Talk:Noah/Archive 3

6000 BCE

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How did you determine that order of seniority? --Jibran1 21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

71.252.216.130 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)That statement is a bit misleading. Latter-day Saint teachings are that Noah WAS a mere man and is NOW an archangel. Even though technically it is correct the diction and syntax will mislead anyone who reads it who does not know any better, into believing that LDS believe that Noah WAS an archangel also. [User: wcdrotar 21 Dec 2008 9:20 A.M.]71.252.216.130 (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Noah pages

For everyone's information, we have:

Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Biblical criticism title dispute

There are some individuals who do not know or understand the field of Biblical Criticism. Unfortunately, this is why inexperienced editors cannot maintain a well balanced article. Often, most biblical wiki-pages are weighed down with religious POV from Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions while having little to none scholarly input from the field of Biblical criticism.

Because of these inexperienced editors, my time is now wasted having to consult this discussion board. Why do I have to fight about the title of the criticism section? This portion of the Noah article contains these branches of biblical criticism: (1) Narrative criticism (2) Redaction criticism (3) Psychological biblical criticism. Thus the main title of this section should be rightfully called: Biblical criticism, not About Noah. Both I and User: BeforeTheFoundation understand this.

I petition all experienced editors to support the title change by editing the title “About Noah” to “Biblical criticism” and maintaining this title as such. Thank you, Jasonasosa (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, BeforeTheFoundation also support the change back to Biblical Criticism. The unfortunate matter is that many people get bogged down in the fact that this phrase has the word 'criticism' in it and don't understand that this is not a pejorative phrase. As the article on Biblical Criticism makes clear, this field uses the term criticism in a way much more akin to literary criticism. Just because someone studying Shakespeare calls him/herself a 'critic' does not mean that he or she is trying to slander the name of Shakespeare. Likewise, the field of scholarship that is being discussed here is Biblical Criticism. That is what the field is called. Just like Psychology is Psychology and Mathematics is Mathematics the field that concerns itself with the Documentary Hypothesis, Narrative criticism, Redaction criticism, and Psychological biblical criticism is called Biblical Criticism. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary definition of criticism according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "the act of criticizing usually unfavorably"([1]). While I (and Merriam-Webster) agree that the word criticism is not necessarily negative, most of the intended audience of the article will interpret it as such, especially because this article is about a religious figure. I believe that, in the audiences best interest, another synonym would be better suited. I think that a lot of debate and editing could be spared by changing the word 'criticism' to the word 'analysis' or some other appropriate word. I believe that a section bearing the word 'criticism' would be better suited for a review of viewpoints that do not support the biblical figure.

On a secondary note, I also strongly believe that I have a better understanding of the scholarly viewpoints if I understand the primary religious context of Noah before hand. I believe that the religious viewpoint actually leads into the scholarly viewpoint, and therefore find that the article flows better when the religious information is presented first. Even if Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia (which I cannot find any claim that it is, so I am assuming) I feel that the information is better presented in such a manner.

There are my two cents. Lothimos (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Lothimos: I absolutely understand the concern over how most people will understand the term 'criticism'. However, I still firmly maintain the need to use the scholarly definition. The history of Biblical Criticism is very entrenched in the history of Literary Criticism. Indeed, many of the theories and methodologies that Biblical Scholars adopted are based off of how Literary Criticism has been interpreted.

Now, as a Biblical Scholar myself, it is just as important to me to use precise language as it is for anyone in any field. Whenever we talk of literary theories and hypothetical documents, it is very important that we engage those topics with the appropriate technical language. As our very own wikipedia entry on Criticism makes clear, the technical use of the word (to be separated from the informal use) is "Another meaning of criticism is the study, evaluation, and interpretation of literature, social movements, film, arts, and similar objects and events. The goal of this type of criticism is to understand the work or event more thoroughly." It may be true that people that are not familiar with this definition may at first be confused, however a much better solution to that problem is to provide links on the Noah page to other pages that could clear up this misunderstanding rather than to ignore the technical language that is part and parcel to the field at hand. In other words, if, as I believe, the field that covers things like source criticism, linguistics (i.e. etymology), narrative criticism, redaction criticism, and psychological criticism is important to our understanding of the topic of "Noah" then we should name that field what it is, which is Biblical criticism. Links should be provided (and I will do so now) to the pages of Biblical criticism, Literary criticism, and Criticism to avoid confusion.

