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 |
Template:Vital article
![]() | 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 article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Is it okay to put an image at the top?Setabepiw3547747 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Seraphim System (talk · contribs) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Question - I know we include summaries for "fiction" books but I haven't seen the section of MOS that would permit a summary for a philosophy/religious text without citations, can you please point me towards the policy you relied on so I can review it? It also, after a preliminary read through, does seem that the summary is considerably too long relative to the length of the rest of the article. Thanks, Seraphim System (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The review has been open for a long time and I am not going to pass it this round because it is undergoing significant revision and also needs considerable work. As stated above the structure sections needs more detail, and the issue about documentary hypothesis and composition should be discussed on talk with other editors, and there should be a consensus for the changes.
Regarding the lede I would say this statement has some NPOV issues
Most of the sources I have looked at do not emphasize "Tradition" (which Tradition btw? The Tradition?) - even religious sources I am looking at like Baker distinguish between religious tradition and biblical scholarship - it is not "modern scholars increasingly see", it is an overwhelming academic consensus (at least as far as the books were not written by Moses). Baker's commentary, which is itself a Christian religious study source prepared by university affiliated academics, uses the language "Most scholars" if that is any help.
Regarding structure:
(The stories of Isaac do not make up a coherent cycle of stories and function as a bridge between the cycles of Abraham and Jacob)so consider looking at multiple sources to see if this view is a majority position.
Regarding the summary section:
Themes:
Scholars generally agree that the theme of divine promise unites the patriarchal cycles, but many would dispute the efficacy of trying to examine Genesis' theology by pursuing a single overarching theme, instead citing as more productive the analysis of the Abraham cycle, the Jacob cycle, and the Joseph cycle, and the Yahwist and Priestly sources.should be broken up into shorter sentences
The first covenant is between God and all living creatures, and is marked by the sign of the rainbow; the second is with the descendants of Abraham (Ishmaelites and others as well as Israelites), and its sign is circumcision; and the last, which doesn't appear until the book of Exodus, is with Israel alone, and its sign is Sabbath.- the distinctive "sign" are not clearly linked to the subheading
The patriarchs, or ancestors, are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, with their wives (Joseph is normally excluded).I think this is trying to be inclusive of women, but the sentence it has produced is confusing, and I'm not sure the wives themselves are included based on the majority of WP:RS
It is, however, worth noting that in the Jahwist source the patriarchs refer to deity by the name YHWH, for example in Genesis 15.)I am not sure that is worth noting in a parenthetical break in the themes section about "promises", and should probably be discussed in the composition section.
These are a few points to consider, but certainly not exhaustive. Seraphim System (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The matter of 'Origins' (subheading of 'Compositions') continues to contradict related articles (Jahwist, et al.). This issue was mentioned here over a year ago but doesn't seem to have been addressed since. I'm only pointing this out as a reminder to more experienced editors as the difference between articles is so obvious. RobotBoy66 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The article fails to explain specific points given from chapters due to the fact that the parts this is split into are way to large. If the parts are made smaller it would be greatly appreciated. Logawinner (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Know that Wiki isn't a scholarly site and we merely recount the views of others, but this page and the page of [[Josiah|Biblical King Josiah] do not match as to the origins of the Pentateuch and specifically the book of Genesis. On this page in the Origins section it states: "but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist is from either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century BC, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after." However, on the Josiah page it states in the Religeous reforms section: "While Hilkiah was clearing the treasure room of the Temple he discovered a scroll described as "the book of the Law" or as "the book of the law of Yahweh by the hand of Moses".
Regardless of what portion of the Bible was found, with the reference to the "Book of the Law", this period was around 623/622 (18th year of Josiah's reign). So "late in the Exilic period" (circa 520 BC) as this page states for the Yahwist writing and a recounting the reign during circa 622 BC as the Josiah page states are off by app 100 yrs. It might be a simple matter of subjugating the test that I copy to show this as a fringe viewpoint, but either way Wikipedia should probably agree with itself. Ckruschke (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke