough that when editors consistently broke them we could block them with confidence. tgeorgescu had over 50,000 edits, many of them in this field. What are the odds that the two of you know more than we do? Doug Weller talk 10:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I respect your position and I'm sure you do know than me. I'm interested in your assessment of my argument. Quoting WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, 'In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.' Please know that I am not quoting that to disrespect you or the others. I have an argument which is logical, in line with the current policies, with support from an expert. This was the basis for making this discussion topic. Violoncello10104 (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I got an eerie feeling that ChatGPT wrote your answers. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I get the feeling you don't know very well what a non-native English speaker sounds like. ViolanteMD 10:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I see they actually are a native speaker. My bad. I guess ChatGPT is cranking out material with obvious grammatical errors in it like this nowadays. Those pesky generative AI chat bots... ViolanteMD 11:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never used AI to generate text. I guess you'll just have to trust me on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 12:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

You are straying into personal attacks. WP:PA. Please refrain from unconstructive "chatGPT" comments. You've been warned. Just10A (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Just10A, I don't know it where to report it, but the phrasing and the arguments remembered me of User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 251#China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. I admit that I could be mistaken, so they should not take offence. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"I could be mistaken" following a direct personal attack is not a defense. Please just move on. These epic threads do little good. Just10A (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I admit that I have conflated the two Viol-something. But in respect to one of them, it is not WP:PA, since it is highly likely at least one of their replies is AI-generated. I mean: if they did use ChatGPT (or something like that), and I accused them of using ChatGPT, it isn't a personal attack. It's just a fact pertaining to their edits. I cannot be blamed for noticing they did, nor for spilling the beans about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Tests range from 0 to 99% AI. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The results I got from different scanners: 0%, 70%, 95%, 100% and 100% AI-written (I did not scan their username as included in the post). I'm not saying this is bulletproof, but it seems to confirm my intuition. I mean: people do not write like that. Especially when they're not writing official reports for the government. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, it was most informative. Some people do in fact write like that. I've spent most of my life being told that I "talk funny". Thanks for that! ViolanteMD 08:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Why do you have to appeal to being more experienced and not a Wikipedia policy? ViolanteMD 08:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

And the answer is that, despite your protestations, reliable historical research is done by critical scholars only. Other views may by WP:CITED, but only critical scholars speak in the name of the mainstream academia and in the name of mainstream history. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"due to some horrible chemotherapy" Don't take this as an insult Doug, but you are not as energetic as you were in your prime. Do you really want to spend your remaining time and energy in the never-ending dramas of Wikipedia's talk pages? They are probaby not beneficial to your state of mind. Personally, I often find myself contemplating the futility of reaching for a compromise through them. Dimadick (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Your claim is overly restrictive and misrepresents academic diversity. "Critical scholars" aren't the sole arbiters of reliable historical research. Mainstream academia includes various methodologies and perspectives in Biblical studies. This stance contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policy and could lead to biased articles. A more balanced approach would accurately represent the spectrum of scholarly opinion while maintaining standards for reliable sources. ViolanteMD 10:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Wikipedia policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

We're all here at this talk page to obey the WP:RULES, not to change them. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing all NT scholarship as unreliable is an overreach. Many NT scholars employ rigorous historical methods. The existence of some theologically-biased work doesn't invalidate the entire field.

Your argument seems to be an attempt to systematically exclude NT scholarship from Wikipedia under the guise of maintaining academic rigor. This approach would itself introduce significant bias. Wikipedia's goal should be to accurately capture the range of scholarly views, including mainstream historical perspectives and the diversity within NT scholarship. This would align with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE policies.

Any article discussing religious beliefs must also accurately describe what the believers actually believe. Failure to do so renders the article fundamentally flawed, misrepresentative, and potentially useless. Accurate representation of religious beliefs is crucial. Dismissing it as unimportant undermines the validity of the entire discussion, regardless of one's personal stance on religion. It's not our role to judge these beliefs, but to present them accurately.

Instead of blanket exclusion, we should critically evaluate sources, clearly attribute claims, and provide context for different scholarly approaches and beliefs. This maintains neutrality while acknowledging the field's complexities.

WP:RULES are meant to ensure comprehensive, balanced articles, not to exclude entire academic disciplines or misrepresent belief systems based on personal biases. ViolanteMD 10:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Are you using ChatGPT?

"Critical scholarship" means source criticism, which is part and parcel of the historical method. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm not using ChatGPT but I noticed you also accused the other user commenting of the same thing. Interesting take from someone whose main refutations besides one-liners are just kopipe.

Your definition of "critical scholarship" is overly narrow; it's not the only valid approach to Biblical studies. Wikipedia should represent the full spectrum of scholarly approaches, not just those focused on source criticism. This aligns with WP:NPOV and ensures comprehensive coverage of the field. ViolanteMD 10:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If it sounds like the prose of a full professor, writing a paper for the government, who employed several proofreaders, then it is perhaps computer-generated.

Also, some scholars may be WP:CITED, but we don't cite them as they were mainstream historians.

Purely theological exegesis is okay, but it does not count as history.

See https://nypost.com/2024/02/21/tech/student-put-on-probation-for-using-grammarly-ai-violation/

An obvious point: if they don't abide by the historical method, they are not writing history. They may be writing theology or apologetics, but not history.

If one wants to write history, there are shared rules and shared assumptions for doing so. There is certain stuff which historical research cannot deliver. It cannot say whether Jesus is God or whether Jesus got resurrected, since that is not a matter of historical record.

There can be no evidence that Jesus is God and there can be no evidence that Jesus isn't God. That's not a matter predicated upon objective historical evidence.

In mainstream history, the sentence "Jesus is God" does not have a truth value. It is neither true, nor false.

If one is writing a historical paper, they cannot claim that Jesus is God, nor that Jesus isn't God. That would be utterly puerile.

There are some very important questions, which nevertheless cannot be answered objectively. Pretending otherwise just makes the matter worse. Some stuff is just faith, not history. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I am an MD/PhD with a job in technical writing, but the real answer must be that I'm several teenagers inside of a trench coat using ChatGPT to generate my responses, and not that this article violates WP:NPOV. ViolanteMD 08:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

More to the point: despite its sophisticated prose, your argument is essentially a red herring. Since it does not use WP:PAG-based definitions of the terms, but English language dictionaries definitions.tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

ChatGPT can produce inhumanely slick and professional answers, but it does not mean that ChatGPT understands the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The irony of this post is too much. ViolanteMD 08:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Great, more lack of good faith. You should just drop this, you aren't going to get your way. Doug Weller talk 09:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We should refocus on the content and policies rather than making assumptions about intentions. Our focus should be on the quality and accuracy of contributions and evaluating edits. If there are specific policies you believe I've misinterpreted, I'm open to discussing them. Ideally something beyond just criticizing the way that I write.

Instead of telling me to "drop this," I think I'll reach out for help. In the mean time, I insist that we attribute information to the originating sources in order to make it plain where the information is coming from. ViolanteMD 09:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Reach out where exactly? Not to bring in more editors, that's WP:CANVASSING Doug Weller talk 09:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu @Bishonen. I have made a post on the dispute resolution noticeboard with the agreement of ViolanteMD. I would just like an evaluation of my argument and the debate in general; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Genesis_creation_narrative Violoncello10104 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You can see more ChatGPT at Wikipedia at Special:Contributions/190.171.113.4. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2

WP:NPOV says:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

If you want to present scholarship as "critical scholarship" or "mainstream scholarship," you'll also have to present an overview of the views of non-critical ('traditional', conservative Evangelical) scholarship on these matters. That's possible, akin to the overview at Christ Myth theory, or (preferably) as a separate subsection, which is already there (but not very well written): Genesis creation narrative#Creationism and the genre of the creation narrative. The question is: are those views significant? More precise: are they relevant as scholarly views, or as religious views? As religious views, a short explanation, in a section on religious views, would be: 'Conservative Evangelicals view the creation story as...'. Without such an addition I also see no point in the attribution, except for the implication that it is 'just an opinion', or as a signal-word akin to "leftish" at India-related pages. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Contested points, copied from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Genesis creation narrative, referring to these edits and VC's comments:

• Authorship and dating:

• [1] the existence of two separate creation-narratives;
• [2] separate authorship for the two different creation-narratives ([2a] "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than [2b] Mosaic")
• [3] the existence of contradictions between these two narratives;

• Mesopotamian influence:

• [4] borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology;
• [5] the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation;

• Sixth day:

• [6] the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."

According to Violincello10104, the conclusions of critical scholarship are in fact too controversial and contested to be stated as if they were facts. Maybe we can make a fresh start with the contested points above, and suggestions for additions, with relevant literature? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe [1] and [2] can be subsumed into one point. Point [6] was never in dispute as this was always attributed to the various scholarly perspectives. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through the objections, but see nothing that is "too controversial and contested," which corresponds with the judgement of Bishonen, Doug Weller, and tgeorgescu. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate this very much, as a detailed examination of my original argument is what I was looking for. I feel once we have discussed this there will be no need for the DRN so I will write that I would like to put that on hold at least for the moment. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

And I'm very interested in getting to know more about these 'alternate' (conservative, Evangelical) views. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[1] the existence of two separate creation-narratives

Bart Ehrman (May 11, 2021], Two (Contradictory?) Accounts of Creation in Genesis? (emphasis mine):

scholars have thought that the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), were not written by Moses, but later, and that they represent not a single work by a single author, but a compilation of sources, each of them written at different times. The evidence for this view is quite overwhelming [...] The internal tensions in the Pentateuch came to be seen as particularly significant. Nowhere were these tensions more evident than in the opening accounts of the very first book, in the creation stories of Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Scholars came to recognize that what is said in Genesis 1 cannot be easily (or at all) reconciled with what is said in Genesis 2. These do not appear to be two complementary accounts of how the creation took place; they appear to be two accounts that are at odds with each other in fundamental and striking ways.

So, not controversial (unless you reject Bart Ehrman, of course). Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press, gives an apologetic view, but still refers to the documenatary hypothesis, which seems to have been superseeded. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

As explained in its main article, the documentary hypothesis has been partially replaced by a fragmentary hypothesis: "the Pentateuch is seen as a compilation of short, independent narratives, which were gradually brought together into larger units in two editorial phases: the Deuteronomic and the Priestly phases." So instead of four main sources, there may have been numerous texts edited into the Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Preceding Ehrman's quote, this statement from VC from the DNR:

According to ViolanteMD and myself, the positive claims of critical scholarship regarding the Genesis creation narrative, namely its composite authorship and inconsistent content (e.g., Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are said to have been written by a 'Priestly' and 'Jahwistic' source respectively, and contradict each other in their doctrines of God and humanity), are contested and controversial, which is reflected in Bart Ehrman's practice of not even attributing a claim to 'most' scholars unless traditional scholars also agree.

Ehrman here does not say "most scholars," but he also doesn't say critical scholars"; he just says "scholars," and seems to be quite outspoken that this is broadly accepted. So, VC's 'Ehrman-criterium' seems to be met here.

And here he writes (emphasis Ehrman, not mine):

The book of Genesis is the first book of the Pentateuch, as the first five books of the Hebrew Bible are known. This includes Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Tradition says that Moses wrote these five books but the scholarly consensus is that Moses didn’t write any of them.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That is evidence of inconsistency on the part of Ehrman, according to his own principle in the blog post I gave, he ought to have said 'the consensus of critical scholarship' or something like that, as he says '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. I might make a mistake about that on occasion.' Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[2] separate authorship ([2a] "Jahwist, Elohist etc. authorship of the Torah rather than [2b] Mosaic")

Solved:

Although Orthodox Jews and "fundamentalist Christians" attribute the Genesis to Moses "as a matter of faith," the Mosaic authorship has been questioned since the 11th century, and has been rejected in scholarship since the 17th century.[16][17] Scholars of Biblical criticism conclude 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."[18]

Ergo: not controversial. Book of Genesis and Composition of the Torah don't give any additional info on conservative views on the authorship of Genesis; no reason to do otherwise here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Support this. Great job. Just10A (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proposing for any additional info to be given, but for attribution of critical scholarship to critical views to be given (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV]). I do not know what the source of this quote is, but that is precisely what I am requesting for this article. At the very least, an acknowledgment that scholars 'of biblical criticism' conclude separate authorship. I would actually endorse the insertion of this quotation in the article somehow, and would consider my concerns allayed on that point. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Although this goes beyond my proposal, I think it would be beneficial to include the first sentence about the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. The quote is an excellent and brief summary of the authorship question. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

What kind of weighting do you think we should give to the (often contradictory) opinions of religious extremists about this particular mythology? jps (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this a serious comment, aiming to improve the page? The sentence is quite clear, isn't it, with regard to weight. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is serious. Unless there is a coherent argument to the contrary, I think that the views of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as believers in thing mythology are not relevant to the subject of this article and certainly don't belong in the lede. jps (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Discarding scholars because of their religious views, especially when some of them are respected among critical scholars, is never a good idea. If you label this as 'fundamentalist religious POV pushing,' then what you are doing—discarding scholarship based on religion and your own understanding of the world—can be labeled as communist POV pushing, or perhaps as POV pushing from someone who doesn’t like Christians and Jews. As far as I can see, it’s not the Christians and Jews who have an issue with NPOV here, but the editors who call them extremists. Yes, proper attribution must always be provided, such as according to conservative views and according to more mainstream or critical views. However, I don’t think omitting it would be appropriate or NPOV, as they are still scholars with their own reasoning. I mean, it’s up to the readers to discard their theories as nonsense based on the reasoning of science and other considerations, or they may take away other lessons. We should not be the ones to decide which views to censor based on religion if there is sufficient scholarship about it. Thanks. DangalOh (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If people argue for demonstrably incorrect things as do those who believe in what they call the literal interpretation of the bible, we are under no obligation to spread their opinions. jps (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Traditional views do not necessarily mean literal interpretation. They have philosophical inquiry at their core, especially if the religion itself is not extremely rigid. In this case, I don’t see how traditional views can act exclusively as a support for literal translation. If it’s not already clear enough in the article, maybe someone can work on that (that literal translations without nuance are highly unlikely). More distinction might be required between literal translations and movements that believe in them, and the traditional views of many other denominations, which I agree often come across as apologetics for the religion itself. That’s why I believe attribution is necessary. Still, I don’t see any reason to remove them if they have enough relevant scholarship. Let the readers decide about critical views and apologetic views. There’s no need to censor 'scholars' of one side. DangalOh (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we should include them if third parties have commented on them. But as singular statements of opinion, they don't belong in Wikipedia. There are certain ideas (e.g. "Moses authored the Pentateuch") which deserve inclusion because there are third-party scholars that comment on such claims. But detailed analyses trying to shoe-horn some orthodox religious interpretation as worthy "on the other hand" points do not deserve inclusion unless others have commented on them. jps (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless others might have commented on them might not be very reflective of the point I was making. In any case, even for that, you need to engage constructively, section by section, with the editors involved, and put forward your objections before deciding on some adjustments. Questions like "How fringe is the view? Is it part of the tradition or a single fringe scholar trying to come up with something new?" etc. should be discussed and analyzed there with the editors involved. But if you act in bad faith and behave as though you are here just to discredit something and resort to name-calling like "extremists," then I don’t think many here would be willing to engage with you, and you will be dismissed on the grounds of bigotry, not because your points were or will not be good enough. I don’t know what your points will be but it was not good enough earlier; I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Also, Traditional views may often claim divinity in them, but then we have a section of critical views to debunk or challenge them. And as I said, leave that to the readers; if someone is more inclined toward science, they will lean more toward critical views, in any case. My job is done here. I’ve given my opinion. Now I rest (hopefully not in peace). Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

He is not against Jews and Christians, since nobody would accept that. He is against fundamentalists trying to pass for historians.

You see, theology means knowledge of God, not knowledge of historical fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

And that’s what I said: fringe claims or sources, such as those trying to prove that the literal meaning of the verses is exactly as written word for word, should be singled out. That is not philosophy. Still, I’m not entirely in favor of completely removing them. I mean, don’t you think the more ridiculous the claim, the easier it is to debunk? On the other hand, you cannot debunk a philosophy, like, for example, the concept of the Trinity and nuances such as the Royal We and singular Elohim which are traditional views held by an extremely large group. These are not fringe claims, nor are they based on literal written meanings, but might be more rooted in belief. They are forms of philosophy that emerged from those scriptures through some form of reasoning. As I said, if someone has a problem with the concept of belief in divinity, they should discuss it in the next section under critical or mainstream analysis using science, logic, facts, reality, or whatever they have in their arsenal. My point is there’s no problem including how Christians and Jews view their scriptures unless it’s extremely ridiculous, like a literal word-for-word interpretation. I would even argue that labeling these people as extremists is not justified unless they are imposing that belief on you forcefully. Everyone deserves to live their life their way peacefully until they disturb others, so it’s better to refrain from labels. Soooo, now I’m going to sleep for real... Have a good day! DangalOh (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If you can find independent sources who discuss how Christians or Jews view this scripture as it relates to the scripture itself, that's fine. What is not okay is passing off the musings of the faithful that no one has bothered to address in the scholarly literature. jps (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