As to your second point regarding the order in which the article should be arranged, I actually think that you have a very good point. I think that I could easily endorse rearranging it such that the religious points are presented before the scholarly points, though on a personal note I don't particularly like the strict delineation between the religious and scholarly aspects of the article. I for one feel that my religious views and my scholarly views cannot be separated quite so easily. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User: Lothimos, within certain perameters, I appreciate your point of what is in "the audiences best interest". User: BeforeTheFoundation, how do you feel about slightly modifying the title, yet still keeping its core integrity, to: Biblical critical methods? The subsections are in fact considered methods of Biblical critcism. Having it this way keeps the integrity of the field of criticism and aleviates the negative feel of the word, for those not familiar with its process.

In regards to moving religious POV above text analysis... I totally disagree. The Catholic Encyclopedia defines Biblical Criticism (Higher) as "Biblical criticism in its fullest comprehension is the examination of the literary origins and historical values of the books composing the Bible, with the state in which these exist at the present day." What this means is, the thorough analysis of text, defines etymologies, origins, parrallels, narrative structure... all fundamental elements that even theologist use to verify, proove, categorize, and even canonize religious text/works/doctrine. Jasonasosa (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, completely agree with your wording of Biblical critical methods for the same reasons that you mentioned above. I think that would work very well. Lothimos (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User: BeforeTheFoundation, what say you?

Sorry I was out for a little while. I think Biblical critical methods would be very appropriate. My main emphasis is on the use of the technical language while being appealing and understandable to anyone that would stumble upon this article. I want to shy away from things like About Noah because it does not actually describe what is in the text. Biblical critical methods does describe the subject at hand.

As for the question about the order of the article. Jasonasosa I agree with you about the link between Higher Biblical Criticism and faith and is kind of what I was alluding to in my last post when I said that my faith cannot be separated from my scholarship. At the end of the day, in regards to that issue, I don't have strong feelings either way. My main intent is to make sure that the content is there, my concern isn't so much what order it goes in.

Anyway, it looks like we have a general consensus on renaming the heading so I will go ahead and do that. BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I really like how we came together here with wonderful input and intelligence! I am very happy how the edit here went. Thanks guys! Jasonasosa (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I greatly appreciate your concluding remarks Jasonasosa. I too felt it important enough to say thanks to both of you. Lothimos (talk) 15:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's what this is all about, right? ;)BeforeTheFoundation (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CFORK merge candidate

FYI, there is an article, which appears to be a CFORK of this one, at Noach (parsha) which is being considered for deletion. I don't know if there is any content in that article which is worthy of being merged with this one, but if there is, please migrate it over. Thanks! — Jess· Δ ♥ 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noah was forty years old

I have to research this, but at the church where I went Sunday (my church was doing a contemporary service, as they now do once a month, so I stayed away), the speaker said Noah and his family were on the ark for one year, as a year was defined at that time. Because a year was defined differently then, he was about forty.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would come from the idea that the calendar used by the ante-diluvians was different to the solar calendar apparently later adopted and that actually the Bible isn't talking about people living to hundreds of solar years, but hundreds of lunar months. So the argument would say that Adam did not live 930 years, but 930 lunar months, or just over 75 years; or that when the flood came, Noah wasn't 600 years old, but 600 lunar months old, i.e. about 48.5 years old. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit in with the text because Adam was 130 "years" old when he had Seth, which would make him by this theory just over 10. The longer lifespans are in accordance with other ancient Near Eastern texts which claim long lifespans for ante-diluvian kings (see the Sumerian King List). Alan Hooker (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything online so far, and it would be kind of a challenge for me to find this speaker and ask. But that Adam situation does complicate things.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have solved the Adam problem, though this would involve so many articles and discussing this theory on all of them. Adam was created an adult capable of fathering a child. So he could have been 10 in our years.

Now the question is how to reference this theory.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is about the age of Genesis people in general and not about Noah specifically, how about you take this age issue to Longevity myths? It's beyond the scope of this article.--Atlan (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid it would be but didn't know where to go.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article covers the idea.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the idea is not beyond the scope of this article as we need some way of indicating Noah is covered. We'd have to do this for all the Biblical figures, which may not go over well.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vchimpanzee, there is nothing to solve. Even if Adam was created as an adult, his son Seth was 105 years old when he had Enosh, which by the lunar-months theory would make him around 8, and Seth was not created as an adult (!) The antediluvian family tree is mythological and that is why it ascribes long lifespans to people near the creation. It parallels the Sumerian king list, although there are significant differences between the two. Genesis 5 describes antediluvian lifespans, while the King List details the length of the kings' reigns. Either way, the long lives suggests a mythological provenance. Nothing really needs to be solved. Noah wasn't 40 years old. He was 600 according to the text, which is mythological. We don't need to try and square it up with our worldview. Alan Hooker (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't found anything yet, this woman seemed to know what she was talking about, though when I saw my pastor this morning, he had never heard this. It's no more than a fringe theory. If I can't get consensus for including it in the affected articles, then obviously I have to drop it.21:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

I have set up auto archiving for this talk page. If there is objection feel free to revert. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only a myth

The flood was a real histoic event (I'm not saying that the Noah story is real, but the flood was real). Learn more on Santorini. --178.197.236.244 (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hypothesis on Santorini tries to explain the exodus from Egypt, not the flood Noah survived. Could you spare us your uninformed "theory" that you're spamming on talk pages?--Atlan (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noah's Age in Quran

Quran only states that Noah (peace be upon him) had been living, among the people who he was sent to, for 950 years when the flood started; hence, the period which Noah lived before the flood; not necessary his age. Therefore, the claim in the article about his age must not be presented as a fact, and should be replaced by a translation for Quran 29:14.

The claim: Noah's age as described in the Quran is 950 years.[29]

Translation by Mohd Asad for Quran29:14 وَلَقَدْ أَرْسَلْنَا نُوحًا إِلَىٰ قَوْمِهِ فَلَبِثَ فِيهِمْ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ إِلَّا خَمْسِينَ عَامًا فَأَخَذَهُمُ الطُّوفَانُ وَهُمْ ظَالِمُونَ "And, indeed, [in times long past] We sent forth Noah unto his people, and he dwelt among them a thousand years bar fifty; and then the floods overwhelmed them while they were still lost in evildoing" --AhmadZuhair (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and NPOV

We've got an IP hopper from the Philippines here insisting on pov and inaccurate information in the infobox. 1. We should not use the infobox to assert material about Noah as factual. I guess we could attribute it (and his alleged birthdate isn't in the Bible of course so it would have to be attributed differently). 2. Born in Ancient Israel? That's obviously ridiculous and makes us look ignorant. The Bible doesn't say where he was born, and who claims Israel existed at that time? I'm sure some people do, but that doesn't mean it should be in the article.

If this continues I'll ask for semi-protection. Not reverting as that would put me at 3RR and the IP is hopping. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how do you factually edit superstitious bullshit? 75.163.222.159 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2014

Moved from Talk:Noah&

– Anon126 (talk - contribs) 03:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the section: Searches for Noah's Ark Change: Despite many expeditions, no scientific evidence of the ark has been found. To: Although there is no scientific proof of the ark's location, there are sites that have historically been closely scrutinized by the media, such as the Durupınar site. Add the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durupınar_site Because: Historical analysis has been used at this site along with semi-scientific methods, such as aerial mapping, metal detecting, ground penetrating radar, comparison of dimensions to historical documents, local area claims, iron samples. Additionally, the Durupınar site has few links to it and make it more difficult for wikipedians to find. 70.211.6.107 (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. RudolfRed (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Punnctuation

Notice this edit. Obviously WP:MOS requires an en-dash rather than a hyphen for ranges of numbers, including, most frequently, years and pages, but also including letters of the alphabet and other numbers. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Allah" why not "God"?

Is there a WP-wide policy on the translation or non-translation of the Arabic for God, Allah? It seems obfuscating and gratuitously divisive to fail to translate the term. Tom Haws (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of section on Hindu flood myth

I have deleted the section attempting to draw a link between the Noah story and the Hindu myth of Manu. The section has three sources, but relies on only one of them, and that one is not a reliable source in terms of Wikipedia policy.

The section is:

A story involving Lord Vishnu and King Manu is found in the Hindu chronicle Matsya Purana. Lord Vishnu in his 'matsya' (fish) avatar ordered the virtuous king Manu to construct a huge boat with animal and plant specimens of all forms, to escape the Great Deluge, and finally when the water receded,the great boat was found atop the Malaya Mountains.[20] Some commentators say that Manu is the Hindu equivalent of Noah.[21] Others, however, would say that "the story is thoroughly Indian" and the "boat is not the equivalent of Noah's Ark, though it is still the symbol of salvation"[22]

The first source (numbered 20) is simply a description of the Manu myth. The third (numbered 22) is an encyclopedia of Asian mythologies and reliable enough - it says that Manu's boat is not the equivalent of Naoh's Ark, which is accurate (that it's a means of salvation is irrelevant - any boat that rides out a flood is a means of salvation; I believe Piglet has one in Winnie the Pooh, although his is an upturned umbrella).

The third, on which the section depends, is Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About The Event That Changed History , published by William Ryan and Walter Pitman in 1999. Ryan and Pitman's thesis was that the Black Sea basin was subject to a catastrophic flooding event about 7500 BCE. If they'd stopped there they might have had a point, but they went well beyond, claiming that this event was the origin of the Noah story and every other flood story around the world. Ryan and Pitman are geologists, and had no expertise to make this leap into other areas - they are not, in other words, reliable sources. The reliable sources for the Noah story are biblical scholars, not geologists, and no biblical scholar has accepted the Ryan/Pitman hypothesis, or even bothered to review the book. This belongs to popular mythology, and shouldn't be mentioned in this article. PiCo (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize this was contentious. I would think that anyone who knows about Manu would read this article expecting to find some mention. I've done some Google looking and find a lot of comparisons between the two. For a start, Britannica has this [2], saying Manu is a combination of Adam and Noah. Nobody is saying they are the same person; but it is interesting that both cultures have a figure who fills the same space. DO you say that nobody in an RS thinks "that Manu is the Hindu equivalent of Noah"? Myrvin (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can insist that "reliable sources for the Noah story are biblical scholars". That is not a WP rule. You may argue that the Ryan/Pitman hypothesis is a fringe theory, and therefore shouldn't appear, but scientists may have relevance here. Also, Indian/Hindu scholars might surely be allowed to have a say. As it happens, JG. Frazer wrote against biblical scholars of his time trying to find connections between Noah and Manu, so as to provide evidence for the reality of the biblical flood. Another Frazer (JW) talks about Manu taking the part of Noah [3]. Myrvin (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the more WP action on your part would have been to add a citation needed tag, and add a comment here. Deleting the section completely is rather OTT. Myrvin (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myrvin: sorry for not getting back earlier on this. I stand by my point that there's no connection between the Manu story and the Noah story apart from the (entirely coincidental) fact that they both figure as hero of a flood myth. That's the point being made in the Britannica article - quite true, but not very important given that flood myths are found everywhere.

