Talk:Noah's Ark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Noah's Ark article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Noah's Ark.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.


Featured article star Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archives

Contents

[edit] Sections: Documentary Hypothesis, 20th century scholarship

I've made 2 sections out of the old Scholarship section. One is on the Documentary Hypothesis alone, because the Noah story is so central to the DH theory. I think this section is still too long, although I tried to shorten it. A new section on 20th century scholarship: it takes in post-documentary hypothesis ideas on the composition of the Torah and the Ark story (noting Noth and Wenham), and modern thinking on the theological meaning of the Ark. Not complete of course - nothing here about the Ark as an image of the universe, nor any detailed analysis of the Flood chronology (but that would belong in a separate article on the Flood alone, which doesn't exist). Please note in the article where you feel citations are needed, and note here any major additions, subtractions, and alterations you feel are needed. PiCo (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added material to this section which was in a previous edit of the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the sincerity of your edits and your beliefs, but we have to bear in mind that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to give readers an idea of what the mainstream ideas are for any given subject. It would not be appropriate, for example, to give prominence in the Aids article to the idea that Aids can be cured through diet - I understand this idea is put forward quite seriously by some very important people in South Africa, but it has no standing at all in medical circles. Similarly for your additions to the 20th century section of this article. You put forward some scholars who have argued in favour of the compositional unity of the Ark story, but the fact is that this idea has won no following in scholarly circles.PiCo (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put up with this kind of behaviour any more. I've had enough of you and others making up Wiki rules which simply don't exist, with the sole aim of preventing edits which you don't like. Firstly, the purpose of this encyclopedia is to present notable views.
Taiwanboi, please calm down, you are not being persecuted. Ok, you say the ppurpose of Wikidedia is to present notable views. So it is, and if you can somehow make a distinction between presenting mainstream views and notable views, please enlighten me, because I can't.
Please don't accuse me of claiming I'm being persecuted. I've said no such thing. I've objected to consistently bad behaviour in this article, especially yours, which has included appealing falsely to non-existent Wiki rules. If you don't understand the difference between mainstream views and notable views, then you shouldn't be editing this article. I refer you to WP:N. But as it happens, the compositional unity of the flood narrative has won a following in scholarly circles, notably with Wenham (whom you describe as 'an authority'), and is certainly mainstream even by your definition. You were the one who mentioned the fact that one of the new theories which has replaced the Documentary Hypothesis is the view that the flood narrative is 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document'. You even mentioned Wenham as supporting this theory. So there's no reason for me not to mention others who support this view and the 'fragmentary' view of Noth, and no reason for me not to include a citation of Wenham to this effect. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Secondly, when it comes to 'mainstream' scholarship you've devoted an entire paragraph to the Documentary Hypothesis, which even you acknowledge is not longer accepted by the consensus.
You haven't understood the structure of the article. It presents a historical overview of interpretations of the Ark, from the earliest Jewish interpreters, through the Christian ones, through the Islamic, all of these being essentially theological/religious in nature. Then the next major section shows the ways the Ark story was interpreted in the modern scientific world, from the 17th through the 19th century - the DH gets a whole paragraph because the Ark story was a showpiece for it, and because the DH itself was so important in the history of biblical scholarship. Then there's a subsection on the 20th century. The DH isn't the consensus, but it isn't dead, either - it still has plenty of followers, and so still gets a mention in the first paragraph, along with post-DH approaches. (The last part of the article, on literalism, is about a peculiarly American way of regarding the Ark narrative. It's far too long, and needs to be cut back to a single paragraph - I'll do that tomorrow).
I have understood the structure of the article, and I don't have a problem with it. Though even if I did, you've made it clear that no one else is allowed to change the structure because it was your idea, or something. You just didn't understand what I wrote. I pointed out that it's ironic for you to complain about undue emphasis on views which aren't accepted by the scholarly consensus, and then spend an entire paragraph on a view which isn't accepted by the scholarly consensus. A mention of the Hypothesis as part of the interpretative continuum of the flood narrative could have taken a single sentence (though I'm still happy with the size of the paragraph as it stands). Of course one wonders what this is even doing in here since the subject of the article is the Ark, not the flood narrative (as I have been told several times, ironically by you). The section on literalism certainly isn't too long, and it is actually on topic. It addresses specifically the Ark, and it is a good length given the fact that the issues it covers are the most significant and well discussed in contemporary culture. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thirdly, both Kitchen and Hoffmeier agree that the Genesis flood narrative is 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document', which is the view specifically mentioned in the paragraph as mainstream. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read either Kitchen or Hoffmeier.
Bully for them, but so what? Kitchen and Hoffmeier aren't the leading scholars in this field.
They don't have to be 'leading scholars in the field'. Their views are notable because they are notable commentators on this subject, and because the views they hold are notable within the academic community, being held by notable scholars other than them (including Wenham, to whom you refer as 'an authority'). You dismissed them because you mistakenly thought that their view wasn't held by any notable scholars, when in fact you were wrong (among others, it is held by Wenham, to whom you refer as 'an authority'). This is a typical example of you removing material because you were completely mistaken about it, you simply didn't know the facts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Fourthly, Wenham himself argues that doublets and apparent contradictions in the flood narrative are simply typical Hebrew literary forms, and do not necessarily indicate separate sources, just as Kitchen and Hoffmeier argue. Both Kitchen and Hoffmeier agree with Wenham's view that 'Genesis 6-9 forms one complete literary unit that cannot be divided into different sources without disruption of the structural integrity of this account' (Wenham cited by Shea, Origins 6 (1):8-29, 1979).
And bully for Wenham (whom, incidentally, I deeply respect). But Wenham is being mentioned here for his contribution to the analysis of the chiasm in the ark story. You seem to be obsessed with the composition of the narrative to the exclusion of all else. There's more to the bible than the way it was put together.
And I'm including Wenham for his contribution to the structure of the narrative, especially since his analysis of the chiasm is central to that thesis. It's interesting that when you want to include some of his views it's ok, but when I want to I'm 'obsessed'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Fifthly, you have no reason to omit the references to Cassuto et al.
I took out Cassuto because his ideas on the composition of the Torah haven't become mainstream. He's a great scholar, but like every scholar, not every word he wrote has become accepted.
Again you are not reading what I write. I didn't include any of Cassuto's ideas on the composition of the Torah, I included his views on the literary unity of the flood narrative, a view which is not unique to him and is accepted by a wide range of scholars, including Wenham (whom you refer to as 'an authority'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The issue here is that you don't know what Kitchen's view is, because you haven't read Kitchen. You don't know what Hoffmeier's view is, because you haven't read Hoffmeier. You don't know what Cassuto's view is, because you haven't read Cassuto. I've read all three. So I was aware that Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Cassuto are all in agreement with Wenham's central thesis (literary unity, one primary text, later edits but not separate sources), and that Wenham himself argues that doublets and apparent contradictions are actually better explained by standard Hebrew literary forms than by separate sources (the very argument of Kitchen and Hoffmeier which you deleted).
That's not quite true. But I repeat: you need to get over your obsession with questions of composition. The section has three paragrpahs, each dealing with a separate topic - composition, Wenham's chiasm, and the relationship of the narrative to Babylonian mythology and the meaning of this for the intentions of the original authors. We can't keep dragging in composition at every turn just because you have a bee in your bonnet.
It's completely untrue. I knew that Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Cassuto are all in agreement with Wenham's central thesis, you weren't. You didn't even know what Wenham's central thesis is. You were so ignorant of Wenham's thesis that you weren't aware that Wenham's chiasm is the central argument of his overall thesis of literary unity. It's actually about composition. I added material on composition, to the paragraph on composition. You have given no rational reason for keeping this material out of the article. Why should this material (on composition), be kept out of the section which is actually about, wait for it, composition? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This is why I'm in a much better situation to edit this section than you are (and indeed than pretty much everyone who has tried their hand at this article). It is absurd that random people can make edits simply on the basis of what they think the text should say, without having actually read the relevant scholarly literature themselves (as I have). I will revert your edits until you have demonstrated a firsthand knowledge of the subject which is at least comparable to my own. You simply don't have the experience or knowledge to be editing this article as if you were an authority on the subject. Remember when you tried to exclude half a dozen academic references on the basis that they were insufficiently authoritative, and on the false argument that the Tessarakonteres couldn't be referred to unless blueprints could be presented? Absurd.
Please try to remain civil - Wikipedia is a community, we all share what we have to offer, and we all assume good faith. As for your knowledge of the scholarly literaqture, I can see you've read it, but are you sure you've understood it?PiCo (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a community in which people who are more informed on a given topic (that's me), have more weight than those who aren't (that's you). It's difficult to assume good faith when people invent Wiki rules which don't exist, as you've done. And yes, I do understand the scholarly literature. That's why I knew the view which Kitchen and Hoffmeier hold (which you wanted removed from the article), is the same view that Wenham holds (Wenham, whom you identify as 'an authority'). You weren't aware of that.
Finally it's highly ironic for you to be reverting my edits on the basis that I don't own the article, when you feel free to dictate to others the structure of the article, the length of each section, and the content of every paragraph. You have given no rational reason for your revert, you have once again deliberately removed relevant academic sources and commentary from the article, and you are once more attempting to dictate article content. All this from someone who isn't even qualified to edit the scholarly content of this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that in my latest edit (as in my previous edit), I have retained this sentence at the end of the paragraph on structure:

'Nevertheless, there is general agreement that two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story, which, though as yet still unprovenanced as such, continue to be called the Yahwist and the Priestly.'

This ensures that the views of Wenham, Kitchen, Hoffmeier, Cassuto, et al are not given undue weight. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, at present you make edits to the article without consulting anyone, but you insist that no one else is permitted to do this. Then when people add to your edits with their own material (add to mind you, not removing your edits completely), you accuse them of acting as if they own the article, and remove what they've added (ironic indeed). You insist that others obtain 'consensus', but make your own edits without even attempting to obtain consensus. The only person who has objected to my last edit is you, and you reverted it without even giving a reason. I've already demonstrated that your initial objections were completely unfounded, based as they were on a lack of knowledge both of the topic itself and the relevant scholarly literature. If you have a valid reason for removing the material I am adding, then let's see it here please. Remember, you've already made several mistakes in your claims regarding the relevant scholarly literature, because you haven't actually read it whereas I have. I see no reason to permit this article to be dominated by someone who admits that their 'interest in the OT is fairly minimal', who does not read regularly the current scholarly literature (if at all), who habitually includes material without citations (or with inadequate citations), and who insists that their views of the article's structure and content take precedence over other people's. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the thread a little lower on this page, I do indeed seek consensus for changes. As for your changes to the 20th century section, I'd let them pass without comment if I agreed with them, but the whole point is that I don't. I'll explain again:n The section has 3 paragraphs, each dealing with a distinct topic. The first deals with the composition of the ark narrative, the second with the chiasm that Wenham found in it, and the third with the links with Babylonian myth. The material you want to add is exclusively to the effect that the narrative might have had a single author. That's an aspect of composition, and if it belongs anywhere it would go in the first paragraph. Yet you try to add it in all over the place. But even if you put it into the right paragraph I still wouldn't like it. Why? Because it isn't a notable view. The overwhelming view among scholars is that the Ark story does indeed contain distinct strands, Jahwist and Priestly. There's disagreement over whether they represent distinct documents or distinct redactional layers, but not that they exist. That's my reason. Your comments are of course welcome, but try to remain civil, and don't put your material back in until you have agreement.PiCo (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
As I've pointed out, you don't always seek consensus for changes. You make changes before even seeking consensus, though you claim others are not permitted to do so. You make changes and then revert other people's edits of them. You even tell people how the article is going to be structured, how large each section is going to be, and what material they have to include. What you've just admitted is that you removed my edits because you don't agree with them. Not only that, but you haven't understood them or even read them properly. The information I am inserting does not claim that the narrative had a single author (there's a difference between 'a single literary unit' and 'a single author'), and is specifically identified as the theory that the Ark narrative 'is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document'. And I haven't tried to insert them 'all over the place'. If you had even read my latest edits (instead of simply reverting them), then you would have seen that I placed this information in the 'composition' section, nowhere else. So you're not even reading my edits, you're just reverting them on the basis of personal bias.
This aside, the view that 'is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' is a notable view, and you even include it in the opening of the paragraph as a notable view:

'...newer theories propose instead that Genesis was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents, or that it is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document.'

How can you deny that it's a notable view, when you've included it in the opening paragraph as a notable view? You're not even reading what you wrote, let alone what I wrote. And what possible justification do you have for removing a scholarly citation I included which supported one of your own statements, namely this:

'The documentary hypothesis still has many adherents in academic circles, but can no longer be called a consensus view.'[1]

The citation I added from Thompson L Thompson (a Minimalist, the kind of source you typically view as authoritative), substantiates your statement that the Documentary Hypothesis 'can no longer be called a consensus view'. You didn't provide a reference for your statement, I added one (from a scholarly source). Incredibly, you promptly removed a perfectly valid edit which actually substantiated your statement with a reliable source.
Once again it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are not reading what I write, and you don't actually understand the topic under discussion. This is why you shouldn't be editing this section, you're just not qualified. I'm having to spend half my time correcting your mistakes, amplifying your comments to a useful degree, and providing scholarly citations supporting your edits, citations which you promptly remove. Ironically, your edits have also removed a section of the paragraph which I did not write, and which I am quite glad to see gone. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Your additions amount to special pleading for the idea that the Ark narrative might be a single story recording a real flood. This is simply not a notable view - no respectable modern scholar holds it. Nor is is it true that I don't allow others to edit this article - when I put the new paragraph on 20th century views up I gave an explanation on this page and invited the collaboration of other editors, and Til Eulenspeigel made some changes, and I accepted them - jis edits are still there. I accepted his edits because I thought they were good ones. I'll be happy to accpet any edits of yours that I think are good, but at the moment you're simply pushing a personal agenda.PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is complete nonsense. You've ignored everything I wrote, especially the parts where I demonstrated that you've completely misunderstood the arguments under discussion. As I said 'a literary unit' does not necessarily mean 'a single author', the sources I cited do not argue for 'a single author'. Acknowledging that 'newer theories propose instead that Genesis was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents, or that it is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' is not 'special pleading for the idea that the Ark narrative might be a single story recording a real flood', and it is not 'pushing a personal agenda'. You were already perfectly happy with the acknowledgment that the Ark narrative may be 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements', but as soon as I provided scholarly citations for this view, you removed them. Why? I have not included anything other than references to scholars holding this view. Wenham holds it, and you referred to Wenham as 'an authority', citing him in the relevant section. Kitchen holds it, and he is a respectable modern scholar, likewise Hoffmeier, Shea, Millard, and a number of others which I could cite. This is certainly a 'notable view', and I can bury you in citations from the scholarly journals I read (which you don't), to demonstrate this.
I never said you don't let others edit this article. Nor did I say you never seek consensus. I said that you edit without seeking consensus, and that you tell other people they are not allowed to edit without seeking consensus. Please stop putting words in my mouth. By the way, you still haven't explained why you removed the Thompson L Thompson reference I included which actually supported one of your statements. Why did you do that? --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's another chance to explain yourself and keep things simple:

  • Is it a notable view that the Genesis flood narrative 'was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents'?
  • Is it a notable view that the Genesis flood narrative 'is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document'?
  • Is Wenham 'an authority'?
  • Why did you remove the Thompson L Thompson citation, when it substantiated your unreferenced statement?

