Talk:Noah/Archive002

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 6000 BCE

Didn't Noah live about 6000 years before the Common Era?

--66.81.31.68 21:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to ask a question on the Talk page, why don't you wait for an answer before going ahead and changing the article? According to the chronology of the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh, Noah was born in the Jewish year 1056 from Creation and died in the Jewish year 2006 from Creation. (Our current Christian year of 2006 A.D. corresponds to the Jewish year of 5766.) The Flood occurred in 1656, which was exactly 4110 years ago. So, if we're in 2006 A.D., that makes it circa 2104 B.C.E.
You can see that there is a serious discrepancy between archeological and other scientific forms of dating and the traditional Jewish chronology expounded in classic Jewish texts like the Talmud and Midrash. According to the Jewish system of dating, the world is only 5766 years old! It seems to me that we could skip this whole debate by leaving out the "circa" date. People understand that we're talking about a person from the Bible, which is a very very old book! Yoninah 21:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I defer to your knowledge; however, I don't think there is any problem with adding a little accuracy for those individuals who aren't familiar with the Bible or Torah. Therefore, I will add "circa 2104 BCE" and I hope that you will not dislike this addition.

--John Doe 05:00, 1 January 2006

I think 66.81 might be thinking of the Black Sea deluge theory, which would place Noah in about 5600 BCE. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 09:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


Actually 5766 is used only for dating purposes--Java7837 05:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life of Noah

I gave this section a major re-write, with two aims in mind - first, to concentrate more closely on the actual life and achievements of Noah, as given in the book of Genesis, as the existing section seemd to me to wander off too often into explanations and not quite relevant detail (details suitable for a theological paper, perhaps, but not for a general encyclopedia); and second, I wanted to integrate this article with the existing Noah's Ark article, as I can't see any reason why the two articles should repeat so much information about this topic. Naturally this is only a proposal, and I want to start some discussion rather than impose my views. PiCo 13:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Noahide Laws

I deleted this section because, when I followed the link to the main article, it seemed to me that these "laws" might not actually exist, except as a matter of speculation. The linked article is very unclear, but it gives the impression that these so-called "laws" have some connection with some branch of modern Jewish thought, but are not generally accpeted -= in other words, are very marginal. If this is so, the subject doesn't merit a whole section in this article. But I'm happy to hear from anyone who can shed some light on this. PiCo 10:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The current Wikipedia article on Noahide Law cites three references to tractates of the Talmud apparently dealing with Noahide Law. Since the Talmud is definitely an accepted text of orthodox Judaism, the concept of Noahide Law should probably not be considered "modern" or "very marginal". However, since the Noah article is under the WP "bio" category, it would probably be inappropriate to discuss these laws in the Noah article, except perhaps the rabbinical attribution to Noah of the law prohibiting tearing limbs from a living animal, etc. In other words, regardless of whether a historical person named Noah actually preached the seven specified laws before a flood or not, the term "Noahide" can still usefully be understood as dating those laws to a specific era according to one Rabbinic and Talmudic interpretation of the story of Noah. Since the Noahide laws are linked-to under the "See also" section, that is probably sufficient. 4.247.236.220 12:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latter-day Saints and the Curse of Ham

On 10 March an anonymous editor ermoved the final sentence of this paragraph: "Brigham Young was a vocal advocate of the doctrine that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Ham, and that this curse was a rationalization for slavery and societal bans on interracial marriage. He believed this curse remained in people with even a single black ancestor, and that even Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews were denied the blessings of Jewish heritage due to their own Black-African ancestry. In 1978 the church announced a "revelation" renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood, but it has never officially stated that the "curse of Ham" doctrine was false." So far as I know the sentence is true, and it also seems an important and relevant piece of information - the Curse of Ham is part of the Noah story, it was quoted to justify racism, and it hasn't been officially renounced. Unless someone can show good reason for deleting it, I intend to put it back in. (Haven't put it back yet, but I will unless given good reason not to). PiCo 00:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This seems more appropriate to the Ham and curse of Ham articles than to the Noah article. john k 06:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you suggesting - cut the entire section and move it to Ham/Curse of Ham, or just the last sentence? PiCo 06:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need for discussion of the Curse of Ham story in a section on Mormon views of Noah. The Mormon views of Noah section should talk about Mormon views of Noah. A Mormon views of Ham or Mormon views of the Curse of Ham story would be the place to talk about this subject. john k 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I was viewing it as the CofH forming part of the Noah story - not so well known as the Ark, but still a part. Will you see that the final sentence gets a mention in the CofH article then? PiCo 01:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole section should be cut out. It has little connection with Noah and only causes to make the Mormons look contradictory and racist which is not the purpose of this article on Noah surely?

[edit] Mythological connections

A recent editor removed the bulk of the content of this section. Please explain massive edits like that if you feel them to be necessary. I'm reverting because of the lack of explanation. PiCo 06:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

ςτω== Blubberbrein2's edits reverted ==

An editor known as Blubberbrein2 made a series of edits, most marked minor, but cumulatively so major as to completely change the article. I wouldn't particularly mind if the changes improved the article, but they don't - in fact they make it significantly worse. If Blubberbrein2 wishes to go ahead with these changes, please explain here first the reasons you think they are necessary and advantageous. PiCo 14:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank You, Merci, Mille Grazie, Gracias, Danke, Gratias Vobis Ago, Obrigado, Moshakir Ευκαριςτω

I should like to take this time to thank two editors, Codex and Blubberbrein for thorougly trashing yet another article. This ability to take an article from its zenith to its nadir, from literacy to jibberish, from the pinnacle of scholarly excellence to the cloaca of skatologic dross in just a few short hours may one day become the envy of POV-ists of every stripe. Well done, gentlemen, well done. Jim62sch 20:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

When discussing a person like Noah, one has to consult the sources where we can find information about this person. These sources include (mainly sorted on seniority):
  • Hebrew Bible (Genesis account)
  • Book of Enoch
  • Other mythological stories
  • Rabbinical literature
  • New Testament
  • Qur'an
One limitation is the length of this article. So this article has to include only summarized information about "Noah in Hebrew Bible", "Noah in Book of Enoch". That's what I did. I preserved the information which was before in this article, summarized for example "Noah in Hebrew Bible", "Noah in Qur'an", removed the references to Qur'an (they are in main article about Nuh), added section on "Book of Enoch".

Blubberbrein2 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


How did you determine that order of seniority? --Jibran1 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I said 'mainly' sorted on seniority. Other factors include comprehensiveness and logical order of the article. In this train of thought:
  • First start with the Genesis account, because it is the most comprehensive account, after this "the Book of Enoch" which could be older, but is more fragmented and deals more with Enoch (although a fragment in the "book of Enoch" is called the "book of Noah", but I refer to that).
  • When mentioning Enoch, one could mention other figures in mythologies (just like was done in the older version). The only thing I really did in this respect, was inserting "Noah in Book of Enoch" between the Genesis account and mythological connection.
  • After this Jewish/rabbinic tradition. After this the New Testament, after this Gnostic tradition, after this Qu'ran, after this Noah in LDS tradition, after this Noah in popular culture.
  • Textual analysis, documentary hypotheses etc. can be dealt with in respective articles.
  • Elaborations about the 'curse of Ham' and his three sons can be dealt with elsewhere.

Blubberbrein2 22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(Added some indents to make clear who has replied to what in the preceding posts) PiCo 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blubberbrein2, thank you for bringing your proposals here before editing. Small edits without consultation are fine, but major revisions like the one you did really needs to be discussed first.

I don't like your proposed new structure. I do see what you're trying to do, but I don't like it. Do you really think that the article should be structured around the various texts where information about Noah is to be found? I fear if you do it that way, you end up with just a shopping list, "facts-about-Noah", and no analysis. It might help you to understand my point of view if I explain what the three main sections in the current article are trying to do:

  • "Narrative" summarises the Genesis story - which we agree is the oldest story - using, as far as possible, the words of genesis, and without editorial comment. The purpose is to give an imaginary intelligent but uninformed reader (picture a Chinese, say, who has never read the Bible) enough information to understand what Westerns mean by the word "Noah".
  • "Analysis" gives the various theories advanced by modern scholars, from various fields - textual criticism, comparative mythology, whatever - relating to the Noah story. You don't have to believe these theories, but as an encyclopedia we have a duty to represent them.
  • "Traditions" gives the later development of the Noah story in Western and other Abrahamic traditions. This section follows the structure you outline above, but treating your material as subsections within this overall section.

One of my other prime objections to your ervision is that it distorts the facts, although probably inadvertantly. For example, at one point, talking about the "drunkenness of Noah", you say that Ham mocked Noah. Genesis doesn't say this. In fact, Genesis is totally silent as to why Noah was angry with Ham. Later Rabbinic traditions tried to give reasons, but they are, well, later.

I suggest that you try to fit your new material into the existing article, taking one section at a time. I promise you a fair hearing if you go about it in a way that gives other editors time to react and comment. PiCo 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand why you are reverting. It contains the same information, but it is more concise. Noah in Hebrew Bible contains a short summary, Noah in Qur'an contains a short summary. (elaboration can be done in their respective articles), added information on the book of Enoch (and the analysis of this book can for example be done on Book of Enoch, just like with the Hebrew Bible/Qur'an). Furthermore, I don't oppose the 'textual analysis' and 'documentary hypothesis' but it is redundant (for example in Adam and Eve it is also mentioned).
Do we have to put these sections on the pages of all persons mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis? It belongs to a page on the book of Genesis or a page where is elaborated on the text that deals with Noah. (in this case Genesis).
Of course, Noah was angry. You don't curse someone when you are happy. The text reads:
21 One day he got drunk and was lying naked in his tent. 22 Ham entered the tent and saw him naked, then went back outside and told his brothers. 23 Shem and Japheth put a robe over their shoulders and walked backwards into the tent. Without looking at their father, they placed it over his body. 24 When Noah woke up and learned what his youngest son had done, 25 he said, “I now put a curse on Canaan! - Genesis 9)
Broadly spreaking: the story of Noah is that in a world where people were extremely wicked, God is going to judge the world for its iniquities, but Noah founds favor in the eyes of God.
God waits 120 years before executing the destruction. He instructs Noah to build an Ark and a Deluge kills all people except the household of Noah. God promises not to kill all people by a Deluge any more (sign: rainbow). After this, Noah is drunken because of experimenting with wine or some other fruit and Ham is cursed because of disrespectful behaviour.)
The most comprehensive account is the book of Genesis, but other books mention it, Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees. Noah is also referred in for example 2 Esdras, Ezekiel (14), Jesus Sirach, 4 Maccabees (15).
  • Later rabbinic traditions add some details to this story.
  • In the New Testament, the main elements of the story are confirmed in 1/2 Peter and Jesus adds that the days of Noah are comparable to the days of his coming.
  • In Christian tradition the Ark has the symbol of the Church (or Jesus) who only can save from the judgment of God.
  • The Quran'ic version is about the same, but has some (small) details which are not mentioned in Genesis
  • The Gnostic/LDS tradition differs a lot, because in the Gnostic tradition it is not God who judged the world and in the LDS tradition Noah is not a mere man, but an archangel.

Blubberbrein2 07:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Blubberbrein2, I've done some edits to your comment, just indenting so that we can more easily tell who is doing the writing. I've also moved your signature down to the end - you made three comments and only signed the one in the middle, which made the final product a bit confusing.

It's usually a total no-no to edit another person's input to a talk page, and I'm only doing it this time because you sem to be new to Wiki - I'm trying to help.

Now, your comments:

  • You say you don't understand why I'm reverting you. I explained this already: you made a massive revision to the article, without giving anyone a chance to comment here first. I think you would have had the same adverse reaction if you had done this on any other article on Wiki. It's polite to discuss major proposals before implementing them.
  • You say your version contains the same information as the old version, in a more concise form. If this were all there was to it I'd have no problem. But I object to the new format. The current format has three main parts, a summary of the narrative, a discussion of scholarly theories, and an overview of the same story in later traditions. This seems pretty logical and comprehensive to me - why change it? (This is a genuine question - you're welcome to tell me why you think it should be changed).
  • You feel "textual analysis" and "documentary hypothesis" are redundant because they'er mentioned in the Adam and Eve article. But please remember that people aren;'t going to erad every single article. Many of them will read just Adam and Eve, aor just Noah. So if the information is relevant to a particular article, it has to be included (and often the same wording can be used, for example in explaining what the documentary hypothesis is).
  • I'm not sure I understand your comment "Do we have to put these sections" etc. Are you asking if these articles on people from Genesis need to have the same headings and sub-headings? No, they don't.
  • You say that "Of course Noah was angry." I didn't say he wasn't. I said no reason is given for his anger. You say that Ham was cursed for disrepectful behaviour. But Ham wasn't cursed at all. Canaan was. People have put forward all sorts of theories to explain this, but the fact remains that the Bible doesn't say. This is one thing I think is very important: we mustn't go beyond what the Bible actually says. If we do, it's POV (a personal explanation). We can say what others have said - the Rabbinic scholars have said a great deal on this subject - but we can't say anything. And we must always be conscious of never going beyond the text.
  • You mention various texts - Enoch, the New testament, etc. I agree that they should be mentioned. But they should be mentioned in the context of later (i.e., later than Genesis) developments within the Abrahamic tradition. And here we have a very important point: I detect in what you write a belief that all texts aer equally true - that if the Book of Enoch says something about Noah, it's a true fact, and can be simply added to what Genesis says. And if the Book of Mormon says something, that's another true fact...or is it? Do you see what I'm getting at? Traditions develop over time. The Genesis story of Noah left some questions unanswered - such as the question of just what Ham had done that was wrong (according to Genesis, he saw his father naked and informed his brothers, nothing more), and why Noah would curse Canaan if it was Ham who had angered him. So subsequent writers tried to answer those questions. The Rabbinic tradition is full of such answers. They're very interesting...but they're not "true facts" about Noah. Or do you disagree?

PiCo 09:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


  • OK, next time I discuss major revisions. Over time, these accumulated revisions add up to the major revision, and I did not discuss it. Sorry about that. Indeed, I am new to Wiki.

The summary (on Genesis) I took was from Camet's Dictionary of the Holy Bible 1832 (accessible via books.google.com, public domain). The summary I created from the Qur'an were created from the given references to Qur'an about Noah.

  • The starting point for Noah should be the Genesis account, as we both agree, because it is most authentic and comprehensive we can get and considered by Jews and Christians alike as the truth. This does not negate the fact that there are a lot of references to Noah in other books and/or legends who could be older than for example the rabbinic traditions. (Some of the rabbinic traditions could be traced back to the book of Enoch , if I read the section - about Noah having white hair for example) and later traditions like the Gnostic, Qur'an, Latter Days Saints, Book of Mormon (?). I consider the books constituting the New Testament also as an distintive category, although you could consider Jesus as a rabbi, who explaines or elaborates more on certain subjects. One could categorize the books of the New Testament under rabbinic traditions because all the books of the New Testament were written by Jews.
  • About the curse of Ham. This Canaan thing is peculiar indeed. Given that Noah had three sons, and given that he blesses both Shem and Japheth, Ham is cursed (Genesis 9). Maybe it is possible to elaborate on that on a Ham-page.

I just finished by master's thesis on the Saxon Mirror and part of the text is devoted to slavery, whether the basis of slavery is to be found in Scripture, concluding with a "no" (this is 12/13th century Germany). One of the pictures of one the manuscripts of the Saxon mirror display Noah in a some kind of floating ark with a blessing gesture, with 2 people standing in front of him and one staying behind the ark (Ham). See http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/sammlung3/werk/cpg164.xml?docname=cpg164&pageid=PAGE0036 (also pictures of Cain and Abel, Hagar and Ishmael, Esau (with haired face!) and Jacob.

  • I think the textual analysis and documentary hypothesis are valuable. But the reason why I thought to move it to another main article is the length of this article plus the redundancy in every article about a character in the first chapters in Genesis (it applies to them all).

Greetings, Blubberbrein2 11:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


I haven't had any reaction on my last remarks yet. If you want this structure, fine with me, but please add the new information into this existing strcuture, and do not delete everything.
Blubberbrein2 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you do a sandbox with the new information you want included? Maybe put it in bullet form. Then we can go about incorporating it into the article.PiCo 23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jim62sch

Jim, I think you are just reverting my edits on sight without even bothering to look at them. I don't know if it is some animosity or what, but please take a good look at that edit you did with the comment "Restoring to literate version". All I had done was correct a bunch of misspellings, capitalization mistakes, and the like. With the comment "Restoring to literate version", you merely reintroduced all of the mispellings, etc. and they are still there now ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Saved with most of your corrections on Noah 2 Blubberbrein2 08:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just moved that page to User:Blubberbrein2/Noah 2. Sorry, but if you leave it in the mainspace, it'll just end up getting deleted as a WP:POVFORK. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Codex, sorry, I didn't realize the spelling errors were there, sorry to make you do them over. For why I reverted, it was not animosity, rather it was for the same reason PiCo reverted.
Essentially while I think it's safe to say that we pretty much agree to disagree on most things related to the Bible, I have no intention of causing you extra work. (Besides, I've left a number of your edits alone because they were good edits -- it's only when you get into OR and clear POV that I revert). Jim62sch 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noah pages

For everyone's information, we have:

Tom Harrison Talk 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Suggest deleting Noah's Ark Hoaxes and Misconceptions for a start - it's inherently POV. (Like having an article titled "George Bush's Lies and Plots). PiCo
Actually, it could be recreated as Searches for Noah's Ark, with the Hoaxes as a subsection. Jim62sch 20:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I renamed it and added info -- it still needs a lot of work. Searches for Noah's Ark
Realistically, these three could be merged, unless the info in the current Noah article is significantly summarized: Noah, Noah (Hebrew Bible), Nuh. Jim62sch 22:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prophets in Islam

I have deleted the "prophets in Islam" template. It does not belong in the article. Templates of that nature "hog" page space for one religion vs. another. (I have also deleted the "Adam to David" template for the same reasons). FYI: This article is about Noah, not Islam or Judaism (or Christianity). If you want to link to Prophets in Islam, that's ok, but the template is overkill. As it stands, there were way too many Quran links at the bottom of the article. It was getting to be a violation of WP:NPOV. I have added a pointer link the correct page and deleted all the Noah/Quran links at the bottom. Merecat 09:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For the Islamic prophet, we have Nuh. Tom Harrison Talk 22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)