As for Ryan/Pitman, they have as much authority to talk about the genesis flood story as they do talk about French cooking or to run climbing tours in the Himalayas - none. The Noah story was written about the year 500 BCE, give or take a century, and that's several thousand years after the Black Sea event. Oral traditions simply don't last that long. Nor is the Noah story based on oral tradition - it's entirely literary, based on a specific 8th century written version of the Babylonian flood myth. I can provide a detailed section on this, with sources, if needed, but nobody can be found to support Ryan/Pitman. PiCo (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your deletion again, removed Ryan/Pitman, and added more supportive references. Your assertions above rather took me by surprise. They don't seem to have anything to do with Hindu/Manu. I hope to see your additions to Flood myth.Myrvin (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My asseritons don't have anything to do with Hindu Manu? The point is that Hindu Manu has nothing to do with Noah. Thanks for the new sources, but again they fail to establish any connection. I'll go through them, first pasting in the paragraph:

A story involving Lord Vishnu and King Manu is found in the Hindu chronicle Matsya Purana. Lord Vishnu in his 'matsya' (fish) avatar ordered the virtuous king Manu to construct a huge boat with animal and plant specimens of all forms, to escape the Great Deluge, and finally when the water receded,the great boat was found atop the Malaya Mountains.[22] Encyclopaedia Britannica notes that "Manu combines the characteristics of the Hebrew Bible figures of Noah, who preserved life from extinction in a great flood, and Adam, the first man",[23] which view is reflected in several other works.[24] Also, for Christian apologist Krishna Mohan Banerjee, the names "Noah" and "Manu" "had the same etymological root: 'Manu' must have been the Indo-Aryan ideal of Noah."[25] Philologist and founder of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, William Jones, "identifies Manu with Noah", along with whom, "the seven sages can be identified with the eight people aboard the Ark."[26] Others, however, would say that "the story is thoroughly Indian" and the "boat is not the equivalent of Noah's Ark, though it is still the symbol of salvation"[27]

Note 22 is simply a description of the Manu myth, and not really relevant to this discussion (it doesn't show a connection, but it's not meant to).
Note 23, the Encyclopedia Britannica article, shows a parallel, not a connection - it simply says that the Hindu flood hero does some of the things that two different heroes (Adam and Noah) do in the Hebrew bible - it doesn't make the argument that Manu is based on Noah or vice versa.
Notes 24 and 25 are about the late 19th century idea, advanced by certain Hindu intellectuals of the time, that the original Aryan peoples lived in Media and were the common ancestors of both the Jews and the Hindus - needless to say this idea has no supporters in the modern day, although doubtless it still has advocates in fringe circles - extreme fringe I might add. (And Sri G. Anand is fringe - "Born in 1982 in Washington State as Gregory Alexander Badalian, Sri G. Ananda was soon told of a vision his father had three years earlier...". Another of his books "discovers amazing links between Ganesha and Jesus Christ".)
William Jones (note 26) was a linguist and scholar of the late 18th century and is now well out of date (he died in 1794).