I'll give you this opportunity to explain yourself. Please do so. --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, I'm still waiting for your answers on the first three of these questions --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using edit summaries to attack editors

I've noticed that an editor has written in an edit summary 'rv censorship'. This is an attack on an editor clearly, and a breach of WP:CIVIL. And in Wikipedia terms, rv censorship means replacing text about explicit sex, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you just use the talk page DouglasAndycjp (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out potential breaches of WP:CIVIL is not an attack. It should be viewed as a request to bide by the guidelines.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-write of the Literalism section

I would like to propose to editors a re-write of the existing Literalism section. The only reason that we have this section at all is because it represents a significant popular belief in the US. The actual arguments that go with that belief are totally outside the mainstream of scientific or scholarly discourse, and we really shouldn't be reflecting them in a supposedly scholarly article. So here's my proposed new version for discussion:

"According to a telephone poll conducted by ABCNEWS/Primetime in 2004, 60% of US residents believe the story of Noah's Ark is literally true.[insert ref from article]. Literalist websites carry detailed but inconclusive discussions of such matters as the seaworthiness of the Ark and the arrangements Noah might have made for the care of the animals - essentially the same concerns as animated medieval rabbis and Christian scholars. Despite the fact that the idea of a world-wide flood, and of a literal Ark, has been dismissed by scientists and biblical scholars alike since the 19th century, Ark-believers continue to explore the mountains of Ararat on the modern Turkish-Armenian border for the remains of Noah's Ark."

PiCo (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have said repeatedly, the entire 'Literalism' section needs a rewrite because it contains a collection of beliefs which are both 'literalist' and 'non-literalist'. It really just needs the title 'Literalism' to be changed, as I have also said repeatedly. The beliefs in the current 'Literalism' section reflect a very broad crossection of Christian and non-Christian beliefs, which are certianly not confined to the US. That is exactly why the should stay there, but under a different title and with a distinction made between literalist and non-literalist beliefs. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is my proposed edit of this section.

  • The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation
The Genesis Ark narrative continues to hold a significant place within the Christian community, though there exists a broad spectrum of interpretations of the narrative (from literal to allegorical), as with the Genesis creation account.
    • Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations
Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists tend to trust in traditions regarding the composition of the Bible and generally accept the traditional belief that the Ark narrative was written by Moses some time between the 16th century BC and late 13th century BC and describes a real event which took place in the 4th or 3rd millennium before Christ. Biblical literalists explain apparent contradiction in the Ark narrative as the result of the stylistic conventions adopted by an ancient text: thus the confusion over whether Noah took seven pairs or only one pair of each clean animal into the Ark is explained as resulting from the author (Moses) first introducing the subject in general terms—seven pairs of clean animals—and then later, with much repetition, specifying that these animals entered the Ark in twos. Literalists see nothing puzzling in the reference to a raven flying over the Flood for two weeks—it could have rested on carrion floating on the waters—nor do they see any sign of alternative endings.
    • Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations
Non-Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians typically view the Ark and flood narrative very differently to Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists. As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity. This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative. Doublets and apparent contradictions in the text are typically explained by non-Fundamentalist Christians as the product of standard Hebrew literary forms, whilst the sending of the raven and dove is understood as a historical reference to authentic ancient nautical practice. More liberal Christians such as the Universalist Church see the Ark narrative as essentially allegorical and non-historical.
    • Historicity
Apart from questions of date, authorship, and textual integrity, a number of subjects concerning the historicity of the Ark narrative are typically debated among Christians and skeptics. The following section sets out some of the more commonly discussed topics:
      • Gopher wood: Gen 6:14 states that Noah built the Ark of גפר (gofer, more commonly gopher) wood, a word not otherwise known in the Bible or in Hebrew. The Jewish Encyclopedia believes it was most likely a translation of the Babylonian "gushure iş erini" (cedar-beams), or the Assyrian "giparu" (reed). The Greek Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BC) translated it as ξύλων τετραγώνων ("xylon tetragonon"), "squared timber". Similarly, the Latin Vulgate (5th century AD) rendered it as "lignis levigatis", or "smoothed (possibly planed) wood". Older English translations, including the King James Version (17th century), simply leave it untranslated. Many modern translations tend to favour cypress (although the word for "cypress" in Biblical Hebrew is erez), on the basis of a mistaken etymology based on phonetic similarities, while others favour pine or cedar. Recent suggestions have included a lamination process, or a now-lost type of tree, or a mistaken transcription of the word kopher (pitch), but there is no consensus.
      • Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these [i.e. modern timber-hulled] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships".In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, [2] including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'.[3][4][5] In this regard, some literalist apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels[6][7]: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed[8][9], and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river[10]. Non-Fundamentalist apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.[11]
      • Practicality: Could the Ark have been contructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative?[12][13]Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible?[14] Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft),
      • Capacity and logistics: According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists, the Ark would have had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between Biblical literalists and their opponents. While some Biblical literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many questions associated with a Biblical literalist interpretation include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, how the creatures could have been prevented from preying on each other, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, how they traveled (or were gathered) from all over the world to board the Ark and how they could have returned to their far-flung habitats across the Earth's bare, flood-devastated terrain, and how two or a few members of a species could have provided enough genetic variety to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. The numerous Biblical literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.
    • The search for Noah's Ark
Biblical literalists feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution. "If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could ever be of greater antiquity or importance.... [with] tremendous potential impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution) controversy". Non-Fundamentalist Christians typically believe the discovery of the Ark is unimportant to the historicity of the Genesis flood narrative, and that the Ark cannot be found as it would have long since been destroyed by weather or recycled for other projects. Searches have concentrated on Mount Ararat in Turkey itself, although Genesis actually refers only to the mountains of Ararat.The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s and 1990s; In early 2004 a Honolulu businessman traveled to Washington DC to “announce with great fanfare” a planned expedition to investigate a site he called the Ararat anomaly but National Geographic later concluded it may have been an ineffective stunt to “persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit” that “few expeditions have actually obtained.” and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran. In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition team found what is thought to be fossilized wood in a cave on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A sample of the "wood" was analyzed by the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Hong Kong but the results were inconclusive. The origin of the out-crop remains unknown, but the group suggests that it is part of Noah's Ark.Photos of geologic thin-sections of the "wood" have been examined by several creationary geologists who concur that this is likely volcanic tuff. It has been suggested that the finding is a ploy to increase tourism in the area. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for what is certainly a serious contribution to the debate. I've taken the liberty of removing the section-breaks, as they made it impossible to navigate your text.
You've made some valuable suggestions, but my basic concern remains: the section is simply too long for the importance of this particular aspect of the subject. Fundamentalist/literalist ideas on the Ark certainly need to be mentioned, but really all that needs saying is that a large segment of the American population, and a far smaller segment in other Western countries, hold such views. We don't need to cover in detail the arguments that literalists put forward - they're rejected by both science (there never was a biblical flood, and therefore never was an Ark), nor by mainstream biblical scholars. We should also mention the fact that searches are being made around Mt Ararat, but not with details - there's a whole article on just that subject. (For that matter, there's a whole article on gopher wood, and the same point applies - we don't need to repeat material when a simple link will carry the reader to a full treatment of the subject; incidentally, where's the article on the Genesis Flood?).PiCo (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense. At least two thirds of the article treat the historical interpretation of the Ark narrative in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Biblical scholarship, yet you want to throw out any mention of current Christian interpretations except for a passing mention of the Fundamentalist view and nothing else? We can redirect the 'gopher wood' section (with a short introduction), and the 'search for Noah's Ark' section (with a short introduction), but the others need to stand. The arguments in this section are not simply those of 'the literalists', as I have already pointed out. Not only that, but they are notable and mainstream views in current Christian interpretation, and they receive a very wide airing in secular literature also. That there was a Biblical flood is certainly not rejected by science, as you surely must know. There are plenty of secular readings of the flood narrative attributing it to a historic memory of either a Black Sea flood, a Caspian Sea flood, the Tigris-Euphrates refill deluge, or else one of the many Mesopotamian mega-floods in the region. I don't agree with the literalist readings either, but I don't insist that they should be removed from this article. They shouldn't. But that aside, saying we don't need to cover the arguments literalists put forward because they are 'rejected by science' is like saying we don't have to include Christian arguments in Wikipedia concerning the historicity of the Bible or the resurrection, or any mention of miracles in Wikipedia because they are 'rejected by science'. There's a massive article on Resurrection in Wikipedia, despite the fact that it is 'rejected by science'. Are you going to delete that article as well? What are you going to do about all the articles recording religious beliefs? Just start deleting them because they are 'rejected by science'?
Once more you are demonstrating you do not understand what constitutes encyclopedic content, and once more you are demonstrating you do not understand WP:N. Once more, you are also demonstrating that you really want most of the information in this section thrown out because you personally do not believe in the Biblical flood or Noah's Ark, because you personally believe that it has all been 'disproved by science'. This is transparently self-motivated editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not prposing the wholesale deletion of all the content about Creationist views of the ark, just cutting it back to a realistic size. All we need to do is to note that literalism is important in the US (it's very much a US thing), and make some mention of what literalists believe and why, including internal links to articles like gopher wood and the searches for the ark. All the things you mention as deserving whole paragraphs - seaworthiness, capacity and so on - are really just apologetics from the literalist point of view, attempts to "prove" that the ark could be true. OEC is a literalist belief-system, by the way.PiCo (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
As I have already explained, there is plenty of material in there which is not 'literalist', including the views of Christians who don't even believe in the historicity of the Ark or the flood. The section has been retitled and edited so that it is not simply about literalism, and every view described in the section as I edited it is more than notable. You are supplying no good reasons for throwing this material out. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
PiCo, please visit WP:N. Then come back and explain why you want to throw out everything in my proposed edit except for a passing reference to 'literalism is important in the US' and 'make some mention of what literalists believe and why'. To date you have not given any explanation for this. You have also wrongly dismissed this entire section as consisting of nothing other than the views of Biblical literalists, which is completely untrue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Poll on proposed edit

I am proposing two edits of the section entitled 'Biblical scholarship and the Ark in the 20th century'. I would like to clarify that these edits relate only to the first part of the first paragraph, and that the second part of the paragraph (and the other two paragraphs), are left as they are.

So this would remain:

There is general agreement that two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story, which, though unprovenanced, continue to be called the Yahwist and the Priestly. Disagreement continues as to which passages in the flood narrative belong to each strand.

Please read the following and express your view below.

  • First edit

This edit adds a reference to a currently unreferenced statement at the start of the paragraph (edit this page to see the reference):

'The documentary hypothesis still has many adherents in academic circles, but can no longer be called a consensus view.[15]

Express your view here:

  • Yes. The statement concerning the loss of academic support for the Documentary Hypothesis was unreferenced, and the reference substantiates it from a reliable source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes Problems with the documentary hypothesis need stating.Andycjp (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No. We already have an article on the documentary hypothesis and there's no need to rehash here the arguments in that place, even in a footnote. The paragraph as a whole certainly needs to be referenced, but it should be possible to find a single authoritative tertiary source - the Anchor Bible Dictionary, for example - so that this article doesn't become over-laden with footnotes. PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. It is important to include an objective, academic critique of the documentary hypothesis.Sporkboy (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Note: talk is an account created today, 2 June, without a user page, talkj page, or contributions history. On this evidence, Sporkboy shows every sign of being a sockpuppet. PiCo (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC) PiCo, if you had bothered to look around, you would have found that this account was created near the start of this year, and my first contribution was in February 2008. You can view my contributions history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sporkboy, and if you can get hold of my IP number you will see that I live in the UK (unlike taiwanboi, whom I assume is a resident of Taiwan). I am definitely not a sock puppet, and resent the accusation.Sporkboy (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I notice that there is a whole section presenting a summary background to the DH. Perhaps DH readings should be presented in such a way as not to invoke the theory in more detail than its name. This would obviate the felt need to explain the absence of the DH in the contemporary views section. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Useful edit. --82.36.131.223 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to sign in: --Woofboy (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
  • No I find myself in agreement with PiCo. This article has tended to become a coatrack one at times, and a lot of the problematic material needs to be cut. Unless it directly relates to the Noah's Ark story, it should go to more appropriate articles, whether they be Documentary hypothesis, Biblical criticism, Genesis, etc. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No as per Sχeptomaniac, we need to keep the focus on the Noarh's Ark story. Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The last no votes above (and below) appear to be arguments for the removal of the DH section and an assertion of bad faith. They make no comment about the proposed edits' actual contribution to understanding of the biblical story, except hypothetically—"Unless it directly relates"—or by asserting other things that it refers to. As the proposed edits do relate directly to "the flood narrative as a literary unit" (precluded by the classical DH), the no votes are inexplicable. Please explain. Alastair Haines (talk) 11:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    • How about asking for an explanation before accusing editors of bad faith? At the moment, about 1/6th of the article is about the Documentary hypothesis, discussing technical details such as palistrophes, etc. I'm not at all convinced that help the article proportionately, and would like to see one section, not two. I agree that the Documentary hypothesis is not the scholarly consensus today, and we probably need to be explicit about that, but we do not need all this detail, the detail should go in what is a technical article, Documentary hypothesis. I like the abstract of a recent article by Anselm C. Hagedorn, "Since the latter half of the twentieth century the literary origin of the Pentateuch and its sources have been re-evaluated. As a result the validity of the long-standing classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis has been called into question. Recently several new theories of the literary formation of the Books of Genesis-Deuteronomy (Joshua) have emerged that maintain the existence of a priestly source but view the other material as much more fragmented in character than proponents of the classic hypothesis were willing to do. A closer look at the text itself suggests that a combination of documentary, fragment and supplementary hypothesis is probably the best way to explain the long and complicated literary history of the Pentateuch."[1]
    • I think we just need one section, probably shorter than either of the existing sections, not giving the history of the DH, not trying to resolve the disputes, just a comment on the current situation and how it relates to the Ark story. This comment applies to the 2nd edit also, which I find over-complicated for this article. Doug Weller (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly. There was no bad faith involved, as WP:COAT merely helps explain what the issue is. The documentary hypothesis information doesn't necessarily need to be cut completely, but it does need to be cut back quite a bit. I believe we should give just enough information to give a very basic understanding of the greater issues, so that those wishing to learn more can use the links to go to the appropriate articles. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Second edit

This edit adds a number of references to currently unreferenced statements later in the paragraph (edit this page to see the references), as well as explaining an area of common agreement between the two views described:

'Newer theories propose instead that Genesis was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents (a view represented by Martin Noth and RN Whybray),[16][17]or that it is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document (a view represented by Gordon Wenham, William Shea, Kenneth Kitchen, and James Hoffmeier). Proponents of these two views do however share some common ground in their rejection of the classical Documentary Hypothesis. Among scholars of the 'fragmentary' view RN Whybray held that repetition and differences in nomenclature are best explained by stylistic conventions[18]. Among scholars of the 'supplementary' view, John Van Seters views only doublets as indicative of different sources[19], Wenham argues that doublets and apparent contradictions are actually better explained by standard Hebrew literary forms than by separate sources.[20] and Kitchen argues that doublets and apparent contradictions of the Genesis flood narrative are in fact standard features of analogous Ancient Near East texts, rather than indicative of multiple authors.[21] Hoffmeier notes that increasing understanding of Ancient Near East literary forms has resulted in the realization that the flood narrative is a literary unit.'[22]

Express your view here:

  • Yes. The edit provides the name of two notable scholars who support the 'host of fragments rather than from complete documents' view, and provides a relevant reference substantiating this from reliable sources. The edit also provides the names of several notable scholars who support the alternative 'result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' view, and provides relevant references substantiating this from reliable sources. It also explains an area of common agreement between the two views, and provides relevant references substantiating this from reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes Honest debateAndycjp (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No. The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person. The current consensus among biblical scholars is exactly the opposite. Nor are the scholars cited here notable on this question - their arguments have not been adopted by the profession. Let's use footnotes to show where we get information from, not to make special cases for personal favourites. PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes. The edit improves the quality and neutrality of the article by introducing valid material from recognised scholars and clarifying this aspect of the debate for less academic readers.Sporkboy (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Note: talk is an account created today, 2 June, without a user page, talkj page, or contributions history. On this evidence, Sporkboy shows every sign of being a sockpuppet. PiCo (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2008 Again: this account was created near the start of this year, and my first contribution was in February 2008. You can view my contributions history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sporkboy, and if you can get hold of my IP number you will see that I live in the UK (unlike taiwanboi, whom I assume is a resident of Taiwan). I am definitely not a sock puppet, and resent the accusation.Sporkboy (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can see no suggestion of a single author view in the paragraph. Single original document, yes, single author no. I can also see no suggestion of final form reflecting an unmodified original either. I do however see comments that suggest apparant contradictions are explained by Hebrew itself or by conventions in ANE literary forms. Perhaps it may be helpful to note that the final quote says "literary unit" not "textual unit". That sounds very contemporary to me — literary analysis is the dominant contemporary approach. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Interesting additional info in the edit. --82.36.131.223 (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot to sign in: --Woofboy (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
  • No The paragraph is about Genesis and the Documentary hypothesis, not Noah's ark, so it is not appropriate here. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No Again as per Sχeptomaniac Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on poll

PiCo, and ragesoss, please read what is written. With regard to the first edit, the footnote does not rehash the arguments concerning the Documentary Hypothesis. It simply substantiates the statement that the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer supported by the consensus. With regard to the second edit, neither the fragmentary nor the supplementary hypothesis argue that the Ark narrative was written by one person. They both argue the complete opposite. If you don't understand this, even after it has been explained to you more than once, then you shouldn't be voting. The two positions represented here (the fragmentary and supplementary hypothesis), are both notable. Likewise the view that doublets etc are the product of style and literary forms is held by notable scholars on this topic (Wenham, Van Seters and Whybray), even though they may hold opposite views of composition. There is no POV being introduced here, still less one by stealth. This view has been adopted by a wide range of scholars within the profession, including those who don't even believe in the essential historicity of the narrative (Van Seters, Whybray). Vote 'No' by all means, but please do so on an objective basis. ragesoss, your edit doesn't even explain why you want the Thompson reference removed. His comment is an authoritative overview, as you require.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that previously PiCo was entirely happy to cite Wenham, praising him as 'an authority', but now he realises that Wenham's case is different to what he thought it was, suddenly Wenham is dismissed as not notable. If you don't believe that Noth and Wenham are sufficiently notable to have their views referred to in this article, then why did you specifically include them yourself in this very section? --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ragesoss, the proposed edit makes it totally clear that both the fragmentary and supplementary views are 'widely accepted'. Neither is marginal. The very fact that the views on doublets are held by a wide range of notable scholars (Whybray, Wenham, Van Seters, etc), including those who don't even believe in the historicity of the narrative (Whybray, Van Seters), is demonstrative of the fact that it is not a 'marginal' view. There is no mere name dropping here, as links are given to each of these scholars so the reader can assess the significance of their views. Of the sources, I don't think any are anonymous or fail WP:RS:

  • A peer reviewed collection of scholarly articles: McKenzie, Steven L and Graham, Matt Patrick (editors), 'The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth', JSOT 182, Sheffield (1994)
  • A publication by a notable scholar on the subject: Whybray, RN, 'The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study', JSOT Press, Sheffield, (1987)
  • An article by a notable scholar on the subject, in a peer reviewed journal: Wenham, Gordon, 'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22.1, page 7 (October 1996)
  • Course material written by the Associate Professor of Religion at Butler University, Indianapolis: James F MacGrath, 'Introduction To The Torah'
  • An article by a notable scholar: Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971 (sure it's a student journal, but he's a notable scholar)
  • A publication by a notable scholar which cites a developing consensus: Hoffmeier, James, 'Ancient Israel In Sinai: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Wilderness Tradition', Oxford University Press, 2005, page 14

I see you've now withdrawn from this discussion anyway. Thanks for your contributions all the same. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Might I say that we don't vote on WP. See WP:DEMOCRACY. RC-0722 361.0/1 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What we do is we seek the views of the editors. I choose to call that voting. You can call it polling if you wish. But there's only one way to seek the views of the editors, and that's to invite them specifically to comment. In this case there's a deadlock as a result of two editors having one view and one editor having another view. I have chosen to integrate the work of PiCo into my edit, whereas PiCo wants to keep his entire work without any of my edits at all. Holding this poll presents my proposed edits to the other editors, along with an explanation for my edits, so that they can contribute their views. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:! RC-0722 361.0/1 13:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:VINE! If you haven't already noticed, there has been plenty of discussion already. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Might I point out that that is an essay. Good day. (blip) RC-0722 361.0/1 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Our user with the complicated tag is quite right: this article is indeed an essay. I wrote it that way. PiCo (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. And he completely missed the fact that there has already been two days of discussion. Why don't people read before typing? By the way, are you claiming that you wrote WP:VINE? If so, the irony is acute. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
What does WP:WINE have anything to do with this? RC-0722 361.0/1 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
It was supposed to be WP:VINE. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alistair, thanks for your comment. You are reading the edit exactly as it is intended to be read. As you note it says nothing about a single author, or a single unedited final document (the context says the exact opposite). And yes, it is very important that the last comment says 'literary unit' not 'textual unit'. This has been pointed out to PiCo before, but it's useful for him to hear someone else say it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, nice try. If you think that Sporkboy is a sockpuppet of mine you're very far wrong. He isn't. I don't use sockpuppets. I'll add that to the list of bad faith comments you've made. I was hoping for established Wikipedians rather than lurkers suddenly turned users, or drive by commentators, but what I really care about is whether or not he understands the issues at hand. There are plenty of ways for Wikipedia to assess whether or not users are sockpuppets, and I'm sure you know the relevant people to ask, so if you want to waste your time go ahead and be a detective. Your time would be better spent reading WP:N. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I never thought for a moment that Sporkboy was a sockpuppet of yours - believe it or not, I have a high opinion of your personal integrity. I also respect your knowledge of scholarly sources. It's your ability to construct a well-made piece of prose that I have problems with. PiCo (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that (except for the last part). Exactly whose sockpuppet do you think he is then? Alistair's? Andycjp's? Yours? We're the only four who have voted. By the way, for future reference I construct excellent prose. It's a gift. ^_^ --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
No idea. But the lack of any history suggests sockpuppetry.
PiCo, what's this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sporkboy - if not a history? You might also be interested in the contributions under my original account (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Teutonic_Knight) which I abandoned after changing ISPs and losing the email address to which it was connected. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since November 2004. Sporkboy (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well your sockpuppet comment doesn't make sense if you didn't view this user as a sockpuppet of one of the four people who have already cast their vote. Sure, it looks like a sockpuppet, and as I said there are plenty of ways of determining whether or not it's a sockpuppet if you really care. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't let my comments about your abilities with English prose upset you.
It's ok, they don't since I know they're wrong. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion: Let's use Alastair's comments as a way forward. I respect Alastair, and is he says I/m wrong (and that's essentially what he's saying), then I'll reconsider my position. It's late now so I'll get back to you tomorrow. PiCo (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh I'm all for using his comments as a way forward, especially given that he understood the natural reading of the edit to mean exactly what I intended it to mean. And not a single comment has been yet made which actually points out why either of my suggested edits are wrong. You've erred very badly here, first in totally misreading the sources I quoted (including Wenham, which is ironic since you referred to him previously as 'an authority'), secondly by not understanding the scholarly consensus, and thirdly by posting an objection to my second edit which consists only of an accusation in bad faith. The lessons you should learn from this are 'Read carefully', 'Don't make gratuitous edits concerning subjects on which you're not well read or well informed', and 'Don't enter into a discussion with someone who knows a great deal more about the subject than you do'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Ways forward are often two-edged swords.
Those perceived to be truly great are those who are gracious in victory.
I'd like to add something here. I'm humbled by PiCo's kind words. I respect (and like) PiCo a great deal.
The nice thing about Wiki is that it doesn't matter too much whether we are right or wrong as editors, there are lots of people (especially future readers) who can sort things out when we are wrong.
I like to think it matters much, much more that we grow accustomed to enjoying improving articles as a co-operative activity. Editing Wiki, for my personality, is much more challenging and enjoyable than many things in life.
I think Taiwan boi's edit was brilliant and inspires respect. I think PiCo's concession was gracious and inspires respect. Gloating is something I enjoy very much, but only when playing games with friends who themselves enjoy giving me such pleasure. Given the superfluity of IQ points among editors at this page, I'm confident my elliptic comment will be interpreted as intended. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, I very much appreciate your involvement and comments. I know you think I'm being insufficiently gracious, but I've been obstructed, opposed, accused of bad faith, and generally mucked around by PiCo for months in this article.
He has made edits to the article however he pleased without seeking anyone else's input first (despite the fact that the Talk page is headed 'This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them'), yet he has reverted edits by other people who have done the same, he has repeatedly inserted material without citations (despite the fact that the Talk page is headed 'Make sure to supply full citations when adding information'), yet he has removed valid citations from reliable sources when they have been added to his material. He has objected to (and reverted), edits by other authors simply on the grounds that they do not conform with his views on how the article should be structured (instead of reaching a compromise).
He repeatedly blocked the insertion of references to the Thalamegos and Hatshepsut's obelisk barge, claiming 'They are not documented to a standard acceptable for inclusion in this article - blueprints only please', despite the fact that I had documented the vessels with four reliable sources (including one authority). I pointed out that 'I have cited academic works which all meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and verifiability', yet he continued to block the inclusion of the material, on spurious grounds which he had simply invented specifically to exclude the material from the article because he didn't want it there. This was an arbitrary standard of his own making (insisting on blueprints for ancient vessels before they could be considered sufficiently documented!), which is not in agreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources and not required by standard historians as evidence of historicity.
I have also been accused by PiCo of attempting to smuggle in my personal POV on a number of occasions, even when the edits I made had nothing to do with my personal POV, or when the POV he attributed to me was one I simply don't believe (he has continued to claim I support a 'single author, single text' view of the flood narrative, when in fact I have made it clear more than once that I hold to the 'supplementary' model).
He has repeatedly misread, misconstrued, or demonstrated complete ignorance of, a wide range of academic sources. Take his complete misreading of my second proposed edit for example. He was claiming (against all the facts), that I was trying to use these scholars to smuggle in a POV which is actually explicitly contradicted by each one of them. You yourself identified his misunderstanding. He hasn't read their works, so he has little to no idea what they actually wrote. I always provide overwhelming support from reliable sources for my edits, and yet he has challenged a number of them repeatedly with the claim that the sources I cite are not reliable or insufficiently notable. In doing so he has simply made things up. On one occasion he appealed to Wenham in support of his own edit, describing Wenham as 'an authority', yet when I cited Wenham in a proposed edit, suddenly he told me that Wenham was not a notable scholar. From 'authority' to 'not a notable scholar' in just a couple of days. Remarkable. Similarly, he claimed that John Van Seters, Whybray, Wenham and Cassuto were not notable scholars on the subject at hand, despite the fact that they are viewed as such in all the relevant scholarly literature (see J Emerton's articles 'An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis' in Vetus Testamentum, volumes 37-38:1988, for example).
So with all this history (and believe me there's more, namely his similar conduct in other articles I edit), you may be able to understand that my opinion of PiCo is not exactly glowing. I have nothing personal against him, and I have no problem with his edits except when they are personally motivated and demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the relevant scholarly literature. Of the regular editors here, I am the only one who is familiar with the relevant scholarly literature (which I read on a regular basis), and I have contributed more reliable sources both to my edits and other people's than any other editor here. So I object when other people attempt to dominate the article without knowing what they're talking about, and I object my edits are completely thrown out by people who are insufficiently informed on the subject, especially when my edits consist of a citation which supports another editor's unreferenced edit. --Taiwan boi (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't doubt these things are likely true. I still think PiCo's "robust" editing has probably led to tighter text and better sourcing. Robust editing is not always good, it can discourage those making sincere and quality contributions, but without time to endlessly defend them. I'd better not say much more, because it prolongs an important digression beyond its value. I've only wanted to contribute two things to this discussion. Defence of the quality of Taiwan boi's edits, and defence of PiCo's character. I've nothing to add to either, so now hold my peace. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The problem is Alastair that PiCo's editing behaviour does indeed discourage those making sincere and quality contributions but without time to endlessly defend them, such as myself. There appears to be no obvious way to hold him accountable, which is why he feels free to do as he pleases, reverting whatever he likes. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller and Sχeptomaniac, your objection appears not to be to the proposed edits as such, but to the inclusion of the material which they are editing. If I'm mistaken and you are actually arguing that the material already in the section under discussion shouldn't be referenced, please do make that clear. I am in agreement with you that the entire Documentary Hypothesis section (and related material), is basically WP:COAT. I have objected to the inclusion of this material myself previously. However, bear in mind that PiCo was largely responsible for this material, and PiCo wants it in, and PiCo doesn't like people editing it, so if you wish to propose its removal or pruning then you will have to deal with the fact that PiCo disagrees with you and be ready either to convince him otherwise or to see your edits reverted repeatedly. Since a number of us seem to agree that this entire section needs a major overhaul, I will propose a suggested rewrite. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit without explanation

I see that the first paragraph of the section under vote has been edited since I proposed my edit, without any explanation here for the edit. It used to read thus:

'Newer theories propose instead that Genesis was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents, or that it is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document.'

It now reads thus:

'Alternative theories on Pentateuchal origins hold that the Torah, and the Ark narrative, were the product of the slow accretion of blocks of material over time, or the result of extensive editing and additions to an original text.'

Could someone please explain the purpose of this edit? Why does this now include the entire Torah, instead of simply Genesis? I do want to see people explain themselves. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The two aren't radically different, the only change is that it's been extended from Genesis to the Torah. This is an accurate statement of the facts - theories of Pentateuchal origins take in the entire 5 books, not just one. But I could live with the original text if the word "Genesis" were changed to "Pentateuch."
While I'm here, I apologise for deleting the footnotes from your earlier thread about the Literalism/Religious views section, but they were playing havoc with the footnote numbnering for the thread on the vote. I do recognise that the footnotes are important, but I can't see any other way to solve this problem and the vote is currently more urgent.03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation PiCo (your signature hasn't been entered correctly. Yes that's an accurate statement of the facts, but I'm wondering what relevance the entire Torah has to the paragraph. It's Genesis which is specifically under view (though I could live with 'Pentateuch' as you suggest). I would prefer the words 'fragmentary' and 'supplementary' in there somewhere, since they are the key words used to identify each of these hypotheses.
Don't worry about the other footnotes for now, we'll deal with that later. By the way, if you're going to get your friends along to vote try and invite friends who are actually familiar with the topic and the relevant scholarly literature. It's a credit to Ragesoss that he acknowledged he was way out of his league. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
To take your last point first, canvassing votes is a very serious offence on Wiki and I hope I'm not guilty of it. What I did was go through the History page and invite everyone who appears in the last 50 edits, minus bots. That means that I invited Andycjp. I've also notified a few editors who aren't currently active but have been notably involved in the past - not all of them are my friends by any means (Til Eulenspeigel would choke if I told the world he was a friend of mine).
I expanded from Genesis to Torah simply in the interests of accuracy. I admit to being an inveterate fiddler, unable to leave anything alone. I could probably live with just Genesis.
Like you, I want to keep the words "fragmentary" and "supplementary" in the paragraph. Also the word "documentary." Personally I view these as signifying models rather than hypotheses - even Wellhausen's was only one version of the DH, although it seems to have usurped the name. But I don't think this is the place to go into details on theories of Pentateuchal origins - that's the job of the documentary hypothesis article, or better still a new article on Theories on the origin of the Pentateuch, although I guess we shouldn't be creating new articles all over the place - better to raise the quality of existing articles.
Thanks for being understanding about my deletion of the footnotes. PiCo (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Fiddling back and forth with the article doesn't contribute to a satisfying reader experience, as the content keeps changing randomly. Perhaps you could discuss edits here first instead of making several edits a day without notifying anyone as to why.
If we agree on the words 'fragmentary' and 'supplementary', then that's fine. I'll make sure they're in my suggested edit. That section does not go into theories of Pentateuchal origins, it simply makes an important reference to current Biblical criticism of the flood narrative (namely that the Documentary Hypothesis has been largely abandoned in favour of newer views). A large article on the historical Documentary Hypothesis is already in there, and this section brings the reader up to date on current views.
I'd like to make it clear that I don't object to you getting people to contribute to this poll, whether they're your friends or not. What I am concerned about is that they are sufficiently informed on the subject. Your presentation of the facts is completely wrong (Whybray, Wenham and Van Seters are all notable sources on this subject, and all three are well recognized and highly influential), and it's important that people understand this when they assess the decision. Your real issue, as you've made perfectly clear, has nothing to do with scholarship and everything to do with your bad faith accusation that I am trying to smuggle in a POV with which you personally disagree. Not only is that completely false, but it only highlights the fact that you shouldn't be editing this article since you're just not sufficiently informed on the relevant scholarly literature.
Of the regular editors here, I am the only one who is, and I have contributed more reliable sources both to my edits and other people's than any other editor here. I have had to face incredible opposition from you and Robert Stevens, as you each attempted to exclude references to scholarly works. Robert Stevens simply invented arguments based on history he had made up and complete misrepresentations of standard authorities (such as William Dever), and you even resorted to appealing to a non-existent standard for WP:RS. I've had to run around and find reliable sources for edits made by both of you, simply because you wouldn't do it yourselves. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of Documentary Hypothesis section

I have previously objected to the size and detail of the Documentary Hypothesis section on the grounds that it exclusively discusses the flood narrative, and says absolutely nothing about Noah's Ark (which is the subject of the article). My objections were resisted by PiCo, who has wrongly claimed more than once that I believe the flood narrative was the work of a single author (despite being told several times that I don't), and who has accused me of attempting to introduce my POV into the article by stealth ('The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person'). Leaving aside PiCo's bad faith, the fact is that we now have a number of editors who believe that the the Documentary Hypothesis section (and related material), is substantially WP:COAT and needs to be reduced. The very first sentence is completely off topic, and breaches both WP:NPOV and WP:COAT, 'Scholars had puzzled for centuries over the many apparent confusions and inconsistencies which mark the Bible'. It goes on to say 'The Ark story seemed particularly rich in such problems', but here 'Ark story' is an obvious coat for 'flood story' (the material which follows has nothing to do with the Ark). I therefore propose the following edit:

'The Biblical flood narrative in which Noah's Ark appears has been subjected to considerable literary analysis. The flood narrative is a Biblical text central to the Documentary Hypothesis, which proposes that the flood narrative was composed by combining two independent stories on the same subject. This hypothesis still has many adherents in academic circles, but can no longer be called a consensus view. Alternative theories on Pentateuchal origins hold that the flood narrative was the product of the slow accretion of blocks of material over time, or the result of extensive editing and additions to an original text. There is general agreement that two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story, which, though unprovenanced, continue to be called the Yahwist and the Priestly. Disagreement continues as to which passages in the flood narrative belong to each strand.'

This edit collapses both the 'Documentary Hypothesis' and 'Biblical scholarship and the Ark in the 20th century' sections into one section entitled 'Literary Analysis'. Material currently in these sections which has been omitted by this edit should be placed in a new article specifically on the Genesis flood, to which a link in this edit can be included. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If this gains consensus, and it ought to, since it reflects almost everything people have said, I would think it a very good outcome. It would be a shame to lose the excellent, concise description of scholastic comments related to seeing a literary unity in the final form of the flood narrative, but I trust Taiwan boi to move that valuable text to at least one article dealing with the topic. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Alastair, I'll certainly be retaining that material and placing it in an appropriate place. That would be a 'Genesis Flood' article, which needs to be started. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. But I don't think accusations against other editors have helped get there. Doug Weller (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
May I congratulate Taiwanboi on an excellent siggestion. I'd just like to see added to this proposed paragraph (which I accept in full) a further sentence noting the importance of the Ark narrative to the DH - it's constantly being quoted as an example of the two-editors hypothesis.PiCo (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with everyone. You're right Doug, but stuff happens and it looks to me as though there was a bit each way. More than a bit, but the blood's under the bridge now. I think PiCo's hit something that could be even better than Taiwan boi's suggestion. The section could retain a cautious bit of Noah's Ark featuring in debate over the source or sources of the flood narrative. We don't need to be drawn into saying what current consensus is, or too much detail. DH idea first, refinement second, end of story. Title of section, "Noah's Ark in Source Criticism", or words to that effect. Source criticism is self-defining. It's a more indirect approach than claiming source criticism is essential to understand Noah's Ark in context. Less prone to challenge from future readers and editors. What do y'all think? Alastair Haines (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback everyone. PiCo, 'a further sentence noting the importance of the Ark narrative to the DH' is certainly important, but it should be identified as the flood narrative (there is no 'Flood/Ark narrative' or 'Ark narrative', and no one talks of an 'Ark narrative', it's all about the flood). I have included a suggested sentence in bold. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm copypasting your latest draft here to make it easier to see:

'The Biblical flood narrative in which Noah's Ark appears has been subjected to considerable literary analysis. The flood narrative is a Biblical text central to the Documentary Hypothesis, which proposes that the flood narrative was composed by combining two independent stories on the same subject. This hypothesis still has many adherents in academic circles, but can no longer be called a consensus view. Alternative theories on Pentateuchal origins hold that the flood narrative was the product of the slow accretion of blocks of material over time, or the result of extensive editing and additions to an original text. There is general agreement that two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story, which, though unprovenanced, continue to be called the Yahwist and the Priestly. Disagreement continues as to which passages in the flood narrative belong to each strand.'

Thanks for this effort. A question: Is the flood narrative actually central to the DH? The idea of markers such as names of God etc is central, but the FN in itself isn't. Rather, it's often quoted as a test-case of the way two closely intertwined and originally independent narratives can be disentangled by applying the methodology. I'd suggest your sentence be changed to: The Flood narrative is often held up as a test-case for the documentary hypothesis, which proposes...
Next point: I'd question that There is general agreement that two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story..." The "narrative strands" thing sounds like the DH again - more recent thinking talks about redactional layers. And the final sentence, "Disagreement continues as to which passages in the flood narrative belong to each strand", also applies to the DH rather than to contemporary theories.
But overall I think we're moving in the right direction. PiCo (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I should leave it to Taiwan boi to propose this himself, but PiCo's comments sound fair to me. Replace: "text central to" with "text often cited in support of". Also: "two distinct narrative strands exist in the Ark story" might be better as "the Ark story is embedded within a context suggestive of parallel editorial influences". Emphasis for talk page only. The right phrase here needs refinement. Alastair Haines (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Alastair, that edit sounds fine to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwan boi (talk • contribs) 00:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Recent major edit

These are my initial reactions to Taiwanboi's recent edits.

First, a brief review of what the changes are: Broadly, the subsection on the documentary hypothesis has been drastically shortened; the material on scholarly interpretations of/comments on the ark has been deleted entirely; and the section on literalist interpretations has benn hugely expanded and renamed as The Ark in Current Christian Interpretation. PiCo (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I said the edits would be, when I first proposed them over a week ago. So there are no surprises here. These edits have already been known and discussed for days. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now my comments:

