Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:18, 2 June 2008

Template:Talkheaderlong

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Noah's Ark. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Noah's Ark at the Reference desk.

	Noah's Ark is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some work needed on this subsection

I'm addressing this mainly to Taiwanboi, since it's his particular concern. TB, there are some points in the subsection on practicality that need addressing. I'll paste the whole paragraph in first, then list my comments.

Practicality: Could the Ark have supported its own weight?Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Such questions are responded to by apologist claims that there is sufficient evidence for the practicality of ancient timber vessels comparable to the Ark . From as early as the 17th century comparisons have been drawn between the Ark and various ancient vessels considered analogous in dimensions and construction. Defending the praticality of the Ark, Walter Raleigh argued the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia (a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Christian apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by Christian apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, the Thalamegos, Caligula's Giant Ship, and Caligula's Nemi Ships, the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities. A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists is the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan'. Skeptics object that the design and size of the Chinese ships is not in fact sufficiently analogous to the Ark.

Now here are the comments on points that I feel need further work:

• Raleigh's comparison of the Ark and the Syracusia: Since nobody is sure how long the Ark was, how can it be said to have been longer or shorter than the Syracusia? And just how long was the Syracusia? (this should be added in brackets). And are we sure that data on the length of the S. is reliable?

I included a link to the Syracusia which gives its size. As to the rest, you're trying to assess the worthiness of Raleigh's apologetic. That's not the task of this article. The task of this article is to mention what people believe. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• More broadly, I'm not sure we should be referencing Sir Walter at all - this section is about modern literalist beliefs. If some modern literalist source quotes Sir Walter, that's fine, but of himself he's not strictly relevant.

I hadn't noticed that this section is only about modern literalist beliefs. The section on gopher wood cites the LXX (2nd-3rd century BC), the Latin Vulgate, and the 17th century KJV for different literalist interpretations of gopher wood. My reference was simply following the same pattern. If you're interested, the Syracusia is still used as a comparison by Ark apologists. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Your other ancient ships could also have lengths added in brackets. Otherwise, the reader is left a bit in the dark.

Well I do provide links which give specific details. The link to the Tessarakonteres gives the modern estimate, as do the links to Caligula's barge and Nemi ships. The size of Hatshepsut's barge is contained in a reference link at the end of the sentence. The only ship missing a specific reference to size is the Thalamegos. If you want me to include specific sizes in brackets after each ship, I can do that. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the Chinese ships, for similar reasons - i.e., our article is about literalist beliefs. This is what I meant when I wrote earlier about the difference between making or stating a case (ours) and describing one (the literalist beliefs) - NPOV means we should restrict ourselves to describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own. And yes, I'm aware that you didn't add the Chinese material.

PiCo (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the paragraph you will see that the Chinese ships are mentioned as a point of comparison made by current literalists (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments ('A point of comparison used less commonly by apologists'), not making our own. Then a reference is made to current skeptics who object that they are not sufficiently analogous to the Ark (a link is given). This is describing other people's beliefs/arguments, not making our own ('Skeptics object'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Seaworthiness" and "Practicality": new version

• Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m)long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. In this regard, some apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed, and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. Some apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.

• Practicality: Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, albeit with caveats regarding its practicality: Plutarch says "she was moved only with difficulty and danger"), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft), the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

Summary of changes: As per my suggestion a while back, I think this provides a better separation of global-flood and local-flood apologetics. Rather than mixing these in the same sentence, I now have the article progressing from global-flood "seaworthiness", via a separate sentence at the end (mentioning local-flood, though the main article should probably raise this elsewhere too), into the "practicality" section which describes the various non-oceangoing historical examples (though I don't specifically point this out, as it's not clear whether Raleigh and the others actually were local-flood apologists, and even global-flood apologists would probably want to mention these). I've put back some of the material regarding the treasure ships, but dropped the reference to Gavin Menzies' claims (as per WP:UNDUE, he seems rather fringe). I disagree with Taiwan Boi's opinion that these are less notable: they are mentioned at TalkOrigins (whereas the Tessarakonteres appears only in the "feedback" section), they feature prominently at the Worldwideflood site, and so forth: as we have no reference for any claim that they are less notable, we shouldn't be injecting original research there. As for the other "original research" charge regarding the treasure ships (more specifically WP:SYN): well, this is dependent on whether or not the subject of "large wooden ships" is considered "directly relevant" to the article's subject, Noah's Ark (the counter-arguments against them aren't mine, they are those of cited skeptics of the claims regarding the treasure ships). I had earlier assumed this was relevant, hence references regarding such vessels would be on-topic even if they didn't mention Noah's Ark (especially as the connection to Noah's Ark has been established by other references): Taiwan Boi disagreed, but apparently did not consider the fact that this restriction would disqualify at least eight of his own references as WP:SYN violations (as mentioned previously). I'd rather not butcher the article, but if no consensus can be reached, those additional references (and the statements supported by them) would have to go. "Practicality" is unchanged, apart from two points: I've removed the speculation regarding the Ark's ability to support its own weight (this apparently cannot be reliably sourced, and is already addressed by the rest of the paragraph anyhow), and I've included Plutarch's comment regarding the practicality of the Tessarakonteres (relevant as he's a cited "historical source" for the ship's existence). I've also incorporated PiCo's suggestion of quoting the lengths of the ships. --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

