Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 22 February 2009

This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcut WP:NPOV

All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. It is also one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies; the other two are "Verifiability" and "No original research". These policies jointly determine the type and quality of material acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles, and because they work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. Editors are strongly encouraged to familiarize themselves with all three.

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

Explanation

• WP:YESPOV
• WP:WIKIVOICE
• WP:VOICE

Achieving what the Misplaced Pages community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias. Misplaced Pages aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. Observe the following principles to help achieve the level of neutrality that is appropriate for an encyclopedia:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Misplaced Pages's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that Template:!xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles. but may state that Template:Xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles..
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.
• Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Misplaced Pages's voice, for example Template:Xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles. not Template:!xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles.. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.
• Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. The only bias that should be evident is the bias attributed to the source.
• Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that Template:!xt is only for examples of style and formatting. Do not use it in actual articles. would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field.

What to include and exclude

• WP:NPOVHOW
• WP:ACHIEVE NPOV

See the NPOV tutorial and NPOV examples.

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material when you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems.

Article structure

• WP:STRUCTURE

The internal structure of an article may require additional attention to protect neutrality and to avoid problems like POV forking and undue weight. Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral.

Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents. It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear true and undisputed, whereas other segregated material is deemed controversial and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other.

Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject. Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

Due and undue weight

• WP:WEIGHT
• WP:DUE
• WP:UNDUE

Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct (and minuscule) minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.

Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still appropriately reference the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the minority view's perspective. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject. For instance, articles on historical views such as flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position and then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require a much more extensive description of the majority view to avoid misleading the reader. See fringe theories guideline and the NPOV FAQ.

Misplaced Pages should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. Views held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as the flat Earth). Giving undue weight to the view of a significant minority or including that of a tiny minority might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This rule applies not only to article text but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, templates, and all other material as well.

Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public.

If you can prove a theory that few or none believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to present such proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in sources that are reliable, it may be appropriately included. See "No original research" and "Verifiability".

Balance

• WP:BALANCE
• WP:BALANCED

Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.

Balancing aspects

• WP:PROPORTION
• WP:BALASP
• WP:ASPECT
• WP:MINORASPECT
• WP:MAJORASPECT

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance

• WP:GEVAL
• WP:VALID
• WP:FALSEBALANCE

See: False balance

When considering "due impartiality" ... careful when reporting on science to make a distinction between an opinion and a fact. When there is a consensus of opinion on scientific matters, providing an opposite view without consideration of "due weight" can lead to "false balance", meaning that viewers might perceive an issue to be more controversial than it actually is. This does not mean that scientists cannot be questioned or challenged, but that their contributions must be properly scrutinised. Including an opposite view may well be appropriate, but must clearly communicate the degree of credibility that the view carries.

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

Making necessary assumptions

• WP:MNA

When writing articles, there may be cases where making some assumptions is necessary to get through a topic. For example, in writing about evolution, it is not helpful to hash out the creation-evolution controversy on every page. There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology but also in philosophy, history, physics, art, nutrition, etc.

It is difficult to draw up a rule, but the following principle may help: there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate.

Selecting sources

• WP:BESTSOURCES

In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV disagreements. Try the library for reputable books and journal articles, and look online for the most reliable resources. If you need help finding high-quality sources, ask other editors on the talk page of the article you are working on, or ask at the reference desk.

Bias in sources

• WP:ALLOWEDBIAS

A common argument in a dispute about reliable sources is that one source is biased, meaning another source should be given preference. Some editors argue that biased sources should not be used because they introduce improper POV to an article. However, biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether.

Controversial subjects

• WP:SNPOV

Misplaced Pages deals with numerous areas that are frequently subjects of intense debate both in the real world and among editors of the encyclopedia. A proper understanding and application of NPOV is sought in all areas of Misplaced Pages, but it is often needed most in these.

Fringe theories and pseudoscience

• WP:PSCI
• WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE
• WP:FRINGESUBJECTS

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community.

Any inclusion of fringe or pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The fringe or pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how experts in the relevant field have reacted to such views should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This applies to all types of fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical negationism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo Moon landings were faked.

See Misplaced Pages's established pseudoscience guidelines to help decide whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

Religion

• WP:RNPOV

In the case of beliefs and practices, Misplaced Pages content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Misplaced Pages articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs. Their point of view can be mentioned if it can be documented by relevant, reliable sources, yet note there is no contradiction. NPOV policy means Misplaced Pages editors ought to try to write sentences like this: "Certain Frisbeetarianists (such as the Rev. Goodcatch) believe This and That and consider those to have been tenets of Frisbeetarianism from its earliest days. Certain sects who call themselves Ultimate Frisbeetarianists—influenced by the findings of modern historians and archaeologists (such as Dr. Investigate's textual analysis and Prof. Iconoclast's carbon-dating work)—still believe This, but no longer believe That, and instead believe Something Else."

Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Misplaced Pages articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings. Details about particular terms can be found at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Words to watch.

Point-of-view forks

• WP:NPOVFACT
• WP:NPOVVIEW
• WP:NPOVFORK

A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted on Misplaced Pages.

All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Some topics are so large that one article cannot reasonably cover all facets of the topic, so a spinoff sub-article is created. For example, Evolution as fact and theory is a sub-article of Evolution, and Creation–evolution controversy is a sub-article of Creationism. This type of split is permissible only if written from a neutral point of view and must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article.

How to write neutrally

Naming

• WP:POVNAMING

In some cases, the name chosen for a topic can give an appearance of bias. Although neutral terms are generally preferable, name choice must be balanced against clarity. Thus, if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question despite appearing to pass judgment. The best name to use for a topic may depend on the context in which it is mentioned. It may be appropriate to mention alternative names and the controversies over their use, particularly when the topic in question is itself the main topic being discussed.

This advice especially applies to article titles. Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy (and relevant guidelines such as on geographical names).

Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, names such as "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum", and "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used. Instead, alternative names should be given their due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate.

Some article titles are descriptive rather than being an actual name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

Impartial tone

• WP:IMPARTIAL

Misplaced Pages describes disputes, but does not engage in them. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Misplaced Pages articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone.

Describing aesthetic opinions and reputations

• WP:AESTHETIC
• WP:SUBJECTIVE

Misplaced Pages articles about art and other creative topics (e.g., musicians, actors, books, etc.) have a tendency to become effusive. This is out of place in an encyclopedia. Aesthetic opinions are diverse and subjective—we might not all agree about who the world's greatest soprano is. However, it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts, critics, and the general public. For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language. More generally, it is sometimes permissible to note a subject's reputation when that reputation is widespread and potentially informative or of interest to readers. Articles on creative works should provide an overview of their common interpretations, preferably with citations to experts holding those interpretations. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide a useful context for works of art.

Attributing and specifying biased statements

• WP:SUBSTANTIATE
• WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV

Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Misplaced Pages as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited.

Another approach is to specify or substantiate the statement, by giving those details that actually are factual. For example: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." People may still argue over whether he was the best baseball player, but they will not argue over this.

Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)

Words to watch

There are no forbidden words or expressions on Misplaced Pages, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said he paid for the sandwich". Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source).

Common objections and clarifications

Common objections or concerns raised to Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy are summarized in the subheadings below. Since the NPOV policy is often unfamiliar to newcomers—and is so central to Misplaced Pages's approach—many issues surrounding it have been covered before very extensively. If you have some new contribution to make to the debate, you could try the policy talk page. Before asking, please review the links below.

Being neutral

"There's no such thing as objectivity"

Everybody with any philosophical sophistication knows we all have biases. So, how can we take the NPOV policy seriously?

Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

The NPOV policy is sometimes used as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

A simple formulation—what does it mean?

A former section of this policy called "A simple formulation" said, "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but don't assert opinions themselves." What does this mean?

Balancing different views

Writing for the opponent

I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the opponent". I don't want to write for the opponents. Most of them rely on stating as fact many demonstrably false statements. Are you saying that to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie to represent the view I disagree with?

Morally offensive views

What about views that are morally offensive to most readers, such as Holocaust denial, that some people actually hold? Surely we are not to be neutral about them?

Editor disputes

Dealing with biased contributors

I agree with the nonbias policy, but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Avoiding constant disputes

How can we avoid constant and endless warfare over neutrality issues?

Other objections

Anglo-American focus

The English Misplaced Pages seems to have an Anglo-American focus. Is this contrary to NPOV?

Not answered here

I have some other objection—where should I complain?

History

"Neutral Point Of View" is one of the oldest governing concepts on Misplaced Pages. Originally appearing within Nupedia titled "Non-bias policy", it was drafted by Larry Sanger in 2000. Sanger in 2001 suggested that avoiding bias as one of Misplaced Pages's "rules to consider". This was codified with the objective of the NPOV policy to produce an unbiased encyclopedia. The original NPOV policy statement on Misplaced Pages was added by Sanger on December 26, 2001. Jimmy Wales has qualified NPOV as "non-negotiable", consistently, throughout various discussions: 2001 statement, November 2003, April 2006, March 2008.

No original research (NOR) and verifiability (V) have their origins in the NPOV policy and the problem of dealing with undue weight and fringe theories. The NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The verifiability policy was established in 2003 to ensure the accuracy of articles by encouraging editors to cite sources. Development of the undue-weight section also started in 2003, for which a mailing-list post by Jimmy Wales in September was instrumental.

See also

Policies and guidelines

• Conflict of interest
• Fringe theories
• Words to watch
• No original research
• Verifiability

Noticeboards

• NPOV noticeboard

Information pages

• Describing points of view
• List of controversial issues
• NPOV dispute
• NPOV FAQ
• NPOV quiz
• Recentism
• Positive tone (historical Meta policy)
• Understand bias (historical Meta policy)

Essays

• Be neutral in form
• Cherrypicking
• Civil POV pushing
• Coatrack articles
• Conflicting sources
• Controversial articles
• Criticism sections
• Describing points of view
• Don't "teach the controversy"
• Let the facts speak for themselves
• Let the reader decide
• NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
• NPOV tutorial
• POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields
• Presentism
• Scientific consensus
• Scientific point of view
• Systemic bias
• Why NPOV?
• Misplaced Pages only reports what the sources say
• Ye shall know them by their sources

Articles

• Criticism of Misplaced Pages § Neutral point of view and conflicts of interest
• Consensus reality
• Journalistic objectivity
• One-sided argument

Templates

• General NPOV templates:
  • {{POV}}—message used to attract other editors to assess and fix neutrality problems
  • {{POV section}}—message that tags only a single section as disputed
  • {{POV lead}}—message when the article's introduction is questionable
  • {{POV statement}}—message when only one sentence is questionable
  • {{NPOV language}}—message used when the neutrality of the style of writing is questioned
  • {{Political POV}}—message when the political neutrality of an article is questioned
  • {{Fact or opinion}}—message when a sentence may or may not require in-text attribution (e.g., "Jimmy Wales says")
  • {{Attribution needed}}—when in-text attribution should be added
• Undue-weight templates:
  • {{Undue weight}}—message used to warn that a part of an article lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole
  • {{Undue weight section}}—same as above but to tag a section only
  • {{Undue weight inline}}—same as above but to tag a sentence or paragraph only

Notes

1. Article sections devoted solely to criticism, and pro-and-con sections within articles, are two commonly cited examples. There are varying views on whether and to what extent such structures are appropriate; see guidance on thread mode, criticism, pro-and-con lists, and the criticism template.
2. Commonly cited examples include articles that read too much like a debate and content structured like a resume. See also the guide to layout, formatting of criticism, edit warring, cleanup templates, and the unbalanced-opinion template.
3. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered.

References

1. "BBC Trust—BBC science coverage given "vote of confidence" by independent report. 2011". 20 July 2011. Archived from the original on 21 December 2012. Retrieved 14 August 2011.
2. "Trust Conclusions on the Executive Report on Science Impartiality Review Actions. 2014" (PDF). July 2014. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 July 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.

Creation according to Genesis is the creation myth found in the Hebrew Bible, (Genesis 1–2). It describes the making of the heavens and the Earth and of the first humans by God (i.e. Elohim and/or YHWH). The two chapters contain two successive accounts of creation, the first taking the form of the "creation week", the second relating the Eden narrative. The majority of scholars believe the two accounts are independent in origin, but creationists and fundamentalists continue to argue that second should be seen as a continuation and expansion of the first.

The narrative

Genesis begins with two accounts of the creation: Genesis 1:1–2:3 and Genesis 2:4–2:25. Critical scholarship regards these two accounts as being separate, each having their own focus of attention. Others following the traditional interpretation see this second account as being a continuation and expansion of the first account, specifically "a literary flashback supplies more detail."

First account: Creation week

See Genesis 1:1–2:3

The creation week narrative begins with these words: "In the beginning, God (אלהים) created the heavens and the earth." It takes place over a period six days and is followed by a seventh day of rest. In these seven days there are eight divine commands spoken:

• Day 1: God creates light. Here is the first divine command, "Let there be light."
  • God then divides the light from the darkness, and calls the light "Day" and the darkness "Night."
• Day 2: God creates the heavens. Here is the second divine command, "Let there be an expanse..."
  • God then divides the waters that were above this expanse from the waters that were below it, and he calls the expanse "Heaven."
• Day 3: God creates dry land and sea. Here is the third divine command, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."
  • God then names the dry land, "Earth" and the waters, "Seas."
  • On this day we also have the fourth divine command, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees..."
• Day 4: God creates lights in the heavens. Here is the fifth divine command, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens..."
  • These lights were made to separate light from darkness and to mark days, seasons and years.
  • These lights consisted of "two great lights...and the stars." One light was to rule the day, and the second was to rule the night.
• Day 5: God creates sea creatures and birds. Here is the sixth divine command, "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens."
  • God tells these creatures "to be fruitful and multiply."
• Day 6: God creates the land animals and human beings This is the seventh divine command, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures..."
  • He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles.
  • He then creates man (אדם) in his image (צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים), male and female (1:27)—the eighth divine command: "Let us make mankind in our image..."
  • God tells them "to be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it." (1:28)
  • God gives both humans and animals plants to eat (1:29).
  • God describes his creation as "very good" (טֹוב מְאֹד 1:31).

• Day 7: Day of rest. God, having completed the heavens and the earth, rests from His work, and blesses and sanctifies the seventh day.

Literary bridge

"These are the generations (Heb. toledot ) of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

This phrase lies between the creation week account and the Eden account. It is the first of ten toledot phrases used in the book of Genesis, which act as a literary structure for the book. Since the phrase always precedes the "generation" (the toledot ) to which it belongs, it might be expected to refer to what then follows in Genesis 2. This is a position taken by several scholars. Nevertheless, other scholars from Rashi to the present day have argued that in this case it should apply to what precedes in Genesis 1.

Second account: Eden narrative

See Genesis 2:4–25

The Eden narrative addresses the creation of the first man and woman and the creation of a garden in Eden into which they were placed:

• Genesis 2:4b: This is beginning of the Eden narrative, and it places the events of the narrative "in the day when the LORD God (יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים) made the earth and the heavens."
• The forming of man: We are told that before any plant had appeared, before any rain had fallen, and while a mist watered the earth, the LORD God formed a man (Heb. adam) from dust of the ground (Heb. adamah), and he breathed "the breath of life" into his nostrils, and the man became a "living creature" (Heb. nephesh).
• Garden in Eden: The LORD God planted a garden in Eden into which he put the man.
• Trees: The LORD God caused fruit trees to sprout up from the ground for the man to eat. The tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil are also mentioned as being in the middle of this garden.
• Rivers: An unnamed river is described that went out of Eden to water the garden. We are told that there it divided into four rivers: Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, and Euphrates.
• The duty: The LORD God took the man and placed him in the garden to "work it and keep it."
• The command and the warning: The LORD God told the man that he may eat of the fruit of all the trees in the garden except from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
• The naming of the animals: The LORD God brought every living creature to the man who gave them all their names. At this time it was noticed that there was no helper (Heb. ezer ) fit for the man.
• The forming of woman: The LORD God said that it was not good for the man to be alone, and he resolved to make a helper fit for him. He then caused the man to fall into "a deep sleep," and he took one of his ribs, and from it he formed a woman. The man named her "Woman" (Heb. ishah), "because she was taken out of man (Heb. ish)."
• Marriage: A statement instituting marriage follows: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."
• Naked: We are told that the man and his wife are naked but they felt no shame because of it.

Genesis 1-11: Primeval History

These first two chapters in Genesis open up for us "primeval history," which is an historical unit in Genesis that acts as an introduction to the rest of the book. This unit contains the first mention of many themes that are continued throughout Genesis and the Torah, including fruitfulness, God's election of Israel, and his ongoing forgiveness of man's rebellious nature.

Ancient Near East context

Cosmology

The Earth according to the civilizations of the Ancient Near East was a flat disk, with infinite water both above and below it. The dome of the sky, was thought to be a solid metal bowl - tin according to the Sumerians, iron for the Egyptians - separating the surrounding water from the habitable world. The stars were embedded in the under surface of this dome, and there were gates in it that allowed the passage of the Sun and Moon back and forth. This flat-disk Earth was seen as a single island-continent surrounded by a circular ocean, of which the known seas - what we call today the Mediterranean Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea - were inlets. Beneath the Earth was a fresh-water sea, the source of all fresh-water rivers and wells.

Religion

Scholars of the Ancient Near East see Yahwistic monotheism as emerging from a common Mesopotamian/Levantine background of polytheistic religion and myth. The narrative elements of Genesis 1-11 appear to draw specifically from four Mesopotamian myths: Adapa and the South Wind, Atrahasis, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. These myths share similar motifs and characters with Genesis 1-11, with Genesis challenging the Mesopotamian view point.

According to the Enuma Elish, which has the closest parallels, the original state of the universe was a chaos formed by the mingling of two primeval waters, the female saltwater god Tiamat and the male freshwater god Apsu. Through the fusion of their waters six successive generations of gods were born. A fight amongst these gods began with the slaying of Apsu, and ended with a powerful god, Marduk, killing Tiamat by splitting her two with an arrow. Marduk then used one half of her body to form the earth and the other half to form the firmament of the heavens. It is from the eye-sockets of the slain Tiamat that the Euphrates and the Tigris rivers emerged. Marduk then created humanity - in seven pairs, male and female, and from clay mingled with spit and the blood of another slaughtered god - as a way of making the gods' way of life more comfortable and exciting. He then placed these people on the earth to be the servants to the gods, while Marduk himself was enthroned in Babylon in the Esagila, a temple with "its head in heaven."

Genesis 1-2 parallels the Enuma Elish, not only in its creation myth, but also in its religious message which sets up one specific god as Creator and ruler over all things. While the Enuma Elish promotes the power of Mesopotamian gods and honors the patron deity of Babylon, Marduk, as king over all gods and people, Genesis 1-2 serves to place the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) as king over everything. This theme is picked up on by later Hebrew authors in such places as Psalm 29, and Psalm 93.

World view

Despite their similarities, there is an important and stark difference between Genesis 1-2 and the Ancient Near East with regards to world view. The world view of the Ancient Near East was one that saw things as beginning negatively: Man began as nothing more than a "lackey of the gods to keep them supplied with food." It was only with time that things had become increasingly better, as in "things were not nearly as good to begin with as they have become since."

These chapters in Genesis however provide a complete contrast to the world view of the day: The world of Genesis starts out "very good" with man and woman as the apex of created order. It was not until after this initial state of "goodness" when Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree that was "in the midst of the garden," from which God had forbidden them to eat "lest die" (Genesis 3:3), that God became angry with them (Genesis 3:9–19). From that time things grew steadily worse until it climaxed in Genesis 6:5 which says, "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

Exegetical points

"In the beginning..."

The first word of Genesis 1 in Hebrew, "in the beginning" (Heb. brēšît), provides the traditional Jewish title for the book. The ambiguity of the Hebrew grammar in this verse gives rise to two alternative translations, the first implying that God's first act of creation was the heavens and the earth, the second that the heavens and the Earth already existed in a "formless and void" state, to which God brings form and order:

1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void...God said, Let there be light!" (King James Version).
2. "At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth, when the earth was (or the earth being) unformed and void . . . God said, Let there be light!" (Rashi, and with variations Ibn Ezra and Bereshith Rabba).

The name of God

Two names of God are used, Elohim in the first account and Yahweh Elohim in the second account. This difference, plus differences in the styles of the two chapters and a number of discrepancies between them, formed one of the earliest pieces of evidence that the Pentateuch had multiple origins, and was instrumental in the development of source criticism and the documentary hypothesis.

"Without form and void"

The phrase traditionally translated in English "without form and void" is tōhû wābōhû (Template:Lang-he). In most Bibles the phrase is translated by various combination of adjectives with which translators attempt to capture the flavor of the primeval terrestrial moment which tōhû vābōhû describes. The Greek Septuagint (LXX) rendered this term as "unseen and unformed" (Greek: ἀόρατος καὶ ἀκατασκεύαστος), paralleling the Greek concept of Chaos.

In the Hebrew Old Testament, this phrase is a dis legomenon, being used only in one other place, Jeremiah 4:23. There Jeremiah is telling Israel that sin and rebellion against God will lead to "darkness and chaos," or to "de-creation."

The rûach of God

Most English translations render this phrase as "the Spirit of God." The Hebrew rûach has the meanings "wind, spirit, breath," but the traditional Jewish interpretation here is "wind," as "spirit" would imply a living supernatural presence co-extent with yet separate from God at Creation. This, however, is the sense in which rûach was understood by the early Christian church in developing the doctrine of the Trinity, in which this passage plays a central role.

The "deep"

The "deep" (Heb. thôm), is the formless body of primeval water surrounding the habitable world. These waters are later released during the great flood, when "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth" from under the earth and from the "windows" of the sky.(Genesis 7:11). The word is cognate with the Babylonian Tiamat, and its occurrence here without the definite article ha (i.e., the literal translation of the Hebrew is that "darkness lay on the face of thôm) indicates its mythical origins.

The firmament of heaven

The "firmament" (Heb. rāqîa) of heaven, created on the second day of creation and populated by luminaries on the fourth day, denotes a solid ceiling which separated the earth below from the heavens and their waters above. The term is etymologically derived from the verb rāqa, used for the act of beating metal into thin plates.

Great sea monsters

Heb. tanninim is the classification of creatures to which the chaos-monsters Leviathan and Rahab belong (cf. Isaiah 27:1, Isaiah 51:9, Psalm 74:13–14). In Gen 1.21, the proper noun Leviathan is missing and only the class noun tanninim appears. The tannînim are associated with mythological sea creatures such as Lotan (the Ugaritic counterpart of the biblical Leviathan) which were considered deities by other ancient near eastern cultures; the author of Genesis 1 asserts the sovereignty of Elohim over such entities. The NJV translates it as "sea monsters".

The number seven

Seven was regarded as a significant number in the ancient Near East. It has been argued that the author of Genesis 1:1–2:3 has intentionally embedded it into the text in a number of ways, besides the obvious seven-day framework: the word "God" occurs 35 times (7 × 5) and "earth" 21 times (7 × 3). The phrases "and it was so" and "God saw that it was good" occur 7 times each. The first sentence of Genesis 1 contains 7 Hebrew words, and the second sentence contains 14 words, while the verses about the seventh day (2:1–3) contain 35 words in total.

Man and the image of God

The meaning of the phrase "image and likeness of God" has been much debated. The medieval Jewish scholar Rashi believed it referred to "a sort of conceptual archetype, model, or blueprint that God had previously made for man;" his colleague Maimonides suggested it referred to man's free will. Modern scholarship still debates whether the image of God was represented symmetrically in Adam and Eve, or whether Adam possessed the image more fully than the woman.

Structure and composition

Structure

Genesis 1 consists of eight acts of creation within a six day framework. Each of the first three days is an act of division: dark/light, waters/skies, sea/land & plants. In the next three days this framework is populated: heavenly bodies for the dark and light, fish and birds for the seas and skies, animals and (finally) man for the land. This six-day structure is symmetrically bracketed by day zero when primeval chaos reigns and day seven representing cosmic order.

Genesis 2 is a simple linear narrative, with the exception of the parenthesis about the four rivers at Genesis 2:10-14. This interrupts the forward movement of the narrative and might therefore be an insertion based on the spring or stream at Genesis 2:6 which waters the ground "on the day when Yahweh Elohim formed earth and heavens."

The “Primeval History” mimics Genesis 1’s intricate structure of parallel halves. The first half runs from Creation to Noah, the second from the Flood to Abraham. Each half is marked by the passage of ten generations (ten from Adam to Noah, another ten from Noah to Abraham). Like Genesis 1, each half has a six-part structure, and the content of each half exactly mirrors the other. Each follows the same themes, but with very different results: in the first half, God creates a perfect world for man, but man sins and God eventually returns his creation to its original state of chaos (i.e., the water of tehom); in the second, man finds himself in a newly created post-Flood world, as if given a chance to start again, but sins again (the Tower). But the result the second time is different: God choses Abram and makes his name (Heb. shem) great. The word shem appears to have structural significance: in Genesis 1, God names the elements of his Creation; in Genesis 2, “the man” (not at this stage named Adam), names the creatures over which he has been given dominion; Noah’s eldest son is “Shem”, and Yahweh is identified as “the God of Shem,” ancestor of Abraham and the Chosen People.

Composition

According to Jewish tradition the first five books of the Bible were written by Moses. Opinions differed among the rabbis on just how Genesis fitted into the picture, some saying God revealed it to Moses on Sinai, others holding that Moses compiled it in Egypt from writings left by the Patriarchs, with an account from Adam providing details on the Creation. The tradition of Mosaic authorship was adopted by the earliest Christians and is still held by many believers today, most notably among Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians.

Today virtually all scholars accept that the Pentateuch "was in reality a composite work, the product of many hands and periods.” In the first half of the 20th century the dominant theory regarding the origins of the Pentateuch was the documentary hypothesis. This supposes that the Torah was produced about 450 BC by combining four distinct, complete and coherent documents, known as the Yahwist (“Y” or “J”, from the German spelling of Yahweh), the Elohist (“E”), the Deuteronomist (“D”), and the Priestly source (“P”). Genesis 1 is from P, and Genesis 2 from J.

Some scholars believe that the Genesis account is a single report of creation, which is divided into two parts, written from different perspectives: the first part, from Genesis 1:1–2:3, describes the creation of the Earth from God's perspective; the second part, from Genesis 2:4–24, describes the creation of the Garden of Eden from Humanity's perspective. One such scholar wrote, "he strictly complementary nature of the accounts is plain enough: Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting" (Kitchen 116-117).

Other scholars, particularly those ascribing to textual criticism and the Documentary hypothesis, believe that the first two chapters of Genesis are two separate accounts of the creation. (They agree that the "first chapter" should include the first three verses and the first half of the fourth verse of chapter 2.) One such scholar wrote: "The book of Genesis, like the other books of the Hexateuch, was not the production of one author. A definite plan may be traced in the book, but the structure of the work forbids us to consider it as the production of one writer." (Spurell xv). For some religious writers, such as Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the existence of two separate creation stories is beyond doubt, and thus needs to be interpreted as having divine importance.

Some of the issues involved in the single vs. dual account debate include:

• Genesis 1 has creation in the order: plants; sea creatures and birds; land animals; man and woman (together); in Genesis 2 the sequence is: man; plants; land animals and birds; woman.
• Genesis 1 refers to God as Elohim, Genesis 2 uses the composite name Yahweh Elohim (Yahweh is often translated "LORD," but does not have this meaning in Hebrew - it is, rather, the name of the God of Israel). Single account advocates assert that Hebrew scriptures use different names for God throughout, depending on the characteristics of God which the author wished to emphasize. They argue that across the Hebrew scriptures, the use of Elohim in the first segment suggests "strength," focusing on God as the mighty Creator of the universe, while the use of Yahweh in the second segment suggested moral and spiritual natures of deity, particularly in relationship to the man. Dual account advocates assert that the two segments using different words for God indicates different authorship and two distinct narratives, in accord with the Documentary hypothesis.
• Though not so obvious in translation, the Hebrew text of the two sections differ both in the type of words used and in stylistic qualities. The first section flows smoothly, whereas the second is more interested in pointing out side details, and does so in a more point of fact style. One of the principles of textual criticism is that large differences in the type of words used, and in the stylistic qualities of the text, should be taken as support for the existence of two different authors. Proponents of the two-account hypothesis point to the attempts (e.g., The Book of J, by Harold Bloom, translated by David Rosenberg) to separate the various authors of the Torah claimed by the Documentary Hypothesis into distinct and sometimes contradictory accounts.

Proponents of the single account argue that style differences need not be indicative of multiple authors, but may simply indicate the purpose of different passages. For example, Kenneth Kitchen, a retired Archaeology Professor of the University of Liverpool, has argued (1966) that stylistic differences are meaningless, and reflect different subject matter. He supports this with the evidence of a biographical inscription of an Egyptian official in 2400 B.C., which reflects at least four different styles, but which is uniformly supposed to possess unity of authorship.

Theology and interpretation

The theology of Genesis

According to Professor Klaus Nurnberger, the motive of the biblical authors was not to put forward a coherent statement of their theology, but "to reassure fellow believers...of the strict, but benevolent, commitment of their God to his people." The rationale which holds together the "vastly divergent" biblical materials can therefore only be understood through studying the evolutionary process by which the texts were created.

The vast majority of modern scholars agree that "primeval history" within the Torah (Genesis 1-11) is composed of two distinct sources, the Yahwist and the Priestly (best understood today as bodies of texts with distinctive markers, rather than as distinct documents). The Priestly source "emphasizes the continuity of God's care for Israel as demonstrated in its history." This is expressed in certain pervasive themes: God's blessing (Genesis 1:28 provides the first of four important blessings within the overall Priestly narrative: "And God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'"); God's word (God's important involvements with the world are expressed through his spoken words, throughout the "And God said" Creation sequence of Genesis 1, and through the three subsequent major covenants with Noah at Genesis 9, Abraham at Genesis 17, and Israel at Exodus 20); and God's continuing presence among the Chosen People.

The Yahwist writer tends to express his theology through speeches of Yahweh placed at decisive points in the story. Six of the eight major speeches in Genesis occur in the "primeval history," the first being the speech at Genesis 2:16-17 prohibiting the fruit of the Tree of knowledge of good and evil. The import of these stories is that man will fail if he tries to become as God (the Eden story, repeated in the Flood story and again in the Tower of Babel story). But God is merciful, (each attempt produces a progressively more merciful response from God), and selects a people who will be his own (the promise to Abraham at Genesis 12, which is the fulcrum of the Yahwist history - Abraham is the ancestor of David, the culmination of God's promise). "Abraham, and hence David and all Israel, were chosen to be an instrument of blessing: 'Through you all families of the earth shall bless themselves/be blessed.'" The universal promise was planted when the Yahwist prefaced the national story of Israel with the "all-world" Primeval history.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other theologians suggest that the disobedience of Adam and Eve (taking the knowledge of good and evil for themselves) was the beginning of judgmentalism and remains an obstacle to our intended unconditional love for others.

The "framework interpretation" of Genesis 1, advanced by biblical scholars Meredith G. Kline and Henri Blocher, and with antecedents in St. Augustine of Hippo, argues that the "Creation week" should be read as a monotheistic polemic on creation theology directed against pagan creation myths. Klein and others have pointed out that Genesis 1 is built upon a literary framework where the sequence of events is topical rather than chronological, and builds to the establishment of the Sabbath commandment as its climax - the Sabbath being a prime concern of the Priestly source of the Torah.

Biblical literalism

Part of a series on
Creationism
History
Types
Young Earth Old Earth day-age gap progressive Neo-creationism
Biblical cosmology
Book of Genesis creation narrative as an allegory Omphalos hypothesis
Creation science
Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design
Rejection of evolution by religious groups
History Public education "Teach the Controversy"
Religious views
Non-creation Creator in Buddhism Jainism and non-creationism Evolution Theistic evolution Buddhist Catholic Hindu Islamic Jewish Mormon
v t e

Biblical literalists believe that the seven "days" of Genesis 1 correspond to normal 24-hour days of history during which God created the world in eight divine acts, or "fiats" - hence the view is also referred to as "fiat creation." Young Earth creationism holds that the creation week occurred a mere six to ten thousands years ago. Other literalists have attempted to reconcile their literal reading with the findings of modern geology regarding the age of the Earth. Gap creationism inserts a "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 into which geologic time can be inserted, during which the world of a presumed pre-Adamite race was destroyed and then rebuilt – a position called the "Ruin-Reconstruction Interpretation". Arthur C. Custance has documented numerous precursors to "gap creationism" centuries before literalists found themselves debating scientists, and has suggested that it may be more accurate to think of this view as a textual debate among literalists first, and a debate topic versus evolution second. Another response, the day-age theory, holds that each "day" (Heb. yom) of Genesis 1 represents an "age" of perhaps millions or even billions of years.

A similar spectrum of views is encountered in relation to Genesis 2–3. Many biblical literalists and fundamentalist Christians read this as strictly literal and historical - that God literally breathed into the nostrils of a being formed out of dust, turning it into a living man; there was a literal Garden of Eden with a literal Tree of Life; a literal couple (Adam and Eve) ate a literal forbidden fruit at the urging of a talking serpent; Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden and barred from re-entering it by a literal flaming sword. Other conservative Christians and Jews read it as a record of real events, but consider that the actual details are re-cast as symbols - thus the forbidden fruit, the serpent, the fig leaves and so forth, possibly even the Garden itself, are metaphors for religious or spiritual concepts that underlie the original sin of Adam, and/or an allegory describing the creation and sin of each individual human being. Modern commentators note that "architecture" and depiction of the Garden of Eden resembles that of the Temple in Jerusalem (for instance the description of the metals and precious stones, the cherubim, the eastward entrance, and the personal presence of YHWH), suggesting religious symbolism.

References

1. Browning, W. R. F. (1997). A Dictionary of the Bible (myth). Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192116918. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
2. Grudem, Wayne, ed. (2008). ESV Study Bible. Crossway Bibles. p. 52. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
3. Young, E.J. (1953). An Introduction to the Old Testament. The Tyndale Press. p. 55.
4. Gen. 1:1 English Standard Version
5. Frank Moore Cross, "The Priestly Work," in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 1973.
6. ^ Gordon J. Wenham. Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary). Word Books, Texas, 1987.
7. The argument is based on several grounds, notably the fact that Genesis 1 uses the phrase "heavens and earth" to introduce and close the Creation, while the account in Chapter 2 is introduced by the phrase "earth and heavens." Advocates of the other view argue that 2:4 is designed as a chiasm (Wenham, 49).
8. The lack of punctuation between 4a and 4b in the Hebrew creates ambiguity over where sentence endings should be placed in this passage. This is reflected in differing modern translations, some of which attach this clause to Genesis 2:4a and place a full stop at the end of 4b, while others place the full stop after 4a and make 4b the beginning of a new sentence. Still others combine all verses from 4a onwards into a single sentence culminating in Genesis 2:7.
9. some translations, "streams"
10. God later is called the "helper" of people: cf. Psalm 10:14 and Psalm 54:4
11. Hebrew tsela`, meaning side, chamber, rib, or beam (Strong's H6763). Some feminist scholars have questioned the traditional "rib" on the grounds that it denigrates the equality of the sexes, suggesting it should read "side": see Reisenberger, Azila Talit. "The creation of Adam...." in Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, 9/22/1993 (accessed 09–12–2007).
12. The lack of punctuation in the Hebrew makes it uncertain whether or not these words about marriage are intended to be a continuation of the speech of the man or of the narrator.
13. For a schematic representation of the structure of the "primeval history", see table iii of this document from McMaster University (table i contains a breakdown of the "history"according to the documentary hypothesis); for a more detailed discussion, see "Pentateuchal Research", Encyclopedia of Christianity.
14. ^ For a description of Near Eastern and other ancient cosmologies and their connections with the Biblical view of the Universe, see Paul H. Seeley, "The Firmament and the Water Above: The Meaning of Raqia in Genesis 1:6-8", Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991), and "The Geographical Meaning of 'Earth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10", Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997).
15. For a discussion of the roots of Biblical monotheism in Canaanite polytheism, see Mark S. Smith, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism"; See also the review of David Penchansky, "Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible", which describes some of the nuances underlying the subject. See the Bibliography section at the foot of this article for further reading on this subject.
16. "Genesis' Genesis, The Hebrew Transformation of the Ancient Near Eastern Myths and Their Motifs.
17. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Enuma Elish", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
18. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Enuma Elish", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
19. T. Jacobson, "The Eridu Genesis", JBL 100, 1981, pp.529, quoted in Gordon Wenham, "Exploring the Old Testament: The Pentateuch", 2003, p.17. See also Gordon J. Wenham. Genesis 1-15 (Word Biblical Commentary). Word Books, Texas, 1987.
20. There are also a few more inversions between Genesis and Mesopotamian myth that do not necessarily deal specifically with Creation: For example, while the Babylonian serpent-god Ningishzida is a friend of mankind who helps the human hero Adapa in his search for immortality, the serpent in Genesis 3 is man's enemy, seeking to trick Adam out of the chance to attain immortality. Cf. "Genesis' Genesis, The Hebrew Transformation of the Ancient Near Eastern Myths and Their Motifs. See the end of the article for a full list of the inversions in Genesis 1-11.
21. "Genesis' Genesis, The Hebrew Transformation of the Ancient Near Eastern Myths and Their Motifs.
22. Harry Orlinski's Notes to the New JPS Translation of the Torah, Genesis 1.
23. F.B. Huey, vol. 16, Jeremiah, Lamentations, "The New American Commentary" (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2001, c1993), p. 85; Holladay, Jeremiah 1, p. 164; Thompson writes, "it's as if the earth had been ‘uncreated.’", Thompson, Jeremiah, NICOT, p. 230;
24. The Message and NCV say, "God's Spirit." The NRSV is the only notable exception, translating this as "a wind from God" but still offering a alternate translation of "the spirit of God" Genesis 1:2.
25. Orlinsk's notes to the New JPS translation of Genesis
26. Noted by Hermann Gunkel - see Ernest Nicholson, "The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century", 2002, p.34.)
27. ^ Victor P. Hamilton. The Book of Genesis (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1990.
28. Vocabulary of Biblical Hebrew, Texas A&M University.
29. {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help)
30. Footnotes to Genesis translation at bible.ort.org
31. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Priestly Creation Story", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
32. David Carr, “The Politics of Textual Subversion: A Diachronic Perspective on the Garden of Eden Story”, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 112, No. 4 (Winter, 1993), pp. 577-595.
33. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Thematic Unity", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
34. For a description of rabbinic thinking regarding the process by which the Torah was composed, see Gil Student, "On the Authorship of the Torah" (Gil Student is a noted Orthodox Jewish scholar, working from within the framework of traditional Rabbinicism).
35. For an Evangelical Christian defense of Mosaic authorship couched in terms of the book of Deuteronomy (the last book of the Torah), see Daniel I. Block, "Recovering the Voice of Moses", Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, September 2001
36. Speiser, E. A. (1964). Genesis. The Anchor Bible. Doubleday. p. XXI. ISBN 0-385-00854-6.
37. Documentary Hypothesis (notes from from John Barton, "Source Criticism," Anchor Bible Dictionary) describes both the documentary hypothesis and the Mosaic authorship tradition.
38. Stone, Names of God, 1944, p. 17
39. Klaus Nurnberger, Professor of Theology and Ethics at the School of Theology, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg (South Africa).
40. Klaus Nurnberger, "Theology of the Biblical Witness: An Evolutionary Approach" (2002), p.3
41. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Table C: Priestly Document", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company
42. Bandstra, Barry L. (1999), "Table A: Yahwist Narrative", Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Wadsworth Publishing Company
43. Gregory Boyd: "Repenting of Religion: Turning Away form Judgment to the Love of God", Baker Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0-8010-6502-2
44. Meredith G. Kline (May 1958). "Because It Had Not Rained". Westminster Theological Journal 20 (2): pp. 146-57
45. Meredith G. Kline (1996). "Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony". Perspectives on Science & Christian Faith (48): pp. 2-15.
46. Henri Blocher. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. InterVarsity Press, 1984.
47. {{cite journal}}: Empty citation (help)
48. "Fiat" derives from the Latin for "Let there be..." Defines fiat creation
49. ^ Jordan, James B. Creation in Six Days. Canon Press, 1999. ISBN 1885767625. Jordan describes other views, but holds to the traditional plain historical and narrative sense of the text – six consecutive 24-hour days. He discusses other theories in considerable detail.
50. References to Gap creationism

Bibliography

• Rouvière, Jean-Marc, (2006), Brèves méditations sur la création du monde L'Harmattan, Paris.
• Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation in the Old Testament (editor) (ISBN 0-8006-1768-1)
• Anderson, Bernhard W. Creation Ver Bernhard W. Understanding the Old Testament (ISBN 0-13-948399-3)
• Reis, Pamela Tamarkin (2001). Genesis as Rashomon: The creation as told by God and man. Bible Review '17' (3).
• Kitchen, Kenneth, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, London: Tyndale, 1966, p. 118
• G.J. Spurrell, Notes on the Text of the Book of Genesis, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896.
• Davis, John, Paradise to Prison - Studies in Genesis, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975, p. 23
• P.N. Benware, "Survey of the Old Testament," Moody Press, Chicago IL, (1993).
• Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990.
• Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987.
• Stone, Nathan, Names of God, Chicago: Moody Press, 1944, p. 17.
• Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986
• J.D. Douglas et al., "Old Testament Volume: New Commentary on the Whole Bible," Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, (1990)

See also

• Allegorical interpretations of Genesis
• Biblical criticism
• Documentary hypothesis
• Enuma Elish
• Creation myth
• Sacred history

External links

Sources for the Biblical text

• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Hebrew-English text)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (King James Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (Revised Standard Version)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New Living Translation)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New American Standard Bible)
• Chapter 1 Chapter 2 (New International Version (UK))

Other resources

• Justin Lee Marple, "Kingdom Prologue, Genesis 1:1-2:3," Feeding the Sheep TorahPresents the Framework View of Genesis 1
• Alexander Heidel, "Babylonian Genesis" A classic text, at Wikibooks
• Paul H. Seely, "The Geographical Meaning of 'Éarth' and 'Seas' in Genesis 1:10", Westminster Theological Journal 59 (1997)ANE cosmography.
• Paul H. Seely, "The Firmament and the Water Above", The Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991) ANE cosmography
• Review of James P. Allen, The Egyptian Pyramid Texts (2005)
• Religious practices in late 7th century Israel
• Mark S. Smith, "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts", Bible and Interpretation.
• Review of John Day, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan (2000).
• "Enuma Elish", at Encyclopedia of the Orient Summary of Enuma Elish with links to full text.
• Review of Benjamin R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (2005) Includes comments on parallels between ancient Mesopotamian literature and biblical texts.
• "Epic of Gilgamesh" (summary)
• Old Earth Interpretation of Genesis
• The Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch
• The Multiple Authorship of the Books Attributed to Moses
• Hexaemeron - Catholic Encyclopedia article
• Creation Magazine and Ministries
• Origin Science - Seeking to reconcile Science with Scripture
• Creation Crisis - Examining problems with young-earth creationism

• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view
• Misplaced Pages policies
• Misplaced Pages content policies
• Creation myths
• Sacred history
• Hebrew Bible chapters
• Torah events