  • I think the original Documentary Hypothesis subsection needs to stay - it's part of a section tracing the changing interpretations of the ark story through time, from the earliest rabbinical stories to the dawn of the Enlightenment - it's actually about the role of the ark story in the early development of modern biblical criticism.
  • For similar reasons the section on 20th/21st century scholarly interpretations of the ark needs to be restored - this is a very important subject, and can't simply be dropped. (The section which Taiwanboi titles "documentary hypothesis" is actually about the fate of the documentary hypothesis in the 20th century, and can't substitute for the original section, which was about the dh and the ark in the 19th century). PiCo (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand this at all. Firstly, these changes were previously agreed to by yourself, Doug Weller, Alastair, Sχeptomaniacχαιρετεm, and myself. They were agreed to specifically because the sections to which you refer had been identified by several of us as WP:COAT:
  • Doug Weller: 'At the moment, about 1/6th of the article is about the Documentary hypothesis, discussing technical details such as palistrophes, etc. I'm not at all convinced that help the article proportionately, and would like to see one section, not two. I agree that the Documentary hypothesis is not the scholarly consensus today, and we probably need to be explicit about that, but we do not need all this detail, the detail should go in what is a technical article, Documentary hypothesis'
  • Doug Weller: 'I think we just need one section, probably shorter than either of the existing sections, not giving the history of the DH, not trying to resolve the disputes, just a comment on the current situation and how it relates to the Ark story'
  • Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε: 'This article has tended to become a coatrack one at times, and a lot of the problematic material needs to be cut. Unless it directly relates to the Noah's Ark story, it should go to more appropriate articles, whether they be Documentary hypothesis, Biblical criticism, Genesis, etc'
  • Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε: 'The documentary hypothesis information doesn't necessarily need to be cut completely, but it does need to be cut back quite a bit. I believe we should give just enough information to give a very basic understanding of the greater issues, so that those wishing to learn more can use the links to go to the appropriate articles'
  • Alastair: 'I notice that there is a whole section presenting a summary background to the DH. Perhaps DH readings should be presented in such a way as not to invoke the theory in more detail than its name. This would obviate the felt need to explain the absence of the DH in the contemporary views section'
The Documentary Hypothesis has nothing to do with the Ark, it's about the flood narrative, and the material which was removed said absolutely nothing about the Ark. The section entitled 'The Ark in Current Christian Interpretation' discusses 20th/21st century interpretations of the Ark. The sections I removed did not. That's why I removed them, by common consent:
  • Alastair: 'If this gains consensus, and it ought to, since it reflects almost everything people have said, I would think it a very good outcome. It would be a shame to lose the excellent, concise description of scholastic comments related to seeing a literary unity in the final form of the flood narrative, but I trust Taiwan boi to move that valuable text to at least one article dealing with the topic'
  • Doug Weller: 'Definitely an improvement'
  • PiCo: 'May I congratulate Taiwanboi on an excellent siggestion. I'd just like to see added to this proposed paragraph (which I accept in full) a further sentence noting the importance of the Ark narrative to the DH - it's constantly being quoted as an example of the two-editors hypothesis'
So I really don't understand this backflip of yours.
  • Finally, we need to be very careful using words like "Christian" in the titles of articles like this - the ark is in fact a Jewish story, and the Jewish religious view has to have priority. Nevertheless, I think it's a good idea to have a section on religious interpretations of the ark story. Perhaps a more neutral title though - something like The Theology of the Ark? PiCo (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to be 'very careful using words like 'Christian' in the titles of articles like this', if the relevant section deals specifically with Christian views. I see no reason to give the Jewish religious view priority, since it is far less notable than the Christian religious view. Count all the Jewish Websites and books discussing the details of the Ark, and then count all the Christian Websites and books doing the same, and you'll soon see that the Jews are far less interested in the Ark than the Christians. If you can find evidence for notable current Jewish interpretations of the Ark, then we can certainly include them in a relevant section of the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, my congratulations to Taiwanboi on the hard work he's put into this first attempt. PiCo (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to meet your points by shortening the documentary hypothesis section by about 2/3rds, but I really think it's relevant and needs to stay. Also we need the section on critical approaches to the ark. And also, your religious views section is far too long - I'll try to shorten it down to about 3 paragraphs, which is the size of other sections in the article. PiCo (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Briefly:
  • As you well know, I am using the term 'Literalist' to refer to Biblical Literalism, not simply the belief in a literal Ark and literal flood. I have correctly distinguished between the views of literalists/Fundamentalists, and non-literalists/liberals. Yet you have deliberately obscured this distinction all the way through the edit I made (which you have really hacked up).
    • The belief in a literal flood and ark, is literalism.
That is not the literalism discussed in this section of the article, and you know it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So what?
So it passes Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You have thrown out the entire edit of the Documentary Hypothesis section, which was agreed to by Doug Weller, Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε, Alastair, myself, and even you. Why do you agree to edits one day, and then throw them out the next? --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    • On gthe contrary, I'm trying to accommodate all views here. I want the DH section to be succinct, and to relate to theark-narratigve's role in the development of critical scholarship. For this reason we need to retain the section. But as Doug and others say, it needs to be much shorter. The section on 20th century scholarship also needs to stay - no-one suggested it shouldn't. Please don't revert this again until other editors have had a chance to have their say.PiCo (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You're not trying to acommodate all views. You, and four other editors already had our say about this. It took several days, and the edit I made today was approved by all of them, including you. You are certainly not trying to make the Documentary Hypothesis section succinct. You're attempting to make it at least double the length of my edit, and you are trying to make it a coathanger for a subject which shouldn't be treated at such length in this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix and Bird of Paradise

Why would you include mythological creatures into the debate if you're discussing it from a literal point of view.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Because the people doing the discussing (in the pre-modern age) didn't think it was mythical. PiCo (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My edits

The Documentary Hypothesis section is now pretty much what was discussed recently. The 20th century biblical scholarship section is an important body of information and needs to be kept. The Literalism section is short, possibly too short, but the previous section was definiltely too long. I'm open to discussion and welcome the comments of other editors on this. PiCo (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ 'Thomas L. Thompson notes that, under continued scholarly scrutiny, the Elohist has disappeared from view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fading from existence, even as P grows beyond all reasonable bounds. The hypothesis has no value as a guide for continued research (1987:49). Whybray, too, in outlining especially the recent contributions by Rolf Rendtorff and H.H. Schmid, demonstrates how the consensus for a “theology of the Yahwist” among critical scholars is collapsing (1987:93–108).' Duane A Garrett, 'The Documentary Hypothesis', Bible and Spade (Spring 1993), page 48
  2. ^ Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
  3. ^ S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
  4. ^ NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
  5. ^ Ark
  6. ^ Compare Noah's Ark
  7. ^ CH508: Chinese treasure ships and Noah's ark
  8. ^ Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
  9. ^ Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
  10. ^ [http://www.travel-silkroad.com/english/marine/ZhengHe.htm The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
  11. ^ The Genesis Flood
  12. ^ Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
  13. ^ Noah's Ark 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
  14. ^ The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'
  15. ^ 'Thomas L. Thompson notes that, under continued scholarly scrutiny, the Elohist has disappeared from view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fading from existence, even as P grows beyond all reasonable bounds. The hypothesis has no value as a guide for continued research (1987:49). Whybray, too, in outlining especially the recent contributions by Rolf Rendtorff and H.H. Schmid, demonstrates how the consensus for a “theology of the Yahwist” among critical scholars is collapsing (1987:93–108).' Duane A Garrett, 'The Documentary Hypothesis', Bible and Spade (Spring 1993), page 48
  16. ^ McKenzie, Steven L and Graham, Matt Patrick (editors), 'The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth', JSOT 182, Sheffield (1994)
  17. ^ Whybray, RN, 'The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study', JSOT Press, Sheffield, (1987)
  18. ^ Wenham, Gordon, 'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22.1, page 7 (October 1996)
  19. ^ Wenham, Gordon, 'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22.1, page 7 (October 1996)
  20. ^ 'Wenham argues that the seeming contradictions fall within the known conventions of Hebrew storytelling, & without other evidence for source division, this evidence is inconclusive.', James F MacGrath, 'Introduction To The Torah'
  21. ^ 'Genesis 7: 17-20 with its four-times repeated increase and prevailing of the flood waters (each with a fresh complement)28 is a good example. This kind of feature (plus general repetition on a grand scale) can be observed readily in Sumerian and Babylonian epics, e.g. as in Lugal-banda (Sumerian)29 or Atrakhasis (Babylonian).30 Such a style may well have marked the original versions of the matter now found in Genesis 1-11 as brought by an Abraham from Mesopotamia, where Western Semites came to share in a cultural heritage. And these phenomena of style, both the use of couplets (single or multiple) generally in the Near East and the repetitious style in Genesis and Mesopotamian literature, are an inherent part of Near Eastern and biblical literary usage; to scissor-up their elements among imaginary 'source-documents' is a pointless waste of effort,31 producing tatters that have no relation to attested usage in the biblical world.', Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971
  22. ^ 'The fact that chiasmus operates both on the micro and macro levels, for instance, has resulted in recognizing the literary unity of the flood story.', Hoffmeier, James, 'Ancient Israel In Sinai: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Wilderness Tradition', Oxford University Press, 2005, page 14