Talk:Book of Genesis
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Book of Genesis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Book of Genesis was nominated as a Philosophy and religion good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 26, 2017). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Revert
editI have reverted an edit which is thoroughly WP:FRINGE, i.e. pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's totally fine. Thanks for keeping up with these edits and reverting when necessary. Hist9600 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Another IP, possibly the same person, had added the same information yesterday, and I had to correct it. It seems someone may be actively watching the page to insert these dates. Ltwin (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree, both geolocate to Adelaide, Australia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Dead Sea study and date of composition
editI just noticed and removed the following from the Composition section:
By comparing Dead Sea level indications in chapter 14 of Genesis Amos Frumkin and Yoel Elitzur suggest the composition dating between 1500 and 1200 BC.[1]
After checking the article out, I believe this is a misreading of the article. The study authors were attempting to use biblical evidence to determine historical fluctuations in the Dead Sea levels. I don't think they are making definitive statements about when biblical books were actually composed. I could be wrong, however, so I'm leaving this here for other editors to evaluate. Ltwin (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Amos Frumkin; Yoel Elitzur (May 2002). "Historic Dead Sea Level Fluctuations Calibrated with Geological and Archaeological Evidence". Quaternary Research. 57 (3): 336. Bibcode:2002QuRes..57..334F. doi:10.1006/qres.2002.2330. S2CID 129375298.
Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keegancroteau12 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Keegancroteau12 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Does the "myth" description need more subtlety?
editIn saying "most mainstream Bible scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" does this require more subtlety? Sure, Gen.1-11 is mythological, as discussed well in its "primeval history" article. That's basically fine. But Gen.12-50 has very different genre characteristics; indeed the word "myth" never appears in the main body of its "ancestral history" article.
So isn't the statement about the whole book "...consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical" too blunt in not distinguishing the different genres across the primeval/ancestral divide?
Note: I'm basing this on the summary in the article lead. But the myth-description in the main body (section "Genre") has the same over-generalisation problem, so it's probably better to start from there, then to reflect an appropriate summary back onto the lead.
Feline Hymnic (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- Subtlety is nice, but I believe the passage in question adequately characterizes the whole text, as the purpose throughout both the primeval and ancestral history halves is to explain and interconnect the origins of the world and the Jewish people within it. Remsense诉 16:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)