So... the views of those who continue the Biblical traditions are not relevant, only those of whom questioned these beliefs and rejected them? It means you remove the context and background of critical Bible-studies; that's a pityfull impoverishment. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What basis do you have for thinking that believers in demonstrably incorrect things deserve space in Wikipedia articles? I mean, things like "this story happened as written". jps (talk) 17:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're severely strawmanning the views of religous critical scholars. I think that your classification of Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians as "religious extremists" and Christianity as "mythology", despite that not being the mainstream terms to describe them, speaks for itself. I think its evident that you're not going to get consensus here. Just10A (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How is a literal interpretation of the bible not religious extremism? How is this not mythology? Who in the mainstream disputes either point? jps (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This isn't a "literal interpretation" issue. Nowhere in Genesis does it say Moses wrote it. Moses isn't even mentioned in Genesis. [1]. The idea that Moses wrote it comes from tradition and/or extrapolation from statements that he wrote totally different books. Not literal interpretation of Genesis. This is what editors are talking about. You're clearly inserting your own bias into this by using fringe theory, negative connotation terms and then shifting the talk to literal interpretation debates, despite it not even being the issue here. @DangalOh Already outlined it nicely. You're clearly contrary to editor consensus and no one wants to engage with you because of your name-calling tactics. Probably best to move on. Just10A (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It is a literal interpretation issue. The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. They are being put back into the article for false balance. That's not okay. No reliable sources should be referencing Answers in Genesis for anything but the recognition that they are the butt of jokes on the internet. jps (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Well that's great, but "The sources that are being quoted seem to believe in a literal interpretation. is WP:OR. We don't go off of what editors think the sources seem like to them. So on top of you being over-ridden by consensus. It's contrary to policy. Just10A (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR is a recommendation for article writing. It is not a charge that we must act the fool on a talkpage when a source is presented as scholarship which is actually just creationist claptrap. jps (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It is not merely a recommendation. WP:OR is wikipedia policy. The only exception is via an "ignore all rules" scenario, and that is clearly not met here. Particularly since you're contrary to consensus. Just10A (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Lol! WP:OR applies to articlespace only. I have no intention of changing course. Feel free to file a case with a drahmaboard if you think it's a problem. jps (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct. You are trying to change article space, based upon OR, are you not? Just10A (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have made an evaluation of a source. Answers in Genesis is garbage as far as a source for anything goes. They deserve to be excised. Go ahead and complain to the admins that I hurt the feelings of acolytes of that website. I don't care. jps (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Why can't you wait for other editors who might share your position? Instead, you are being rude for no reason and acting like a child when you don’t get what you want. I don’t care about the source or what's taken from it, as long as it’s attributed; that’s fine. It’s not like people have written a golden article on AIG , so why even care? Readers can easily check the details about the organization from which the content is sourced right here on Wikipedia if they don’t already know. Attribution is key. You are asking for complete censorship. After this attitude, you are also throwing tantrums. Because of this behavior, other proper editors who might have shared your stance will run away. You are crossing the line between criticism and pure hatred. I have nothing more to say to you. DangalOh (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Echoing thoughts above. I think this issue is sufficiently resolved. Just10A (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No. It's not good enough to say, "Readers can check where the information is from". Wikipedia should not link to incorrect information. That's all that Answers in Genesis provides. This is a hill I am willing to die on. Try to take me out if you would like.

There is nothing rude about this. It's just a terrible source and it needs to be removed. I cannot conscience the idea of students coming to this page looking for accurate information and being told, "hey, check out these charlatans". No, that's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

jps (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR is not banned from talk pages and crying OR does not prevent the editors from recognizing WP:BLUE stuff. We have to call a spade a spade in the talk pages, regardless of whether a full professor already did that for us. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Think you need to re-read my comment at 18:41. Regardless, editors have already patiently explained to you two why your positions are contrary to policy, and you have cited nothing to support your statements. And now, since you guys resorted to name-calling and overall rudeness, people aren’t interested in walking you through it again or engaging with you anymore. You were contrary to consensus, you tried to explained your position, and the consensus was not swayed. Move on. Just10A (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This article cites Ken Ham? (yes, at the moment) Answers in Genesis? (yes, it does). For shame. Neither is a reliable source for any information, including about themselves, and they have no place in this article. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I transferred the sentence with the Ham citation verbatim from the old 'Framework interpretation' article (due to the merge), where it was added over ten years ago. The sentence in question is describing the views of biblical literalist young-earth creationists. I actually would prefer another source because he is considered fringe even among evangelicals. I also think there could be a better replacement for AiG. I will do some research and find something in the next few days then propose it here.

Note: my position about evangelical scholars in general remains unchanged. Collins is mainstream, Ham is not. Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

contrary to policy? Seriously? Collins 2006 was cited 14 times, while Collins 2018 and Friedman got one citation each.

Even if Collins 2006 remains in the article, it is preposterous that he gets the lion's share.

I'm a moderate: I can agree that completely removing Collins 2006 is perhaps too radical, but this article should not become WP:SOAP for Collins 2006. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, this is actually a part of the article already hahaha. Since this is already the practice of the article, what is wrong with applying it consistently? In other words, what is your disagreement with my proposed edits to Lines 6, 20 and 27 (not with respect to Mesopotamian influence on this point)? Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

[3] the existence of contradictions between these two narratives

See [1]. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Do you support my proposed edit to Line 27 which is now the first comment under Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Arbitrary header #1? Violoncello10104 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• The overlapping stories of Genesis 1 and 2 are often regarded as contradictory but also complementary - "often" is imprecise; I'd say "usually," and have added this. I've already added a note there, with the Ehrman-quote, and the line For an apologetic view, see Wayne Jackson Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis?, Apologetics Press. We could precede that line with something like "Conservative/Evangelical Christians view the two stories as mutually dependend stories which form one narrative." One source (random, Google "evangelicals genesis one narrative"): J. Daryl Charles (ed.)(2013), Reading Genesis 1-2: An Evangelical Conversation, Hendrickson Publishers, p.2-3, mentions literary versus literal reading, and historical versus literary. I've added this to the Ehrman-Jackson note.
• although not all scholars share these interpretations. - imprecise; state "X (kind of) scholars are of the opinion that ... [source]," which could be added to a note. It's not clear now at all which scholars you'r ereferring to, what they object to, and what alternative they propose.
• Levenson: already moved to a note.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've made a series of edits; it looks like although not all scholars share these interpretations is the only issue left. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your opinion is on my 'Ehrman-criterium' (especially given my response to you in [1]), but if we accept it, then the second sentence in the lead paragraph 'The first account, in Genesis 1:1–2:4, is from what scholars call the Priestly source (P)', should be preceded by some statement like, 'According to traditional interpretation, the Pentateuch in its entirety was written by Moses as an inspired and infallible work [e.g. due to Jesus' and Paul's attribution of the Pentateuch to Moses], while critical models of the composition of the Pentateuch (the series of five books which begins with Genesis and ends with Deuteronomy), the first account...' This also applies to the first paragraph of Note b. Also cut out the sentence 'drawn from different sources' and move the note to the second sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've added a line on this to the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That's perfect except for the word 'mainstream'. My argument (and the Ehrman-criterium) necessitate that this word should be replaced by 'critical'. Otherwise, there is no point in mentioning the traditional view since composite authorship is an 'uncontroversial and uncontested fact'. This is in reference to WP:GEVAL which has this 'fringe/mainstream' dichotomy that's been extensively debated on this talk page. Unrelated note: you can remove the first appearance of Note b since it now comes twice in one sentence. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

No. You can't ad hoc interpret your 'Ehrman-criterium' to make it fit your preferences. Ehrman, in two differnt writings, clearly states "scholarly concensus" and "scholars," not "critical scholars" or "Biblical criticism," nor "mainstream. I've changed it to plain "scholars," per Ehrman. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I have never said that Ehrman possesses supernatural infallibility in his writings. In determining what views 'mainstream scholarship' includes, I consulted the opinion of an expert in the field, who states that he does not discount evangelical scholars and will not attribute a conclusion to 'most scholars' unless evangelicals agree. His practice in other writings is totally irrelevant. I am interested in his opinion on this matter specifically. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

To be honest, with respect to NPOV I think this article is fine now and I have no further qualms. But my original argument aside, I think 'critical' should be added before 'scholars' for the sake of clarity. Jewish and Christian tradition maintain textual unity, now 'scholars' dispute this. Why? The reason for this is biblical criticism, therefore this should be specified. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

'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.' This sentence would be denied by any traditional scholar (including any traditional/orthodox Christian or Jew). As per the Ehrman-criterium (really WP:NPOV), it must not be stated in Wikipedia's voice but qualified to critical and/or liberal scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why would it be denied, according to which source? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I've attributed this piece to it's author, Carr. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: [...] Article XIV. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

(International Council on Biblical Inerrancy 1978, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Oakland, California. https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.) This statement was signed by a number of prominent evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, and represents traditional Protestant interpretation. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and does not directly address Carr's statement, or the perceived differences in narrative structure/content. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

We have also seen that the assertion that the P account lacks anthropomorphisms is mistaken: the first pericope actually depends on an anthropomorphic presentation, where God is a craftsman going through his workweek, taking his rest each evening, and then enjoying his Sabbath. This merges with the anthropomorphic presentation of the second pericope, in which God "forms" the man like a potter and "builds" the woman. Further, we have already seen that, while the first pericope certainly does emphasize God's transcendence, it is far from presenting him as distant or aloof. In fact it invites us to enter into aspects of God's own experience, and to imitate his model. [... p. 231] Where does this leave us? Do these pericopes come from separate sources or not? There is no way to answer this question, since the putative sources no longer exist. But for each feature that is put forward to support the source theory, it turns out that literary and grammatical considerations supply a better explanation in terms of the overall flow of the narrative. In other words, if someone produced this text by stitching sources together, he left the seams smooth indeed.

(Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary, C. John Collins, 2006, P&R Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, New Jersey, pp. 230-231) Composite authorship is contested and controversial. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I approve of this now since you added 'According to Carr,' however you might like to add this argumentation from Collins in response to Carr to round out the POV of this article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Done diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

[4] borrowing of themes from Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology

Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), Mesopotamian Mythology and Genesis 1–11, Oxford Bibliographies:

The imprint of Mesopotamia’s mythic thought and literature on Genesis’ Primeval History (Genesis 1–11) is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole. But these factors cannot take away from the place of Mesopotamia’s stories of origins in the Bible’s opening chapters; and the latter, remarkably, do not fully conceal these antecedents. To the contrary, in its layout the biblical text appears frank about the locale of what preceded its eventual epic-making call to Abraham to “go forth” (Gen. 12:1) from his homeland and begin anew in a faraway place.

Some alternate takes:

• James M. Rochford, Did Genesis Borrow the Creation and Flood from Mesopotamian Myths?]], Evidence Unseen
• Liz Abrams (2022), Was Genesis Copied from Mesopotamian Flood Myths?], Answers in Genesis

This is also far beyond "too controversial and contested." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The 'imprint of Mesopotamia's mythic thought and literature on Genesis' is different from 'borrowing of themes'. Notice that Klamm and Winitzer qualify their statement, saying '... is hard to overstate, even if the biblical unit also contains much that is non-Mesopotamian in origins, and even if it must ultimately be considered on its own terms and, more broadly, those of the Bible as a whole.' I believe the current wording of 'borrowing' is too broad and does not give the nuance which Klamm and Winitzer express. Again, I would endorse the addition of the wording of this quote into the article. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Both sources are talking about flood myths, not the creation narrative. The Genesis flood narrative has its own article, and it is not part of a creation myth. Dimadick (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

@Violoncello10104: Sarna (1997) says "borrowed some themes"; that's in line with the nuance you're looking for. I've added "some" to the text, and changed the sentence in the lead into

The authors of the Hebrew creation narrative were influenced by Mesopotamian mythology and ancient near eastern cosmology, and borrowed some themes from them, adapting and integrating them with their unique belief in one God.

@Dimadick: those two internet-articles are linked in a note, as examples of the conservative/Evangelical view; I wouldn't use them as sources, just as 'illustrations'. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The Evidence Unseen absolutely goes into the creation bits of Genesis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right, but is it consequential? The idea is to get an idea of the way of thinking. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We should not be deciding which sources provide an adequate "idea of the way of thinking". Use a secondary source, not a primary one. jps (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I approve of that edit as it places 'borrowing' within the context of 'influence'. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[5] the combined narrative as a critique of the Mesopotamian theology of creation

The body of the article says:

establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors. (Leeming 2004, Smith 2001)

Leeming (2004) Oxford University Press; Smith 2001 Oxford university Press.

Kacie Klamm, Abraham Winitzer (2023), Mesopotamian Mythology and Genesis 1–11, Oxford Bibliographies:

If, then, the Bible was to offer something meaningful about such topics, Mesopotamia’s version of events would necessarily have to be addressed. The challenge presented by Mesopotamia, therefore, would amount to a delicate balancing act: How was the Bible to incorporate this ancient tradition while at the same time not losing its own claim for a theological revolution?

I also don't see how this could be "too controversial and contested." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I can concede this point if my suggestion in [4] is accepted. The term 'borrowing' in my mind connotes a kind of plagiarism on the part of the biblical authors, whereas what you have quoted speaks of 'imprint'. 'Influence' is another good word, and not even orthodox/fundamentalist scholars would disagree that there was Mesopotamian imprint or influence upon Genesis. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Good; see [4]. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

[6] the interpretation of "God says "Let us make man."

Ehm... I don't recall where that came from ... The article now says:

n Genesis 1:26, God says "Let us make man ..." This has given rise to several theories, of which the two most important are that "us" is majestic plural,[98] or that it reflects a setting in a divine council with God enthroned as king and proposing the creation of mankind to the lesser divine beings.[99] A traditional interpretation is that "us" refers to a plurality of persons in the Godhead, which reflects Trinitarianism. Some justify this by stating that the plural reveals a "duality within the Godhead" that recalls the "Spirit of God" mentioned in verse 2; "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".[100]

That's perfectly fine, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Already resolved ([2]). Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Mass-revert

@ජපස: you did a mass-revert twice diff, edit-summary

Rv fundamentalist Christianity POV pushing.

and diff, edit-summary

We seem to have uncovered a stealth POV pushing campaign to give equal validity to evangelical Christian believers as though they are WP:MAINSTREAM scholars because Ehrman said that he is generous with his attention? No, Wikipedia is not supposed to be the forum. We summarize the best and are not supposed to pretend that sanguine analysis of texts could plausibly come to the conclusion that there is deity magic involved.

As you will understand, I'm not a Christian fundamentalist, or apologist, myself, but I put a lot of effort in discussing Violincello10104's edits, so I'm not so thrilled by such a mass-revert. I guess we can go through this piece by piece, starting with the big chunks; a lot of work, but mass-reverting back-and-forth won't work. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Why did you accept the idea that evangelical Christian fundamentalist POVs should be included in this page? jps (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That depends on the kind of info, but a priori removing info from faith-inspired authors seems biazed to me - the kind of 'fundamentalism' you seem think you are battling against (We seem to have uncovered a stealth POV pushing campaign - more like 'we use the fringe-noticeboard as a stealth canvassing device for extremist atheist campaigners). Regarding are not supposed to pretend that sanguine analysis of texts could plausibly come to the conclusion that there is deity magic involved, in all the text you removed, is there any piece dealing with Divine inspiration? I haven't seen it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia's purpose is to reflect the mainstream academic consensus, first and foremost; and within that consensus, supernatural explanations are plainly WP:FRINGE. Therefore, we have to be extremely cautious about using sources that advocate for them - there are some ways they can be used, especially with attribution, but we can't structure the article around them or present them in a way that gives them more weight than mainstream scholarship does, and when we do cover them it has to be done through the lens of the mainstream academic view, eg. "here are somethings that these people believe." --Aquillion (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this was pretty clearly inappropriate. It's also worth noting that the editors implementing these changes to the article have so far cited 0 sources justifying them in the talk pages. Every criticism so far has been either WP:OR, an ad-hominem, or both. I'd change this back to how it was prior to this issue per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:NOCON. Just10A (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The conservative evangelical position got peddled too aggressively, the reaction to it was inevitable. I disagree that conservative evangelical scholarship would amount to mainstream scholarship. It is notable as theology, but it should not be stated as if it were a mainstream view.

And the STATUSQUO was that before Violoncello's edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Is it notable as theology? I'm not sure. For the most part, conservative evangelical theology is fairly atomized so it makes it very difficult to identify it as being a coherent position that is taken by more than the person attesting to it. Absent any metric but their own personal faith claimed to be based on a particular tradition which they decide to follow, I am not sure there is anything to be had in articles about subjects that are not explicitly about their particular theology. This is the problem here. There is no way to decide which of the oodles of ideas evangelicals have about this mythology are notable excepting that those who study the evangelical movement as a whole have identified something to say. And even then, it is probably completely irrelevant to the actual text being discussed here except as perhaps a way to describe certain reactions and beliefs associated with it. jps (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment of the discussion. Interestingly, I found that @Joshua Jonathan's criticisms earlier this month provided an effective counter-balance to my initial edits. This led to a healthy formation of consensus and a well-rounded article. Now we have to contend with the mere assertion of the illegitimacy of certain scholars due to their religious beliefs, which is not reflected in the practice of religious scholars (quite the contrary). I hope genuine consensus may take place again for this article, and I am certainly open to helping find more scholars, critical, traditional or otherwise, to edit content I've written according to policy and consensus. Violoncello10104 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated that any of the sources you champion have been noticed by third parties remarking on the import of their scholarship. Would love it if you could do that. jps (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. All of the recent additions place WP:UNDUE weight on a few sources that have limited secondary coverage; none of them are really workable. I also have concerns about the WP:FALSEBALANCE used as a rationale to add them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Removing apologist'

diff removed

C. John Collins considers the genre of the first narrative to be "exalted prose narrative" for three reasons: the absence of actors other than God, the very ordered way of narrating events, and rhetorically "high" language, such as "firmament" in Genesis 1:6, "the greater light" and "the lesser light" for the Sun and the Moon respectively in verse 16, and "cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" in verse 24. In fact, On the Sublime, the classic 1st-century work on aesthetics, references verses 3 and 9 as exemplary of "sublime" style. The exalted tone of the passage, in an almost liturgical manner, prompts the reader to contemplate the goodness, power, and creativity of God who created the heavens and the earth by his word. Collins notes that the "exalted" style of the narrative precludes a "literalistic" interpretation. In the second narrative, human activity comes into view, and so its language becomes more ordinary in comparison to the first narrative, leading Collins to classify its genre as "normal prose narrative".

References

What's apologetic about this? And what's wrong with C. John Collins? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Collins is writing from the POV that the story was magically the word of a deity. This is not legitimate scholarship. jps (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Collins' work was peer-reviewed, Beck, J. A. (2007). "Genesis 1-4: A linguistic, literary, and theological commentary". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 50 (3): 603–605., Gertz, J. C. (2009). "Genesis 1-4. A linguistic, literary, and theological commentary". Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 121 (1): 138–139., meeting the standards of 'reliable scholarship' (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Religious bias is not a valid reason to dismiss a secondary source, as it states in WP:BIASEDSOURCES. There is no a priori dismissal of all religious scholarship.

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. [...] Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."

(Emphasis added). With this policy in mind, it is clear that the works of Collins or any other traditional/evangelical scholar are actually among the 'best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.' We have followed the practice of attributing in-text attribution of a traditional or evangelical perspective to Collins' views, therefore the charge of POV is unfounded. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, great! Maybe Graham Hancock also wrote something about the Genesis. Let's WP:CITE him too, on a par with Collins. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If Hancock was peer-reviewed and received favourably in the literature as Collins was by Beck and Gertz, then it would be reasonable to cite him. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

To be more clear: if you cite Collins as a theologian, okay, go ahead. But as a historian he is on a par with Hancock. So it depends upon whether we are discussing theology or history. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The area of study of this article is neither theology nor history, although they are secondary. It is biblical studies, religious cosmology or mythology (the subject of this article is a religious text, not a historical event). On this front, Collins is a reliable source as I have shown. In addition, no scholar has raised the alarm about poor history in Collins' work such that any of the claims included are unreliable or compromised. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You have not shown he is a reliable source. Who cites him as a reliable source for biblical studies? Plenty of stuff gets through peer review. The real test for a WP:TERTIARY source is whether such stuff is noticed by unbiased third parties. You have not demonstrated that it has been or that he is considered a high-level authority on this subject. jps (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Do any scholars identify Collins as having a legitimate thing to say here? Why are we quoting him as a primary source? What is the justification? jps (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See my previous reply. He was not being quoted as a primary source, but as a secondary source among others on the question of the genre of the two narratives. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@jps, would you be able to respond in a meaningfull way? Regarding Collins is writing from the POV that the story was magically the word of a deity, what does that mean? You probably mean Biblical inspiration; when discussing, it's helpfull to be precise and adress the concern of others, instead of resorting to rhetorics and evading the concerns raised by others. What's "magical" about Collins notes that the "exalted" style of the narrative precludes a "literalistic" interpretation? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. When I go to the library (soon), I will find some more peer-reviewed sources for the traditional perspective on these issues, and perhaps critical works that lay out the differing views. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I will find some more peer-reviewed sources for the traditional perspective on these issues, and perhaps critical works that lay out the differing views - no, this is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize the mainstream academic perspective, not to decide for ourselves that there is what we personally consider a "traditional perspective" and a "critical" work. It's inappropriate to intentionally seek out sources like that and then put our "thumb on the scale" to push the article towards giving them more weight than mainstream academic discourse grants them. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. What we need are sources that are from outside the traditional perspective that describe which parts of the traditional perspective are necessary to comment upon because they are WP:PROMINENT enough to be necessary to include in a tertiary reference work. The traditional sources themselves should only be included if there is cause to reference back to them because they are considered so important by third-party sources. For example, if we find enough sources that identify Jerome's position on authorship as relevant to these particular myths, then we can include it. But otherwise, Jerome's suggestion that Ezra the Priest wrote the Pentateuch in the fifth century bc based on notes made by Moses does not deserve inclusion. jps (talk) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Critical and traditional are both perspectives within mainstream scholarship. This is not my own judgment but the judgment of scholars. If you believe it is not, you need to provide evidence that traditional/evangelical scholars are a priori dismissed because of their religious views. I have argued for this under 'Arbitrary header #1' and in the 'Comments' section of the merge proposal, so please read at least one of those before responding to me. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

No, the WP:ONUS is on you to show one of these views being treated as worthy of consideration. All you've done is quote the magnamity of Ehrman as a basis for WP:PRIMARY sources. That's not how it works. Show precisely which perspective Ehrman thinks is part of mainstream scholarship and we'll include it. Until then, it's not Wikipedia's place to provide false balance for the incorrect claims of Evangelicals about their Holy Book. jps (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have responded in a meaningful way. Those arguing that Collins should be included have not demonstrated that his opinions that they wish to be included here have been noticed by anyone. jps (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Seems undue. Why would we devote an entire paragraph to a single person's commentary from 2006? We already cite Collins' views more briefly; but they're not such a notable scholar that it makes sense to spotlight their opinion at such length, at least not on a topic where we have much higher-quality secondary sources to give a broad overview. --Aquillion (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  If you believe Collins is a valid secondary source but should be given less weight, that is a proposal I am far more open to, but which is separate from jps' rationale for deleting him, which is that he represents evangelical 'propaganda' and not legitimate scholarship. Please create another discussion topic if you want to propose that. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

These things are related; WP:DUE is connected to WP:FRINGE in that fringe topics and figures can sometimes be covered but are generally accorded less weight. And they are further connected in that the limited secondary coverage underlines the low weight Collins is accorded in mainstream academia, which makes it WP:UNDUE to expand things the way you have proposed. --Aquillion (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you please collate your arguments into one separate discussion topic? It's impractical to respond to five different replies and it won't be easy for other editors to follow the discussion. Violoncello10104 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Removing apologist" #2

diff removed (emphasis)

In the first story, the Creator deity is referred to as "Elohim" (the Hebrew generic word for "god"), whereas in the second story, he is referred to with a composite divine name; "LORD God". Traditional or evangelical scholars such as Collins explain this a single author's variation in style in order to, for example, emphasize the unity and transcendence of "God" in the first narrative, who created the heavens and the earth by himself. Critical scholars such as Richard Elliot Friedman, on the contrary, take this as evidence of multiple authorship.

References

Ain't it relevant to know how traditional scholars explain (away?) the differences between these two stories? I find it interesting; it serves as a nice contrast between traditional and liberal scholarship. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Who takes these "traditional scholars" seriously in the literature? jps (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

See my previous reply. As I stated in line with WP:BIASEDSOURCES, your recent deletion of content from John Knox Press and Liturgical Press on grounds of their religious biases was contrary to policy and to consensus. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Friedman also believes that the Bible is inspired, but that does not influence his historical research. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think they can reasonably be said to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. Also, your characterization of the sources you're describing ("traditional", "liberal", and "critical") are all extremely POV descriptors and would require high-quality neutral sourcing to use in the article voice, which doesn't seem to be in evidence. Biased sources are sometimes reliable (although not the ones you provided; they have no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), but even if they had the quality Wikipedia requires, a biased source would usually require in-line attribution that makes their biases clear. --Aquillion (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Your claim that these publishers have no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unjustified. Religious bias is not a valid reason to dismiss a source (WP:BIASEDSOURCES). Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Answers in Genesis is not a reliable source for anything. It is an embarrassment that Wikipedia links to them in this article. jps (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• The issue is not their biases; they clearly lack the reputation that WP:RS requires. If you disagree, you can open the issue on WP:RSN, but it's honestly a waste of time for sources as low-quality as these - there is no indication that they have a proper fact-checking process, no indication of the sorts of editorial controls RS requires, and no discussion of them in other high-quality sources in a way that would establish the sort of reputation needed. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  No one can just assert that John Knox Press and Liturgical Press lack the reputation that WP:RS requires; this needs to be proved with citations. I provided a reliable source on the questionable nature of Ken Ham as a source, even though that's not even controversial among editors. The two publishers you criticise have been considered reliable by consensus since at least 2012 (see the article history), therefore the onus is very much on you to establish a consensus that they are unreliable. Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Collins, C. John (2006). Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary

So, what makes this a fundamentalist, magic-inspired work? Cited 146 times, for a starter. Violincello already mentioned two reviews:

• Beck, J. A. (2007). "Genesis 1-4: A linguistic, literary, and theological commentary". Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. 50 (3): 603–605.
• Gertz, J. C. (2009). "Genesis 1-4. A linguistic, literary, and theological commentary". Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. 121 (1): 138–139.

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Those venues of publication indicate that authors must pass a religious test prior to publication. This is automatically disqualifying. jps (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context.

(WP:BIASEDSOURCES) A source cannot be disqualified on the basis of its religious bias. Violoncello10104 (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

There is a difference between biased sources and pseudohistorical sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

People who interpret this mythology as the word of God and literally true are unreliable for any statement of interpretation of the mythology excepting that they set aside that belief and deal within the confines on mainstream, secular scholarship. Otherwise, their beliefs are only relevant to the extent that they have been recognized by mainstream, secular scholarship as worthy of critique. jps (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

Friedman and John J. Collins are the alpha males, while C. John Collins is the underdog. The two alphas got (each) cited once, very briefly, while the underdog got plenty of citations and plenty of space inside the article. That's completely WP:UNDUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable evaluation of the situation. jps (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The language of alpha male vs. underdog to describe scholars is inappropriate. Additionally, I don't believe WP:UNDUE states that the number of times a scholar should be cited in an article should be proportional to their academic distinction (as I assume the 'alpha male-underdog' language is referring to). Nevertheless, I am not opposed to giving additional sources, and you have stated elsewhere that you do not believe Collins 2006 should be removed entirely from the article which is the consensus of this discussion.

Now, the reason I put a paragraph from Collins 2006 into the genre section is because there was no mention of the genre of the two Genesis creation narratives with evidence. jps removed this paragraph, and as Just10A stated the fact that there is no consensus to remove it means we will restore it (WP:NOCON). When we restore it, I suggest a replacement sentence and citation (in bold below). I believe this paragraph should not be removed as it is informative on a significant topic which the article did not speak of previously, but it certainly could be improved with more sources.

C. John Collins considers the genre of the first narrative to be "exalted prose narrative" for three reasons: the absence of actors other than God, the very ordered way of narrating events, and rhetorically "high" language, such as "firmament" in Genesis 1:6, "the greater light" and "the lesser light" for the Sun and the Moon respectively in verse 16, and "cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth" in verse 24. In fact, On the Sublime, the classic 1st-century work on aesthetics, references verses 3 and 9 as exemplary of "sublime" style. Due to the exalted and liturgical tone, the passage resembles a hymn with repeated refrains, prompting the reader to worship the one true God who created the heavens and the earth. Collins notes that the "exalted" style of the narrative precludes a "literalistic" interpretation. In the second narrative, human activity comes into view, and so its language becomes more ordinary in comparison to the first narrative, leading Collins to classify its genre as "normal prose narrative".

Violoncello10104 (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE means that the evangelical view got over-represented in the article. Therefore, the reaction of your opponents was perfectly normal: they objected towards skewing most of the article towards the evangelical POV. If you'll restore something smacking of WP:SOAP, you'll be reverted again, and with good reason. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary for this paragraph to be from Collins. It's useful and informative to have a paragraph on the genre of each of the two narratives. But you haven't offered any replacement source, and you've consistently ignored my arguments now and in this discussion in general. Instead, your proposed solution is just to delete. Therefore the accusation of making this a soapbox for Collins is completely absurd. Whenever you are interested in improving the article and not just deleting information, I will be very happy to work with you. Violoncello10104 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's useful and informative to have a paragraph on the genre of each of the two narratives

It's explicitly a violation of WP:NPOV for both to be given equal space. There's no compromise position between undue weighting and due weighting—I imagine that's why you've been unable to find such a compromise. Remsense ‥ 论 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Your quote of my message doesn't seem to relate to what you wrote. Genre is not an issue with contradicting viewpoints among scholars. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Any material to be included in the article is weighted according to its representation in reliable sources. Remsense ‥ 论 08:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Collins 2006 is a reliable source on the genre of the two narratives. Why should this paragraph be removed as it was by jps? (This version, with the paragraph deleted, is what you have recently restored by the way). Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It should also go without saying (even though I had to say it) that this isn't a deletion discussion (i.e. deletion of a page), so that part of WP:NOCON doesn't apply at all. Remsense ‥ 论 07:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have quoted the other dot point in my edit summary When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As you can see in this discussion, the bold edit was jps' mass-revert. Collins was added due to consensus, as you can see in my discussion with Joshua Jonathan in 'This article contains bias towards critical scholarship'. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion has not ended without consensus. The discussion is ongoing, with the WP:ONUS being on you to justify the content under dispute to at least three editors who oppose its inclusion. Remsense ‥ 论 08:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Just10A and @Joshua Jonathan do not share your judgment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#c-Just10A-20240926181800-Joshua_Jonathan-20240925164600). I will wait for seven days, if there is no further significant debate, then I will retain the version of the article as it was before the bold edit, as it states in WP:NOCON. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

You will not dictate the terms on how your preferred version of the article will be restored. Instead, you need to gain consensus for it per WP:ONUS. Remsense ‥ 论 08:32, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

May I ask why the same cannot be said to you? Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content is perfectly clear, and far more specific to this situation than what you have chosen to cherrypick. Remsense ‥ 论 08:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already told you that I achieved consensus to add Collins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#c-Joshua_Jonathan-20240910110500-Violoncello10104-20240910081900). It was mass-reverted by jps over a week later. As for cherrypicking, WP:ONUS states, Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article before the sentence you quote. Consensus never determined that Collins (or any of the other publishers you have removed from the article) did not improve the article. Therefore, the editors who added this content are not called upon to justify this conclusion against a consensus. Violoncello10104 (talk) 08:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

A week, unfortunately, is not nearly enough for content to be considered to have a stable consensus, especially given that there were objections on talk right from the start. It is a recent addition that was since disputed, and you must therefore demonstrate consensus for it in order to add it, or work with the objections in order to reach some sort of compromise. Again, if you believe you have a consensus for your proposed addition, you can start an WP:RFC; but you can't simply edit-war it in on the argument that it lasted a week (during which there were objections on talk!) before someone removed it, that's not stable at all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Even if 11 days is not enough time to establish a consensus (which I do not grant, there is no policy saying this), you removed sources that had a consensus of over ten years as I pointed out in my edit summaries. You can verify this in the article history. Please at least read the edit summaries before deleting information. Ideally you would discuss everything on the talk page before reverting and there could be a consensus (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS). Violoncello10104 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

He's not dictating terms. He's following WP:NOCON. And consensus is implicit and assumed until there is issue with it.

As for "consensus being ongoing" this is pretty evidently WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It's already been explained multiple times to the other editors that their proposed changes did not sway editor consensus, and most have decided to move on due to their name calling/rudeness. Just10A (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

How many editors need to disagree with a consensus established among a group of three for the presumption of said consensus to cease being persuasive? Moreover, WP:NOCON says nothing about anyone's right to impose a 7-day timer for anything. The responsible move would be to seek further input, not to claim "no consensus, thus retain" on what is a pretty pivotal WP:NPOV issue. Remsense ‥ 论 09:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Some processes, especially deletion-oriented pages, have a specified minimum length, typically of 7 full days. (WP:WHENCLOSE) The '7-day timer' was a concession to you that the discussion was still ongoing, and that I would wait seven days before considering the discussion closed with no consensus. Violoncello10104 (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I am not aware of any “timer.” It’s not explicitly mentioned to my knowledge, and so it’s just a reasonable amount of time. In this scenario, since it (seems) like most editors have moved on, you would be lucky to even get a few days. His “7 days” is self-imposed and him being generous lol. But go on. Just10A (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The account Just10A was registered at the end of February this year, and has 519 edits. Most of their edits are from July, August, and September.

The account Violoncello10104 was registered at the end of March this year, and has 1015 edits (of which 377 edits at en.wiki). They have edited in June, July, August, and September.

This does not make them wrong, but navigating different policies and guidelines of Wikipedia can be a daunting task. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I still don't quite get how the natural course of action would be "figure out a new argument to convince us or it gets put back and we're done". We're pretty sure of our position here and why, and likewise I suppose with those opposing. There's a live NPOV dispute among comparably sized camps: the intuition of anyone who's even rubbernecked talk page drama without ever making an edit would to then broaden the discussion, attempting to find consensus among a greater pool of editors, who may have additional valuable points to make. Remsense ‥ 论 07:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

1.) This is explicitly irrelevant per WP:EC, and insinuating it as an ad hominem is borderline a personal attack. (Also, just to be clear, this is a laughable ad-hominem. People often make many edits before registering an account, and having more than 500 edits puts you in the top 0.75% of editors.)

2.) If you comprehend Wiki policies so much better than others, why wouldn't you just argue those policies instead of resorting to ad hominems? That speaks for itself. Any of the (very few) actual substantive points you made (between the name calling, WP:OR, and rudeness) did not sway the community and was refuted. As a result, policy dictates WP:NOCON. We're just following policy, it's not personal. We're not rehashing this again. To do so would be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just10A (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Again, my solution is not 100% victory for either side.

Perhaps the intentions of one side are not WP:SOAP for evangelicals, but it looks that way to others. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the observation I made several times that disputes of this kind would generally be expanded to a broader forum rather than declared "draw, incumbent retains" hasn't been engaged with yet. The banner's there now, but it seems like the most material next step would be a post on WP:NPOVN, no? Remsense ‥ 论 10:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone has already drawn attention to the article on the fringe theories noticeboard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Eyes_needed_on_Genesis_creation_narrative). As I stated according to WP:NOCON in the edit summary, we need to gain consensus before removing the information, since the sources had presumed consensus since the specified dates (WP:EDITCONSENSUS). In addition Collins 2006 was added collaboratively between editors of different viewpoints.

The current NPOV-related discussion appears dormant, and in 24 hours it will be seven full days since the last comment about it, so I was planning to remove the maintenance template tomorrow according to WP:WTRMT, where it says a dormant discussion is sufficient grounds to remove a neutrality-related template. As I said before, WP:WHENCLOSE gives seven days as a suggested time frame before closing a discussion. Violoncello10104 (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, this is mistaken. Your disputed additions are recent; this is part of the same broad discussion stemming from when they were first added, which started just last month and led to rapid objections. At no point have they had anything that could be considered a stable consensus. As WP:EDITCONSENSUS says, they only had presumed consensus until someone objected or removed them, which happened relatively rapidly after they were added; now they are disputed. Per WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON, you must demonstrate affirmative consensus to add them, which is clearly not present - you plainly believed you had that consensus when the discussion only consisted of a few editors, and I can understand your frustration at having that presumption turn out to be false, but that is what happened. If you believe a stable consensus for your proposed addition does exist, or did exist in the past, you can start an RFC to demonstrate it, but I am not seeing it on this talk page presently. As a more general note... this is a low-traffic article; consensus is often going to be slow to form. On a low-traffic article, it's not unusual to make an edit and to have someone else come in and object to it a week or so later. If you want to establish that something has a stable consensus, a formal WP:RFC is the way to go; "X days have passed, now this has consensus and becomes the status quo!" isn't really how it works for informal discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS does not say that a consensus of 11 days is not a real consensus. WP:ONUS states that 'Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article'. This has not occurred (quite the opposite), so it doesn't apply to these additions. And besides, some of the sources you deleted had been considered reliable for over ten years by consensus. Anyway, as I said to you earlier please write one discussion post so that it's easier for everyone to understand the discussion. Violoncello10104 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS says that An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. You made a WP:BOLD addition to the article and it was reverted mere days later; therefore, it no longer has presumed consensus. You must demonstrate the consensus you believe it has, which is, to me, plainly not present on this talk page - a quick nose-count of people who have weighed in since the discussion started last month shows a lack of consensus for your addition. If you disagree, you can start an RFC to show otherwise. In any case, we can ping the participants in the discussion to date to ask them. @Joshua Jonathan: @Tgeorgescu: @Remsense: @Carlstak: @Bishonen: @Folly Mox: @Doug Weller: @Dimadick: @Mojowiha: @DangalOh:: Violoncello is arguing that this discussion, and the one above, demonstrate consensus for this disputed addition (and more generally this recent rewrite), and is continuing to attempt to edit-war it in. If there's no clear consensus, or we can't agree on whether there is one and can't find some compromise, the next step is an RFC, but please weigh in if you have anything to add either way. --Aquillion (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I gave up here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:20, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

You made a WP:BOLD addition to the article and it was reverted mere days later; therefore, it no longer has presumed consensus. So you admit that the additions had consensus. Since my 'WP:BOLD addition' was reverted, you say it 'no longer has consensus', meaning it previously had consensus. Therefore WP:ONUS is not applicable. We should apply WP:NOCON to the 'mass-revert' discussion and restore the 21 Sep version which had consensus. WP:NOCON states that in discussions to remove material, no consensus means the material should be kept. And you continue to ignore the fact that some of the material you removed had consensus for over ten years.

Obviously this discussion ('Mass-revert') does not demonstrate consensus but was a discussion to remove content that had consensus. If anyone reads this, please see the edit summaries from September to October 2024 to find the justifications of each party. Then you may also judge for yourself who is responsible for edit-warring. Violoncello10104 (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Oh my gosh Violoncello10104 you can't just quote someone, remove an important qualifier from the quote (here presumed of presumed consensus), and then argue some gotcha based on what the person didn't say. That's politician stuff.

Apart from that, I have no desire to wade through two months of edit summaries, and forgot I had ever commented on this talkpage.

To address the diffs, the Collins material seems incredibly overdetailed. There also doesn't seem to be any reason to me to state something like Genesis is commonly approached as a narrative or story in an article titled "Genesis creation narrative". And foregrounding whether non-fictional (history) seems pretty misrepresentative of the balance of sources.

As to whether early cultural traditions should be considered "history-like", I guess I can see an argument for it, but I'm not sure what's wrong with the more common legend, which after all are typically "history-like" and often were mistaken for historical fact, especially after some time had elapsed. This seems like a term we don't really need to introduce, unless for some reason multiple other scholars have started using it to describe certain textual genera.

I don't have any serious interest in this topic, but the contested material feels like a POVPUSH. Folly Mox (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This sounds like Wikilawyering to me. How prevalent are the views represented by these sources? Dimadick (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea that the Genesis creation narratives are of the prose narrative genre is not controversial. That the first is liturgical in style is also not controversial, e.g., Wilkinson concurs who I quoted earlier in this section.

The paragraph does not have to be sourced from Collins. If someone finds another source that identifies the genre of the narratives with evidence, I will very happily work with that. What I don't support is the deletion of material due to religious bias on the part of the sources, or false and unsupported claims about their alleged unreliability which is what we have seen. I thought that templates like 'better source needed' and 'one source section' existed so that we wouldn't have to just throw away sourced yet substandard material, but try to improve it collaboratively. Violoncello10104 (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Religious bias is important. We need mainstream sources. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. (WP:BIASEDSOURCES)

Collins was shown to be mainstream and reliable in the subsection of this discussion topic called Collins, C. John (2006). Genesis 1—4 : a linguistic, literary, and theological commentary. Cotter, Carr and Bouteneff have been considered reliable by consensus for over ten years, therefore there needs to be a consensus to overturn their reliability, and the onus is on those who believe they are unreliable to prove this. Violoncello10104 (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

"I thought that templates like 'better source needed' and 'one source section' existed so that we wouldn't have to just throw away sourced yet substandard material, but try to improve it collaboratively." Well, you were mistaken, Violoncello10104. Anybody can create a template, or an essay like WP:ONESOURCE; they're nothing like policies or guidelines, which have been vetted by the community. And they don't exist so that SPAs such as yourself may be able to go on and on until everybody else is exhausted and leaves. Compare this comment. Sections with substandard sourcing can be removed if no better sources are found, and should be removed if there is consensus for doing so; the community is not obliged to chew over them interminably. I'm considering page-blocking you from Genesis creation narrative and this talkpage for bludgeoning the discussion. Bishonen | tålk 13:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC).

Well, please allow me a last statement, with which I will end my campaign with this article and not reply or edit further. Firstly, to clarify, @Joshua Jonathan and I worked out a consensus together leading us to make several additions to the article, and he agreed with my later retention of this material according to WP:NOCON. The exhaustion he expressed in that comment was caused by the relentless opposition to this consensus.

I have never once proposed that NPOV be compromised in this article or at the very least I have not tried to do so. I just wanted to add more reliable information from a variety of mainstream perspectives, so I hope people can review my proposal Expanding the 'Hexameral literature' section and genuinely consider it and its arguments. I do not mind if the genre section uses critical scholars rather than Collins. Collins' comments were very informative, pointing the historical significance of aspects of the genre, for example. But again, all I have wanted for that section is an insightful and in-depth discussion of the genre of the narratives. So on that basis, perhaps editors will develop that section.

(I admit that at the very beginning of this whole discussion my use of the term 'mainstream' was not in accordance with Wikipedia terminology though I agreed with the concept in substance). I apologise for bludgeoning; I was passionate about the article, believed my arguments were being misunderstood and saw that important information was being neglected. Please know that I am sincere in saying this to you and to any other editor: I hope this article may be improved in the future, so I leave my material for consideration, but I won't involve myself with this article anymore. All the best. Violoncello10104 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, praise be to Murphy for that.;-) Violoncello has been wikilawering and bludgeoning this page all along in a misguided and transparent attempt to insert unencyclopedic teleological content into the article. There's no consensus for it, and deservedly so. The "exalted prose narrative" is poetic sky-god talk (sun, moon, stars) written for an illiterate people with only a childlike understanding of natural phenomena, and we see plenty of those even today in the ranks of the worshipers of a certain fascist politician, apparently many of whom believe that scientists control the paths of hurricanes of behalf of the US government. Enough is enough. Carlstak (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Replacing fringe/unreliable sources (Ham 2007 and Answers in Genesis)

WP:NOTRELIABLE states that 'questionable sources' are usually not reliable, defining them thus, Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest. Ronald Numbers, a distinguished historian of science, has labelled Ken Ham a master propagandist, which I believe is sufficient evidence to consider him questionable or unreliable (especially since I doubt that this judgment will be controversial among Wikipedia editors). Therefore, we should not use him or his organisation Answers in Genesis as sources.

Ham was cited for this sentence in the framework interpretation section of this article, Creationists who take a literalist approach have laid the charge that Christians who interpret Genesis symbolically or allegorically are assigning science an authority over that of Scripture. I believe this is a true statement, and I have found a reliable source (David Wilkinson (theologian)) who confirms this, stating that 'creationists'...

share with Dawkins and others a conflict model of science and religion. In this case, scriptural truth has primacy over scientific truth. [...] creationism depends on a commitment that Genesis 1 is meant to be read as a scientific text. Of course, the majority of biblical scholars point to the clear figurative elements, poetry, liturgy, and theology within the text. However, these arguments are unheard by creationists, who couple a commitment to biblical authority with one particular interpretation of Genesis 1-3. The fact that this interpretation is only a century old and was codified in the North American context of the post-Darwinian controversies is rarely acknowledged.

References

I suggest a new wording for the sentence to suit this new source, e.g. Creationists who take a literalist approach reject symbolic or allegorical interpretations of the Genesis creation narrative as conceding to scientific authority at the expense of biblical authority. Advocates of the framework view respond by noting that Scripture affirms God's general revelation in nature... (proposed replacement in bold).

As for the external link to Answers in Genesis in Note d, I believe this can be removed, since we have already worded the statement in a way that the majority of mainstream scholars, critical and traditional, would agree with. Violoncello10104 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Quoting Ken Ham or other young-earth creationists on anything except their weird opinions, in articles about anything except themselves, is a horribly bad idea. See WP:FRINGE and WP:ONEWAY. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that Ken Ham is a WP:FRINGE figure and obviously cannot be cited for anything. --Aquillion (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok Violoncello, Wilkinson seems to be a much better source about the views of modern Creationists. Dimadick (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Expanding the 'Hexameral literature' section

I propose that the following expansion be made to this section which at the moment only has one paragraph, and could do with further primary and secondary sources to give a fuller picture of hexameral literature on the Genesis creation narrative. Bouteneff 2008 has been cited as a reliable source since 2010, and no one has produced scholarly judgments to show that Bouteneff is unreliable, so I think it is unreasonable to say this source is so unreliable that all information from it should be immediately removed. In addition, nothing he is saying is controversial; he is just reporting the views of significant commentators in hexameral literature.

I'm not opposed to adding more sources to this, and I would appreciate constructive criticism or suggestions to improve this proposed expansion. However I do think it's highly unreasonable to simply delete this information, as has occurred twice now, rather than using the 'one source section' maintenance template which exists for precisely this kind of situation.

Theophilus of Antioch

The second-century Patriarch of Antioch, Theophilus, wrote a treatise attempting to convince his pagan acquaintance of the Christian faith by discrediting pagan classical literature and prophecy for its alleged contradictions and immorality, while upholding Scripture as possessing "antiquity", predating pagan philosophy. This treatise is known as the Letter to Autolycus and was cited as an authority by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, Methodius and Lactantius. Theophilus attacks the polytheism and lack of divine providence of pagan myths, especially the account of Hesiod, lauding the Genesis creation account for its teaching of creation ex nihilo. His interpretation of the creation narrative is at times allegorical, for example, "through [plants] the resurrection is signified, for a proof of the future resurrection of all [human beings]". The waters are like the Law and the Prophets; the perfect sun is a type for God while the waxing and waning moon is a type for the human person. Despite his propensity for allegory, Theophilus does not mention Adam-Christ typology which is present in the works of his contemporaries such as Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis, as well as in the New Testament, such that his interpretation resembles the Jewish exegesis of Philo of Alexandria and the midrash on Genesis.

Theophilus establishes an antithesis between pagan myths, which are regarded as deceitful and novel, and trustworthy ancient history as represented by the Genesis creation narrative. From his conviction of the reliability and antiquity of the prophetic writings, he meticulously calculates a chronology: from the Creation to the Flood was 2,242 years, from the Flood to Abraham, 1,036 years, from Isaac to Moses, 660 years and so on until the death of Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 180. He then evaluates the historicity of the Old Testament.

This message is not recent in origin, nor are our writings, as some suppose, mythical and false. They are actually more ancient and trustworthy. [... The Greek writers] lived long after [the prophets] and introduced a multitude of gods. For this reason it is plain that all the rest were in error and that only the Christians have held the truth—we who are instructed by the Holy Spirit who spoke in the holy prophets and foretold everything.

Icon (c. 1420s) of Basil of Caesarea by Daniel Chorny and Andrei Rublev.

Basil's Hexaemeron

Basil's homilies on the six days of creation (Hexaemeron) were appreciated widely; by Ambrose of Milan, Rufinus, Jerome and Socrates of Constantinople. Basil strongly separates the Genesis creation account from scientific accounts of creation, seeing instead a theological aim in Genesis to teach that "the world was not devised at random or to no purpose, but to contribute to some useful end and to the great advantage of all beings, if it is truly a training place for rational souls and a school for attaining the knowledge of God". Basil's homilies contain both a literalistic element seen in Theophilus, along with a fondness for practical working-class wisdom, as well as an Origenistic element in the Neoplatonic and allegorical concepts such as the notion of the pre-existence of Creation in the mind of God.

Basil conceives of Creation as existing conceptually in the mind of God before coming into physical existence by his will, comparing God to "the artist [who], even before the combination of the parts, knows the beauty of each and approves them individually, directing his judgment to the final aim", claiming this to be the meaning of Colossians 1:16 ("For by him were all things created"). However, Basil criticises the excessive allegorisation of the Marcionites, Manichaeans and Valentinian Gnostics, taking the terms "light", "darkness" and "deep" as literal appellations, and emphasising that evil has no origin of itself, but rather that it is attributable to the voluntary fall of man. He also interprets the days of creation as twenty-four-hour periods. Yet, he regards God's sayings "Let there be..." not as a literal spoken word, but as an allegorical "seed" of theology; "the divine will, joined with the first impulse of intelligence, is the Word of God." Basil, like Origen, says that "Theological teachings are scattered as mystical seeds throughout the historical account"; this explains his cautious embrace of allegory alongside the confession of the historicity of the account. On the allegorical interpretations of the "firmament", he says the following.

And if they tell you that the heavens mean contemplative powers, and the firmament active powers which produce good, we admire the theory as ingenious but we will not concede that it is altogether true. For in that case dew, the frost, cold and heat, which in Daniel are ordered to praise the Creator of all things, will be intelligent and invisible natures. But this is only a figure, accepted as such by enlightened minds [i.e., the authors of Scripture], to complete the glory of the Creator.

Basil regards Creation as primarily doxological in glorifying the Creator, and secondarily as ethically instructive, for example in the perceived virtue of animals such as bees and turtles.

I have heard it said that the sea urchin, a little contemptible creature, often foretells calm and tempest to sailors. [...] No astrologer, no Chaldaean, has ever communicated his secret to the urchin: it is the Lord of the sea and of the winds who has impressed on this little animal a manifest proof of his great wisdom. God has foreseen all, he has neglected nothing. His eye, which never sleeps, watches over all. He is present everywhere and gives to each being the means of preservation. If God has not left the sea urchin outside his providence, is he without care for you?

Basil's series of homilies on the Hexaemeron were unfinished. There are two homilies on the origin of humanity which present themselves as a continuation of Basil's work, although they differ significantly in style, leading some scholars to doubt their authenticity. In these homilies, the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 is interpreted as referring to the Trinity, unlike Theophilus. The term "image" is associated with the rational soul, and "likeness" with the human vocation to become like God. These homilies also regard men and women as equal in that they both possess the image and likeness of God, "Nobody may ignorantly ascribe the name of human only to the man. [...] The natures are alike of equal honor, the virtues are equal, the struggles equal, the judgment alike". The "making" of Adam in Genesis 1:27 is seen as referring to the soul while the "fashioning" in Genesis 2:7 refers to the deliberate and meticulous forming of Adam's body.

References

• Bouteneff, Peter C. (2008). Beginnings: Ancient Christian Readings of the Biblical Creation Narrative. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-3233-2. Archived from the original on 8 March 2023. Retrieved 11 November 2020.

Violoncello10104 (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

• • This is the sort of thing that should have its own article, with a hyperlink in the see also section.Achar Sva (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And I find it highly unreasonable that you have such a hidebound determination to add undue teleological content to this article with so little respect for establishing an actual consensus to do so when your additions are challenged, you having preferred to bludgeon the page. Looking over your comments on this page one detects a determined (glaring) creationist subtext. This content is more about Hexameral literature than it is about the Genesis creation narrative, so it has no place here. It might have a place in its own dedicated article. Carlstak (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Composition of the narrative

The article accepts and promotes a very old-fashioned version of the Documentary Hypothesis, ignoring other theories: the current thinking would be that the Torah was composed between 450-250 BC in a series of expansions, with the creation narrative dating from the end of that period. Achar Sva (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)