...Well, I don't exactly see howls of protest here. So I'll copy it across. --Robert Stevens (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You waited a day on a article that dosnt seem to get much action, and who cares ifd it was practical... --Jakezing (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Having read the Korean paper and WorldwideFlood's analysis, I'm sure that the Korean paper only deals with the "dimensions, shape," of the Ark as far as safety and stability were concerned. It does not deal with the "structural materials" of the Ark. The Engineer and Naval Architects of Worldwideflood's website have done strength of materials and structural design of a proposed wood ship. They do not depend upon 19th century ships for their design. In fact, they avoided the design of "modern" ships because they were inadequate and desperately flawed. And they used some design features of ancient ships, not used by 'modern' sailing ships, that greatly increase the structural strength of wood construction. These guys know what they are talking about. The only ones who disagree with them are people who do not have the education or experience to know.

--Christian Skeptic (talk) 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

References

1. How BIG was Noah's Ark?
2. Noah's Ark
3. Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
4. Gould, R (2001). "Asia's Undersea Archeology". Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
5. Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
6. S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
7. NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
8. Ark
9. Compare Noah's Ark
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH508.html
11. Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
12. Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
13. [http://www.travel-silkroad.com/english/marine/ZhengHe.htm The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
14. The Genesis Flood
15. Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
16. Noah's Ark 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
17. The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'
18. The large ships of antiquity
19. 'For measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
20. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
21. The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
22. Demetrius, 43.4-5
23. 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
24. 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
25. Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
26. 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
27. Impossible For Ancients
28. The Genesis Flood
29. 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
30. ' was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
31. 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
32. 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
33. 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
34. 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206

Sections: Documentary Hypothesis, 20th century scholarship

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

I've added material to this section which was in a previous edit of the article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the sincerity of your edits and your beliefs, but we have to bear in mind that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to give readers an idea of what the mainstream ideas are for any given subject. It would not be appropriate, for example, to give prominence in the Aids article to the idea that Aids can be cured through diet - I understand this idea is put forward quite seriously by some very important people in South Africa, but it has no standing at all in medical circles. Similarly for your additions to the 20th century section of this article. You put forward some scholars who have argued in favour of the compositional unity of the Ark story, but the fact is that this idea has won no following in scholarly circles.PiCo (talk) 05:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to put up with this kind of behaviour any more. I've had enough of you and others making up Wiki rules which simply don't exist, with the sole aim of preventing edits which you don't like. Firstly, the purpose of this encyclopedia is to present notable views.

Taiwanboi, please calm down, you are not being persecuted. Ok, you say the ppurpose of Wikidedia is to present notable views. So it is, and if you can somehow make a distinction between presenting mainstream views and notable views, please enlighten me, because I can't.

Please don't accuse me of claiming I'm being persecuted. I've said no such thing. I've objected to consistently bad behaviour in this article, especially yours, which has included appealing falsely to non-existent Wiki rules. If you don't understand the difference between mainstream views and notable views, then you shouldn't be editing this article. I refer you to WP:N. But as it happens, the compositional unity of the flood narrative has won a following in scholarly circles, notably with Wenham (whom you describe as 'an authority'), and is certainly mainstream even by your definition. You were the one who mentioned the fact that one of the new theories which has replaced the Documentary Hypothesis is the view that the flood narrative is 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document'. You even mentioned Wenham as supporting this theory. So there's no reason for me not to mention others who support this view and the 'fragmentary' view of Noth, and no reason for me not to include a citation of Wenham to this effect. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, when it comes to 'mainstream' scholarship you've devoted an entire paragraph to the Documentary Hypothesis, which even you acknowledge is not longer accepted by the consensus.

You haven't understood the structure of the article. It presents a historical overview of interpretations of the Ark, from the earliest Jewish interpreters, through the Christian ones, through the Islamic, all of these being essentially theological/religious in nature. Then the next major section shows the ways the Ark story was interpreted in the modern scientific world, from the 17th through the 19th century - the DH gets a whole paragraph because the Ark story was a showpiece for it, and because the DH itself was so important in the history of biblical scholarship. Then there's a subsection on the 20th century. The DH isn't the consensus, but it isn't dead, either - it still has plenty of followers, and so still gets a mention in the first paragraph, along with post-DH approaches. (The last part of the article, on literalism, is about a peculiarly American way of regarding the Ark narrative. It's far too long, and needs to be cut back to a single paragraph - I'll do that tomorrow).

I have understood the structure of the article, and I don't have a problem with it. Though even if I did, you've made it clear that no one else is allowed to change the structure because it was your idea, or something. You just didn't understand what I wrote. I pointed out that it's ironic for you to complain about undue emphasis on views which aren't accepted by the scholarly consensus, and then spend an entire paragraph on a view which isn't accepted by the scholarly consensus. A mention of the Hypothesis as part of the interpretative continuum of the flood narrative could have taken a single sentence (though I'm still happy with the size of the paragraph as it stands). Of course one wonders what this is even doing in here since the subject of the article is the Ark, not the flood narrative (as I have been told several times, ironically by you). The section on literalism certainly isn't too long, and it is actually on topic. It addresses specifically the Ark, and it is a good length given the fact that the issues it covers are the most significant and well discussed in contemporary culture. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thirdly, both Kitchen and Hoffmeier agree that the Genesis flood narrative is 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document', which is the view specifically mentioned in the paragraph as mainstream. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't read either Kitchen or Hoffmeier.