In short, the first two sources are reliable but not relevant, and the remainder are not reliable. Out of curiosity, how do you classify Noah - history, myth, something else? - and how do you see Genesis being written? PiCo (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand why you are labouring this point. Neither of these people really existed. Thinkers, throughout history, have noted the similarities between the two myths, and some of them have made deductions that somehow they are the same myth and the two men are the same in the myths. Why are you so against reporting this fact? I don't know what you mean by a "connection". For you to say there is no connection is OR. If you have references that say they are unconnected - whatever that means - then feel free to add them. There is a reference that says the linking of the two men is dodgy anyway. Removing any suggestion that anyone has ever said that the two men serve the same mythical purpose is dishonest. The same goes for Utnapishtim and Deucalion. Why do you want to ignore the Hindus? You seem to have a theory that you like about the way Noah was made up. Put it in somewhere. But don't let that theory ban the mention of what other people have thought. Myrvin (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're agreed that neither Noah nor Manu were real people. What I'm wondering is how you understand the origins of the Bible's Noah episode. You seem to think that one story is based on the other (that's what I mean by "connected"). They're not. The Noah story was written about 500 BC by a single author, who seems to have been a priest from the temple in Jerusalem. He'd never heard of Manu. But he did have in front of him a specific Babylonian version of the Mesopotamian flood-myth, and he used that as his primary source. We know this because, by great good fortune, a copy of that Babylonian myth has been found. It dates from about 800 BC. It, in turn, is based on earlier versions of the myth, all the way back to the Sumerians over a thousand years earlier. This isn't my personal theory, it's the conclusion of scholars who study the Hebrew bible. A few of them are listed in the bibliography of the article. Nobody at all, except fringe theorists and outdated scholars such as you're relying on, sees any connection between the Biblical/Mesopotamian stories and the Hindu ones. The connection is yours to prove, with reliable sources, not mine to disprove.PiCo (talk) 02:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had said a lot of this before. I didn't realise it was my motivation that was in question. I do not think that one story is based on the other. Even if I did, that would be OR. The section is called Comparative mythology, where myths are compared. The Manu story is thought by some to be similar to the Noah story, and this we are reporting. Some people have thought that this similarity means rather more than just that, and we are reporting that. I don't think we are going to agree on this. I suggest we ask for arbitration to see if Manu should be mentioned in the Noah article - just as Noah is mentioned in the Manu article (and Britannica). In the meantime, it would be nice if some other editors had a say. Myrvin (talk) 08:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a dispute resolution. Myrvin (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the general point of Flood myths. David Dean Shulman writes on p. 57 here [4] that borrowing between Tamil and Middle-Eastern myths cannot be ruled out. Also Donald Alexander Mackenzie, in Myths of Babylonia and Syria, writes "it seems undoubted that the Manu fish and flood myth is a direct Babylonian inheritance". So that Manu and Noah might be myth siblings. A thesis supported by Romila Thapar (see p4 here [5] ). As I said, Frazer denies all this[6]. Myrvin (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shulman is interesting - why not send him an email and ask his opinion? I've generally found academics to be quite approachable. In general, the sources you quote are saying that the Tamil writers of the Manu myth may have borrowed from Mesopotamian sources. Fine, but that means you can mention this on the flood myth page, not on the Noah page. This is an article about Noah, not about comparative mythology. PiCo (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to have come to an agreement on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Noah. I have re-formatted the origins and Comparative mythology as suggested there.Myrvin (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New format suggestion

An idea has occurred to me that might solve some problems.

Move Comparative mythology to become a section containing Greek and Hindu people. Add more parallel Noahs if there are any.
Leave all/most of Mesopotamian stuff in Origins as a section. Maybe Babylonian stuff could go in Comparative mythology too, leaving Sumerian stuff in Origins.

This gets over the confusion of origins with parallel Noahs. Myrvin (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

Some WP:weasel words are creeping in to this article. I have tagged "few doubt". There is also "Many scholars believe", and "is believed".

~~I can't find the first of these in the source cited.~~ Although this is a poor citation having 'pages=70-'; suggesting anywhere after page 69, which is not good enough. I see that the words used to have quotation marks around them, saying that they are actually in the source. But these were removed later. I have found them on p 70. I'll put a larger quote in and fix the ref.
I don't know if the cited source says "many scholars believe", if not, the assertion needs more than one source - and even then it's dodgy. The next citation just says "Bottero, (2001:21–22)" - I can't find what this is. There is a French Jean Bottéro who wrote things like Birth of God: The Bible and the Historian and several French texts. Surely there must be a better reference.
The two "is believed" might be OK, but it is listed as a weasel phrase. Myrvin (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]