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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 90 days

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.

Religion: Interfaith High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Christianity Top‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Judaism High‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ancient Near East Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Revert[edit]

I have reverted an edit which is thoroughly WP:FRINGE, i.e. pseudohistory. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's totally fine. Thanks for keeping up with these edits and reverting when necessary. Hist9600 (talk) 14:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agree, both geolocate to Adelaide, Australia. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Sea study and date of composition[edit]

I 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)[reply]

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 is currently 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)[reply]

Does the "myth" description need more subtlety?[edit]

In 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] 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.

[1]