Bully for them, but so what? Kitchen and Hoffmeier aren't the leading scholars in this field.

They don't have to be 'leading scholars in the field'. Their views are notable because they are notable commentators on this subject, and because the views they hold are notable within the academic community, being held by notable scholars other than them (including Wenham, to whom you refer as 'an authority'). You dismissed them because you mistakenly thought that their view wasn't held by any notable scholars, when in fact you were wrong (among others, it is held by Wenham, to whom you refer as 'an authority'). This is a typical example of you removing material because you were completely mistaken about it, you simply didn't know the facts. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fourthly, Wenham himself argues that doublets and apparent contradictions in the flood narrative are simply typical Hebrew literary forms, and do not necessarily indicate separate sources, just as Kitchen and Hoffmeier argue. Both Kitchen and Hoffmeier agree with Wenham's view that 'Genesis 6-9 forms one complete literary unit that cannot be divided into different sources without disruption of the structural integrity of this account' (Wenham cited by Shea, Origins 6 (1):8-29, 1979).

And bully for Wenham (whom, incidentally, I deeply respect). But Wenham is being mentioned here for his contribution to the analysis of the chiasm in the ark story. You seem to be obsessed with the composition of the narrative to the exclusion of all else. There's more to the bible than the way it was put together.

And I'm including Wenham for his contribution to the structure of the narrative, especially since his analysis of the chiasm is central to that thesis. It's interesting that when you want to include some of his views it's ok, but when I want to I'm 'obsessed'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fifthly, you have no reason to omit the references to Cassuto et al.

I took out Cassuto because his ideas on the composition of the Torah haven't become mainstream. He's a great scholar, but like every scholar, not every word he wrote has become accepted.

Again you are not reading what I write. I didn't include any of Cassuto's ideas on the composition of the Torah, I included his views on the literary unity of the flood narrative, a view which is not unique to him and is accepted by a wide range of scholars, including Wenham (whom you refer to as 'an authority'). --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is that you don't know what Kitchen's view is, because you haven't read Kitchen. You don't know what Hoffmeier's view is, because you haven't read Hoffmeier. You don't know what Cassuto's view is, because you haven't read Cassuto. I've read all three. So I was aware that Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Cassuto are all in agreement with Wenham's central thesis (literary unity, one primary text, later edits but not separate sources), and that Wenham himself argues that doublets and apparent contradictions are actually better explained by standard Hebrew literary forms than by separate sources (the very argument of Kitchen and Hoffmeier which you deleted).

That's not quite true. But I repeat: you need to get over your obsession with questions of composition. The section has three paragrpahs, each dealing with a separate topic - composition, Wenham's chiasm, and the relationship of the narrative to Babylonian mythology and the meaning of this for the intentions of the original authors. We can't keep dragging in composition at every turn just because you have a bee in your bonnet.

It's completely untrue. I knew that Kitchen, Hoffmeier and Cassuto are all in agreement with Wenham's central thesis, you weren't. You didn't even know what Wenham's central thesis is. You were so ignorant of Wenham's thesis that you weren't aware that Wenham's chiasm is the central argument of his overall thesis of literary unity. It's actually about composition. I added material on composition, to the paragraph on composition. You have given no rational reason for keeping this material out of the article. Why should this material (on composition), be kept out of the section which is actually about, wait for it, composition? --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is why I'm in a much better situation to edit this section than you are (and indeed than pretty much everyone who has tried their hand at this article). It is absurd that random people can make edits simply on the basis of what they think the text should say, without having actually read the relevant scholarly literature themselves (as I have). I will revert your edits until you have demonstrated a firsthand knowledge of the subject which is at least comparable to my own. You simply don't have the experience or knowledge to be editing this article as if you were an authority on the subject. Remember when you tried to exclude half a dozen academic references on the basis that they were insufficiently authoritative, and on the false argument that the Tessarakonteres couldn't be referred to unless blueprints could be presented? Absurd.

Please try to remain civil - Misplaced Pages is a community, we all share what we have to offer, and we all assume good faith. As for your knowledge of the scholarly literaqture, I can see you've read it, but are you sure you've understood it?PiCo (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is a community in which people who are more informed on a given topic (that's me), have more weight than those who aren't (that's you). It's difficult to assume good faith when people invent Wiki rules which don't exist, as you've done. And yes, I do understand the scholarly literature. That's why I knew the view which Kitchen and Hoffmeier hold (which you wanted removed from the article), is the same view that Wenham holds (Wenham, whom you identify as 'an authority'). You weren't aware of that.

Finally it's highly ironic for you to be reverting my edits on the basis that I don't own the article, when you feel free to dictate to others the structure of the article, the length of each section, and the content of every paragraph. You have given no rational reason for your revert, you have once again deliberately removed relevant academic sources and commentary from the article, and you are once more attempting to dictate article content. All this from someone who isn't even qualified to edit the scholarly content of this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As you can see from the thread a little lower on this page, I do indeed seek consensus for changes. As for your changes to the 20th century section, I'd let them pass without comment if I agreed with them, but the whole point is that I don't. I'll explain again:n The section has 3 paragraphs, each dealing with a distinct topic. The first deals with the composition of the ark narrative, the second with the chiasm that Wenham found in it, and the third with the links with Babylonian myth. The material you want to add is exclusively to the effect that the narrative might have had a single author. That's an aspect of composition, and if it belongs anywhere it would go in the first paragraph. Yet you try to add it in all over the place. But even if you put it into the right paragraph I still wouldn't like it. Why? Because it isn't a notable view. The overwhelming view among scholars is that the Ark story does indeed contain distinct strands, Jahwist and Priestly. There's disagreement over whether they represent distinct documents or distinct redactional layers, but not that they exist. That's my reason. Your comments are of course welcome, but try to remain civil, and don't put your material back in until you have agreement.PiCo (talk) 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, you don't always seek consensus for changes. You make changes before even seeking consensus, though you claim others are not permitted to do so. You make changes and then revert other people's edits of them. You even tell people how the article is going to be structured, how large each section is going to be, and what material they have to include. What you've just admitted is that you removed my edits because you don't agree with them. Not only that, but you haven't understood them or even read them properly. The information I am inserting does not claim that the narrative had a single author (there's a difference between 'a single literary unit' and 'a single author'), and is specifically identified as the theory that the Ark narrative 'is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document'. And I haven't tried to insert them 'all over the place'. If you had even read my latest edits (instead of simply reverting them), then you would have seen that I placed this information in the 'composition' section, nowhere else. So you're not even reading my edits, you're just reverting them on the basis of personal bias.

This aside, the view that 'is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' is a notable view, and you even include it in the opening of the paragraph as a notable view:

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

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

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

The citation I added from Thompson L Thompson (a Minimalist, the kind of source you typically view as authoritative), substantiates your statement that the Documentary Hypothesis 'can no longer be called a consensus view'. You didn't provide a reference for your statement, I added one (from a scholarly source). Incredibly, you promptly removed a perfectly valid edit which actually substantiated your statement with a reliable source.

Once again it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that you are not reading what I write, and you don't actually understand the topic under discussion. This is why you shouldn't be editing this section, you're just not qualified. I'm having to spend half my time correcting your mistakes, amplifying your comments to a useful degree, and providing scholarly citations supporting your edits, citations which you promptly remove. Ironically, your edits have also removed a section of the paragraph which I did not write, and which I am quite glad to see gone. --Taiwan boi (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Your additions amount to special pleading for the idea that the Ark narrative might be a single story recording a real flood. This is simply not a notable view - no respectable modern scholar holds it. Nor is is it true that I don't allow others to edit this article - when I put the new paragraph on 20th century views up I gave an explanation on this page and invited the collaboration of other editors, and Til Eulenspeigel made some changes, and I accepted them - jis edits are still there. I accepted his edits because I thought they were good ones. I'll be happy to accpet any edits of yours that I think are good, but at the moment you're simply pushing a personal agenda.PiCo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. You've ignored everything I wrote, especially the parts where I demonstrated that you've completely misunderstood the arguments under discussion. As I said 'a literary unit' does not necessarily mean 'a single author', the sources I cited do not argue for 'a single author'. Acknowledging that 'newer theories propose instead that Genesis was composed from a host of fragments rather than from complete documents, or that it is the result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' is not 'special pleading for the idea that the Ark narrative might be a single story recording a real flood', and it is not 'pushing a personal agenda'. You were already perfectly happy with the acknowledgment that the Ark narrative may be 'the result of a complex process of additions and supplements', but as soon as I provided scholarly citations for this view, you removed them. Why? I have not included anything other than references to scholars holding this view. Wenham holds it, and you referred to Wenham as 'an authority', citing him in the relevant section. Kitchen holds it, and he is a respectable modern scholar, likewise Hoffmeier, Shea, Millard, and a number of others which I could cite. This is certainly a 'notable view', and I can bury you in citations from the scholarly journals I read (which you don't), to demonstrate this.

I never said you don't let others edit this article. Nor did I say you never seek consensus. I said that you edit without seeking consensus, and that you tell other people they are not allowed to edit without seeking consensus. Please stop putting words in my mouth. By the way, you still haven't explained why you removed the Thompson L Thompson reference I included which actually supported one of your statements. Why did you do that? --Taiwan boi (talk) 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Using edit summaries to attack editors

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

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

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

Proposed re-write of the Literalism section

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

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

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

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

Here is my proposed edit of this section.

• The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation

The Genesis Ark narrative continues to hold a significant place within the Christian community, though there exists a broad spectrum of interpretations of the narrative (from literal to allegorical), as with the Genesis creation account.

• • Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations

Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists tend to trust in traditions regarding the composition of the Bible and generally accept the traditional belief that the Ark narrative was written by Moses some time between the 16th century BC and late 13th century BC and describes a real event which took place in the 4th or 3rd millennium before Christ.

Biblical literalists explain apparent contradiction in the Ark narrative as the result of the stylistic conventions adopted by an ancient text: thus the confusion over whether Noah took seven pairs or only one pair of each clean animal into the Ark is explained as resulting from the author (Moses) first introducing the subject in general terms—seven pairs of clean animals—and then later, with much repetition, specifying that these animals entered the Ark in twos. Literalists see nothing puzzling in the reference to a raven flying over the Flood for two weeks—it could have rested on carrion floating on the waters—nor do they see any sign of alternative endings.

• • Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations

Non-Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians typically view the Ark and flood narrative very differently to Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists. As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity. This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative as it is commonly used to explain how the Ark could have carried all the animal life necessary, and how it could have survived the flood itself.

Doublets and apparent contradictions in the text are typically explained by non-Fundamentalist Christians as the product of standard Hebrew literary forms., whilst the sending of the raven and dove is understood as a historical reference to authentic ancient nautical practice.

More liberal Christians such as the Universalist Church see the Ark narrative as essentially allegorical and non-historical.

• • Historicity

Apart from questions of date, authorship, and textual integrity, a number of subjects concerning the historicity of the Ark narrative are typically debated among Christians and skeptics. The following section sets out some of the more commonly discussed topics:

• • • Gopher wood: Gen 6:14 states that Noah built the Ark of גפר (gofer, more commonly gopher) wood, a word not otherwise known in the Bible or in Hebrew. The Jewish Encyclopedia believes it was most likely a translation of the Babylonian "gushure iş erini" (cedar-beams), or the Assyrian "giparu" (reed). The Greek Septuagint (3rd–1st centuries BC) translated it as Template:Polytonic ("xylon tetragonon"), "squared timber". Similarly, the Latin Vulgate (5th century AD) rendered it as "lignis levigatis", or "smoothed (possibly planed) wood". Older English translations, including the King James Version (17th century), simply leave it untranslated. Many modern translations tend to favour cypress (although the word for "cypress" in Biblical Hebrew is erez), on the basis of a mistaken etymology based on phonetic similarities, while others favour pine or cedar. Recent suggestions have included a lamination process, or a now-lost type of tree, or a mistaken transcription of the word kopher (pitch), but there is no consensus.

• • • Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. In this regard, some literalist apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed, and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. Non-Fundamentalist apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.

• • • Practicality: Could the Ark have been contructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative?Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, albeit with caveats regarding its practicality: Plutarch says "she was moved only with difficulty and danger"), remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft), the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

• • • Capacity and logistics: According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists, the Ark would have had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between Biblical literalists and their opponents. While some Biblical literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many questions associated with a Biblical literalist interpretation include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, how the creatures could have been prevented from preying on each other, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, how they traveled (or were gathered) from all over the world to board the Ark and how they could have returned to their far-flung habitats across the Earth's bare, flood-devastated terrain, and how two or a few members of a species could have provided enough genetic variety to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. The numerous Biblical literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.

• • The search for Noah's Ark

Biblical literalists feel that finding the Ark would validate their views on a whole range of matters, from geology to evolution. "If the flood of Noah indeed wiped out the entire human race and its civilization, as the Bible teaches, then the Ark constitutes the one remaining major link to the pre-flood World. No significant artifact could ever be of greater antiquity or importance.... tremendous potential impact on the creation-evolution (including theistic evolution) controversy". Non-Fundamentalist Christians typically believe the discovery of the Ark is unimportant to the historicity of the Genesis flood narrative, and that the Ark cannot be found as it would have long since been destroyed by weather or recycled for other projects.

Searches have concentrated on Mount Ararat in Turkey itself, although Genesis actually refers only to the mountains of Ararat.The Durupinar site, near but not on Ararat, and much more accessible, attracted attention in the 1980s and 1990s; In early 2004 a Honolulu businessman traveled to Washington DC to “announce with great fanfare” a planned expedition to investigate a site he called the Ararat anomaly but National Geographic later concluded it may have been an ineffective stunt to “persuade the Turkish government into granting him a permit” that “few expeditions have actually obtained.”; and in 2006 there was brief flurry of interest when an expedition reported a potential site in Iran.

In 2007, a joint Turkish-Hong Kong expedition team found what is thought to be fossilized wood in a cave on Mount Ararat in Turkey. A sample of the "wood" was analyzed by the Department of Earth Sciences of the University of Hong Kong but the results were inconclusive. The origin of the out-crop remains unknown, but the group suggests that it is part of Noah's Ark. Photos of geologic thin-sections of the "wood" have been examined by several creationary geologists who concur that this is likely volcanic tuff. It has been suggested that the finding is a ploy to increase tourism in the area.]

--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for what is certainly a serious contribution to the debate. I've taken the liberty of removing the section-breaks, as they made it impossible to navigate your text.

You've made some valuable suggestions, but my basic concern remains: the section is simply too long for the importance of this particular aspect of the subject. Fundamentalist/literalist ideas on the Ark certainly need to be mentioned, but really all that needs saying is that a large segment of the American population, and a far smaller segment in other Western countries, hold such views. We don't need to cover in detail the arguments that literalists put forward - they're rejected by both science (there never was a biblical flood, and therefore never was an Ark), nor by mainstream biblical scholars. We should also mention the fact that searches are being made around Mt Ararat, but not with details - there's a whole article on just that subject. (For that matter, there's a whole article on gopher wood, and the same point applies - we don't need to repeat material when a simple link will carry the reader to a full treatment of the subject; incidentally, where's the article on the Genesis Flood?).PiCo (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying makes no sense. At least two thirds of the article treat the historical interpretation of the Ark narrative in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Biblical scholarship, yet you want to throw out any mention of current Christian interpretations except for a passing mention of the Fundamentalist view and nothing else? We can redirect the 'gopher wood' section (with a short introduction), and the 'search for Noah's Ark' section (with a short introduction), but the others need to stand. The arguments in this section are not simply those of 'the literalists', as I have already pointed out. Not only that, but they are notable and mainstream views in current Christian interpretation, and they receive a very wide airing in secular literature also. That there was a Biblical flood is certainly not rejected by science, as you surely must know. There are plenty of secular readings of the flood narrative attributing it to a historic memory of either a Black Sea flood, a Caspian Sea flood, the Tigris-Euphrates refill deluge, or else one of the many Mesopotamian mega-floods in the region. I don't agree with the literalist readings either, but I don't insist that they should be removed from this article. They shouldn't. But that aside, saying we don't need to cover the arguments literalists put forward because they are 'rejected by science' is like saying we don't have to include Christian arguments in Misplaced Pages concerning the historicity of the Bible or the resurrection, or any mention of miracles in Misplaced Pages because they are 'rejected by science'. There's a massive article on Resurrection in Misplaced Pages, despite the fact that it is 'rejected by science'. Are you going to delete that article as well? What are you going to do about all the articles recording religious beliefs? Just start deleting them because they are 'rejected by science'?

Once more you are demonstrating you do not understand what constitutes encyclopedic content, and once more you are demonstrating you do not understand WP:N. Once more, you are also demonstrating that you really want most of the information in this section thrown out because you personally do not believe in the Biblical flood or Noah's Ark, because you personally believe that it has all been 'disproved by science'. This is transparently self-motivated editing. --Taiwan boi (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not prposing the wholesale deletion of all the content about Creationist views of the ark, just cutting it back to a realistic size. All we need to do is to note that literalism is important in the US (it's very much a US thing), and make some mention of what literalists believe and why, including internal links to articles like gopher wood and the searches for the ark. All the things you mention as deserving whole paragraphs - seaworthiness, capacity and so on - are really just apologetics from the literalist point of view, attempts to "prove" that the ark could be true. OEC is a literalist belief-system, by the way.PiCo (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As I have already explained, there is plenty of material in there which is not 'literalist', including the views of Christians who don't even believe in the historicity of the Ark or the flood. The section has been retitled and edited so that it is not simply about literalism, and every view described in the section as I edited it is more than notable. You are supplying no good reasons for throwing this material out. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, please visit WP:N. Then come back and explain why you want to throw out everything in my proposed edit except for a passing reference to 'literalism is important in the US' and 'make some mention of what literalists believe and why'. To date you have not given any explanation for this. You have also wrongly dismissed this entire section as consisting of nothing other than the views of Biblical literalists, which is completely untrue. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vote required on proposed edit

I am proposing two edits of the section entitled 'Biblical scholarship and the Ark in the 20th century'. Please read the following and cast your votes below.

• First edit

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

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

Vote here:

1. Yes. The statement concerning the loss of academic support for the Documentary Hypothesis was unreferenced, and the reference substantiates it from a reliable source. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
2. No. We already have an article on the documentary hypothesis and there's no need to rehash here the arguments in that place, even in a footnote. The paragraph as a whole certainly needs to be referenced, but it should be possible to find a single authoritative tertiary source - the Anchor Bible Dictionary, for example - so that this article doesn't become over-laden with footnotes. PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Second edit

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

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

Vote here:

1. Yes. The edit provides the name of two notable scholars who support the 'host of fragments rather than from complete documents' view, and provides a relevant reference substantiating this from reliable sources. The edit also provides the names of several notable scholars who support the alternative 'result of a complex process of additions and supplements to an original document' view, and provides relevant references substantiating this from reliable sources. It also explains an area of common agreement between the two views, and provides relevant references substantiating this from reliable sources. --Taiwan boi (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
2. No. The edit is an attempt to introduce a particular pov by stealth - namely, that the Ark story was composed by one person. The current consensus among biblical scholars is exactly the opposite. Nor are the scholars cited here notable on this question - their arguments have not been adopted by the profession. Let's use footnotes to show where we get information from, not to make personal arguments. PiCo (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 'Thomas L. Thompson notes that, under continued scholarly scrutiny, the Elohist has disappeared from view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fading from existence, even as P grows beyond all reasonable bounds. The hypothesis has no value as a guide for continued research (1987:49). Whybray, too, in outlining especially the recent contributions by Rolf Rendtorff and H.H. Schmid, demonstrates how the consensus for a “theology of the Yahwist” among critical scholars is collapsing (1987:93–108).' Duane A Garrett, 'The Documentary Hypothesis', Bible and Spade (Spring 1993), page 48
2. Literalists and Fundamentalists rely on the internal biblical chronology to count backwards from the relatively secure dates in the historical books (largely the book of Kings, where events such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians can be verified from non-biblical sources) to the genealogies contained in Genesis 5 and 11. Archbishop Ussher, using this method in the 17th century, arrived at 2349 BC, and this date still has acceptance among many. A more recent Christian fundamentalist scholar, Gerhard F. Hasel, summarising the current state of thought in the light of the various Biblical manuscripts (the Masoretic text in Hebrew, various manuscripts of the Greek Septuagint), and differences of opinion over their correct interpretation, demonstrated that this method of analysis can date the flood only within a range between 3402 and 2462 BC.Hasel, GF (1980). "THE MEANING OF THE CHRONOGENEALOGIES OF GENESIS 5 AND 11". Origins. 7 (2): 53–70. Retrieved 2007-06-27. Non-Fundamentalist, non-literalist and liberal Christian opinions, based on different sources and methodologies, lead to dates outside even this bracket—the deuterocanonical Book of Jubilees, for example, providing a date equivalent to 2309 BC.
3. Several Creationist websites give encyclopedic answers to the many questions asked about the Ark: see, for example, Trueorigin.org, "Problems with a Global Flood?", and links in the See Also section of this article.
4. 'Notwithstanding diligent search, I have been unable to discover that the universality of the Deluge has any defender left, at least among those who have so far mastered the rudiments of natural knowledge as to be able to appreciate the weight of evidence against it. For example, when I turned to the "Speaker's Bible," published under the sanction of high Anglican authority, I found the following judicial and judicious deliverance, the skilful wording of which may adorn, but does not hide, the completeness of the surrender of the old teaching', Thomas Huxley, 'The Lights of the Church and the Light of Science', Collected Essays, volume 4, pages 217-218 (1890)
5. Hugh Ross, The Waters Of The Flood'
6. Rich Deem, 'The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local'
7. 'The Genesis Flood'
8. 'So, the animal species rescued via the ark were nephesh, particularly those in the category of basar, living within the reach of the flood's devastation. They may have numbered in the hundreds and probably did not exceed a few thousand. The ark, then, would have been adequate to house them and their food, and eight people could have cared for them, as well as for themselves, for many months', Hugh Ross, Let Us Reason: Noah's Floating Zoo
9. The Genesis Flood
10. MacGrath, James F, Introduction To The Torah'
11. Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971
12. Bromiley, Geoffrey W (editor), International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised edition, Eerdmans:1979
13. Keener, Craig S (editor), The Bible Background Commentary-NT, International Varsity Press:1993
14. Marcus, David, 'The Mission of The Raven (Gen. 8:7)', Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society, 29:2002
15. Reverend Kathleen McTigue, 'Noah's Ark For Grownups', February 23, 2003
16. Hirsch, EG & Hyvernat, H (2002). "The Jewish Encyclopedia: Goper-Wood". The Jewish Encyclopedia. Retrieved 2007-06-27.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
17. Brenton, Sir Lancelot C.L. (1986) . The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (reprint). Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 0-913573-44-2.
18. Taylor, Paul (2001). "What is "Gopher Wood"?". Eden Communications. Retrieved 2007-06-25.
19. How BIG was Noah's Ark?
20. Noah's Ark
21. Isaak, Mark, 'Problems with a Global Flood', second edition, 1998
22. Gould, R (2001). "Asia's Undersea Archeology". Public Broadcasting System. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
23. Yes, Noah did build an Ark!
24. S.W. Hong, S.S. Na, B.S. Hyun, S.Y. Hong, D.S. Gong, K.J. Kang, S.H. Suh, K.H. Lee, and Y.G. Je, 'Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a Seaway', Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 8(1):26–35, 1994
25. NOAH'S ARK SAFETY PAPER
26. Ark
27. Compare Noah's Ark
28. CH508: Chinese treasure ships and Noah's ark
29. Ancient Chinese Explorers, Evan Hadingham, Sultan's Lost Treasures, NOVA, PBS Television
30. Asia's Undersea Archeology, Richard Gould, NOVA, PBS Television article
31. [http://www.travel-silkroad.com/english/marine/ZhengHe.htm The Archaeological Researches into Zheng He's Treasure Ships
32. The Genesis Flood
33. Did Noah Really Build An Ark? 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
34. Noah's Ark 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
35. The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'
36. The large ships of antiquity
37. 'For measuring the ark by the vulgar cubit, it did not exceed the capacity of that vessel built by Hiero of Syracuse, or the ship of Ptolemy Philo-pater', Raleigh, Sir Walter, 'The History of the World', Book 1, in 'The Works of Sir Walter Ralegh, Kt', volume II, 1829, page 213
38. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World, Lionel Casson 1994
39. The Age of the Supergalleys, Chapter 7 of Ships and Seafaring in Ancient Times, Lionel Casson, University of Texas Press; 1st University edition, March 1994 ISBN-10: 029271162X.
40. Demetrius, 43.4-5
41. 'Ancient History boasts of many large vessels, which prove the possibility of the size of Noah's Ark… PLUTARCH, in his life of DEMETRIUS, relates that PTOLOMEY PHILOPATER constructed a galley, of the same length, with forty ranges or heights of oars, navigated by four hundred sailors, and four thousand galley slaves, which could contain three thousand fighting men on its decks', Radford, William, 'On the construction of the Ark, as adapted to the naval architecture of the present day, &c.', 1840, pages 21-22
42. 'Mr. A. HENDERSON has communicated to the Institution of Civil Engineers a paper on "Ocean Steamers," wherein he made some calculations respecting the comparative bulk of the most famous vessels of antiquity and of our own times. Thus, a ship constructed by Ptolemus Philopater was 420 feet long, 56 broad, and 72 high from the keel to the prow, and it was manned by 4000 rowers, 400 servants, and 2820 marines. It was estimated, therefore, that this vessel had a tonnage of 6445 tons, builder's measurement, and an external bulk of 830,700 cubic feet. Noah's ark would have a tonnage of 11,905, and a bulk of 1,580,000 cubic feet', Timbs, John, 'The Year-book of Facts in Science and Art', 1854, page 42
43. Van Rensselaer, Cortlandt (editor), 'A ship was constructed for Ptolemy Philopater, which was 420 feet long, 56 feet broad, and 72 feet deep, and of 6,445 tons burthen', The Presbyterian Magazine, volume IV, 1854, page 93
44. 'Very large vessels — their seaworthiness.', 'By old law, the tonnage of Noah's Ark was 11,905 tons, and calculated on this estimate, her external bulk would be about 1,580,277 cubic feet ; the ship built 2000 years ago at Alexandria, by Ptolemaens Philopater, 6445 tons', Report Of The Twenty-Fourth Meeting Of The British Association For The Advancement Of Science', 1855, page 154
45. Impossible For Ancients
46. The Genesis Flood
47. 'It is estimated that the obelisk barge may have been over ninety-five metres in length and thirty-two metres wide', Technology along the Nile
48. ' was over 300 feet long, Casson, Lionel, 'Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World', 1995, page 342
49. 'Athenaios does not indicate his sources for the second ship, but it must have been an eye-witness or a person who obtained measurements and other details from a contemporary', Sarton, George, 'Hellenistic Science and Culture in the Last Three Centuries B.C.', 1993, page 121
50. 'Similar techniques were used in the gigantic Lake Nemi ships of the early first century AD', McGrail, Sean, 'Boats of the World: From the Stone Age to Medieval Times', 2004, page 157
51. 'Archaeology Italian archaeologists and engineers drain Lake Nemi near Rome to recover two giant barges that had been built by Roman emperor Caligula', Bunch, Bryan and Hellemans, Alexander, 'The History of Science and Technology', 2004, page 513
52. 'Atop one of these was erected a lighthouse that used as its foundation the giant ship that had been built to transport the obelisk of Heliopolis from Egypt to Rome under the reign of Caligula', Aldrete, Gregory, 'Daily Life in the Roman City: Rome, Pompeii, and Ostia', 2004, page 206
53. Mendez, AC. "How Big was Noah's Ark". biblestudy.org. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
54. Sarfati, J (2007). "Variation and natural selection versus evolution". Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 2007-06-27. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
55. Morris, John (2007). "Noah's Ark the Search Goes On". Institute for Creation Research. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
56. 'I believe that the remains of the ark will never be found simply because the timbers of the ark would have been too valuable for the ancients to leave lying around', Ross, Hugh, Let us Reason - The Unsinkable Search for Noah's Ark
57. The Genesis Flood
58. Lovgren, S (2004). "Noah's Ark Quest Dead in Water--Was It a Stunt?". National Geographic. Retrieved 2007-06-27.
59. Satish Kanady (January 19, 2008). "Noah's Ark nestled on Mount Ararat". The Peninsula. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
60. "Ararat, 'Ark' beckon tourists". ANA-MPA Greece. February 22, 2008. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
61. 'Thomas L. Thompson notes that, under continued scholarly scrutiny, the Elohist has disappeared from view entirely and the Yahwist is fast fading from existence, even as P grows beyond all reasonable bounds. The hypothesis has no value as a guide for continued research (1987:49). Whybray, too, in outlining especially the recent contributions by Rolf Rendtorff and H.H. Schmid, demonstrates how the consensus for a “theology of the Yahwist” among critical scholars is collapsing (1987:93–108).' Duane A Garrett, 'The Documentary Hypothesis', Bible and Spade (Spring 1993), page 48
62. McKenzie, Steven L and Graham, Matt Patrick (editors), 'The History of Israel's Traditions: The Heritage of Martin Noth', JSOT 182, Sheffield (1994)
63. Whybray, RN, 'The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study', JSOT Press, Sheffield, (1987)
64. Wenham, Gordon, 'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22.1, page 7 (October 1996)
65. Wenham, Gordon, 'Pentateuchal Studies Today', Themelios 22.1, page 7 (October 1996)
66. 'Wenham argues that the seeming contradictions fall within the known conventions of Hebrew storytelling, & without other evidence for source division, this evidence is inconclusive.', James F MacGrath, 'Introduction To The Torah'
67. 'Genesis 7: 17-20 with its four-times repeated increase and prevailing of the flood waters (each with a fresh complement)28 is a good example. This kind of feature (plus general repetition on a grand scale) can be observed readily in Sumerian and Babylonian epics, e.g. as in Lugal-banda (Sumerian)29 or Atrakhasis (Babylonian).30 Such a style may well have marked the original versions of the matter now found in Genesis 1-11 as brought by an Abraham from Mesopotamia, where Western Semites came to share in a cultural heritage. And these phenomena of style, both the use of couplets (single or multiple) generally in the Near East and the repetitious style in Genesis and Mesopotamian literature, are an inherent part of Near Eastern and biblical literary usage; to scissor-up their elements among imaginary 'source-documents' is a pointless waste of effort,31 producing tatters that have no relation to attested usage in the biblical world.', Kitchen, Kenneth, 'The Old Testament in its Context: 1 From the Origins to the Eve of the Exodus', Theological Students' Fellowship Bulletin 59, Spring 1971
68. 'The fact that chiasmus operates both on the micro and macro levels, for instance, has resulted in recognizing the literary unity of the flood story.', Hoffmeier, James, 'Ancient Israel In Sinai: The Evidence For The Authenticity Of The Wilderness Tradition', Oxford University Press, 2005, page 14

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• FA-Class Iraq articles
• Unknown-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles