Talk:Wife-sister narratives in Genesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 Jan 06. The result of the discussion was No Consensus. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Contents 1 Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia? 2 Copyright 3 Beersheba 4 I don't subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis 5 The nature of sourcing 6 Sourcing 7 Title of article 8 Neutral Point of View

[edit] Is this article appropriate for Wikipedia?

Is Wikipedia really the place for a whole article based on bible criticism? If you want, I could also write whole articles based on interpretations of every verse and theme in the Torah, based on the commentaries of Rashi, Ramban, Ohr HaChaim, Sforno, etc. However, what has been the status quo until now has been to incorporate the various interpretations (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Gnostic, etc.) within the encyclopedic entries themselves. Moreover, these main articles deal with the people in the Bible or major incidents, like the Binding of Isaac, not with minor incidents like these three examples of a wife being called a sister. I would recommend deleting this article and incorporating a paragraph or two in the articles about Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, and Rebeccah. Yoninah 09:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Interpretations of every verse in the Torah, based on commentaries, are in case very valid. I assume that it is only a question of time before these will be included. "A wife confused for a sister" must be addressed as a crosscutting theme in some of the central literature in order to be included. Otherwise it is original research. This search string gave me nothing (!), but Duffy explained that this appears in the "Jewish encyclopedia, eastons, friedmann, and finkelstein" (edit summary). My questions are then to Duffy: Are these cases discussed together or separately? If the first is true, what are the theme names in these books (if possible with a URL or page reference). In any case, the scholar quality of the article seems good. Regards, gidonb 17:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that "the scholarly quality of the article seems good." What happened to the thousands of years of classic Jewish commentaries on the Torah? As with many other Biblical entries, this article attempts to "interpret" the Torah based on the plain meaning of the words or on the documentary hypothesis, which is just that, a hypothesis. Every Orthodox Jew knows that layers of meaning are encoded within the Biblical text, and that a full understanding of any "theme," such as the claim that a wife is a sister, must be based on a thorough review of all the commentators who have written about it (which includes but is not limited to the Talmud and Midrash). Orthodox Judaism also completely rejects Bible criticism, so the presentation of this article from that point of view seems suspect. I also am baffled by the title, "A wife confused for a sister." Why "confused"? Yoninah 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yoninah, these commentaries could of course be added. However, I think it is really best to collect some additional information in order to decide on the best the policy towards this article. It may need to deleted (POV-tagged if that will not get through), renamed and/or just extended with additional information. I asked Duffy for more information on her sources. I would also like to ask you: Are there in the classic Jewish commentaries any comparisons or references between these cases? Regards, gidonb 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

For the record: I voted for deletion, since we got no answer yet from the author. gidonb 19:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The story is unfortunately given many different titles in the literature, and hence it is difficult to find a single one under which they are happy. Many of the titles used are somewhat long-winded, tending to take up entire sentences, this being one of the shortest I could find for it. You (one of you) asks "are these cases discussed together or seperately?", the answer is that they are discussed together, almost all of the time, for example, the JewishEncyclopedia articles on "Abimelech" and on "Beersheba" both discuss both of the Abimelech stories as a single unit. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why "confused"? because Abimelech/Pharaoh initially thought that the woman was a sister when in fact she was a wife. I.e. they confused a wife for a sister. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"Orthodox Judaism also completely rejects Bible criticism". True. But this isn't Orthodox-Judaism-wiki. Articles are not written from a 100% Orthodox Judaism POV, that would violate NPOV, and Judaism certainly values the Midrash and Talmud.

What happened to the 1000 years of Jewish commentary? That's there if you look, the midrash's stance is pointed out - Abraham was viewed as being stupidly deceitful - making a stupid action, ultimately responsible (according to the midrash) for causing the destruction of the 1st and 2nd temples, the death of Saul, and others, wheras Abimelech was condemned for his treatment of Isaac. --User talk:FDuffy 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright

You state in your edit summary that the article is from a few in-copyright sources. Just want to know if based the article on them, or copied from them? With blessings, 220.233.48.200 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The in-copyright sources are not the main basis of the article. There is certainly "fair use" going on. Beersheba's archaeology constitutes about a paragraph in a very large book by finkelstien for example. The JewishEncyclopedia is very much out of copyright. --User talk:FDuffy

Please check what fair use is. This most certainly isn't a case of it. And the Jewish Encyclopedia isn't out of copyright, just some very old editions are. Can you state which editions are you using. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 20:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the 1911 public domain edition. The one that scholars view as more worthy and of greater scholarship than any of the later editions. This is fair use. --User talk:FDuffy 20:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beersheba

In the "Beersheba" section, could you please add the Chapter and verse where these different translations are given, beside the text? Thanks ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the Septuagint vs. the Masoretic translations (Shibah vs. Shebua) ? Or do you mean "seven wells" vs. "well of seven" vs. "well of the oath" (twice) ?

--User talk:FDuffy 21:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[KJV translation]

Gen 21:30 And he said, For [these] seven ewe lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that they may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well. Gen 21:31 Wherefore he called that place Beersheba; because there they sware both of them

it cunningly is ambiguous as to whether it calls it Beersheba because of the seven ewes (well of seven) or because of the oath (well of the oath)

The other story

Gen 26:18-31 ...[dug some wells then made an oath]...

Gen 26:32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him, We have found water.

Gen 26:33 And he called it XXXXX: therefore the name of the city [is] Beersheba unto this day

Where XXXXX is "Shibah" (seven) in the Masoretic text but "Shebua" (the oath) in the Septuagint

Note also how

• Gen 21:31 is essentially Beersheba has its name because Abraham called it that for reason Y.
• Gen 26:33 is essentially Beersheba has its name because Isaac called it that for reason Z.

somewhat contradictory, appearing to suggest it is given its name for the first time twice.

--User talk:FDuffy 21:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Or possibly, that ABraham's Well of the Oath was in a different location from Isaac's Well of the Oath... more than one place had the name Beersheba, did it not...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, just the one. It's still there today, called Beersheba, or rather the historical site is Tell-Beer-Sheva some way from the modern town. Every single academic source, even the apologetic ones, agree that the text refers to exactly the same place. --User talk:FDuffy 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I don't subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis

I do not subscribe to the Documentary hypothesis. My own research indicates that one of the main original sources for Genesis was Jubilees -- but outside of the Ethiopian Church, I don't know of any scholars that I can cite, so I guess that remains my Original research, and I cant exactly write an article-essay about it. Clearly Genesis had a source, but instead of reconstructing hypothetical sources like J, Y, etc. with such confidence, we ought to take a closer look at a source we already have, because the allegations that it dates to only Maccabean times are not convincing to me. Interestingly, Jubilees only includes the episode between Isaac and Abimelech, and the one between Abraham and Pharoah. The version between Abraham and Abimelech sounds like the conflated one. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jubilees as a source? 100% of academic research points to the opposite - that Jubilees is copied from Genesis (plus a 3ish chapter abridgement of the rest of the torah) and is heavily edited to conform to 2nd century views of god, transposing any morally dubious act that genesis attributes to god or a patriarch to satan or some other villain in Jubilees. Jubilees is very much a pantomime version of history, the heroes are 100% good and the villains are 100% evil.

Why is Jubilees dated to Maccabean times? Well, the theology matches perfectly, and the syntax, vocabulary, and grammer of the language used is exactly that of Maccabean times, and completely different to that of the 7th century BC, or earlier. But maybe blatently obvious clues like that shouldn't be relied upon?

Determining which story is the fake, if one of them is, isn't so easy.

• Many think that Sarah is the original Israel, the words having the same meaning; even though "sarah" is traditionally translated "princess" it actually doesn't mean that, as a quick glance at the only possible translations for the book of Hosea's use of the word "sarah" will reveal - "own sarah el" is translated "as a man he struggled with god" where "he struggled" translates "sarah" - "israel" of course being explained as meaning exactly that in reference to exactly the same event.
• Many think, owing to a passage in Amos, that Isaac is the original Israel
• Obviously the bible itself says that Jacob is the original Israel

Trying to seperate whether any of the figures are real at all, which are distinct, and which are just alternate names for each other, is really not a clear cut question, academically. --User talk:FDuffy 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the assertion that Jubilees is Maccabean many times, but still don't find it convincing. If 100% of scholars agree, you mean outside of Ethiopian ones. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I mean 100% of academic scholars, not religiously motivated church theologians. --User talk:FDuffy 00:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, what is it that motivates the academic scholars to say it is decidedly Maccabean on so little evidence that is so tenuous? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In my own research I have compiled a vast list of evidence that Jubilees is a far more archaic version than Genesis and the Torah. But I can't exactly make this into an article-essay. I will briefly mention here on this talk page, one of the strongest cases:

Take a look at Numbers 13:22. Abruptly inserted into a text about Moses' spies sent into Canaan, we find this comment: "(Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt.)"

This little fact isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. What could be the source? It doesn't fit in chronologically here at all. It's only mentioned one other place that I know: Jubilees 13:12, where it fits in much more smoothly with the narrative, where one would logically expect to find it, i.e. right after he relates about Abram going to Hebron when it was built.

Now, make an honest evaluation: Obviously, by the time Numbers and the Torah were compiled, the Hebrews already knew Hebron with the distinctive epithet "that was built seven years before Tanis in Egypt", so much that this was practically part of the title. This would mean they could hardly mention the name of Hebron without adding "that was built 7 years before Tanis", and that is the likeliest way to explain why the redactor of Numbers put it in 13:22 quite out of context. But there must have been a source for this little piece of lore, that would have presumably had it within the Abraham narrative, right where Jubilees has it. It's remotely possible that a Maccabean era forger could have known all this, and sewn it into precisely the right spot, but really I doubt this. Jubilees looks more like the source we would expect, a real attested source, than any hypothetical "J / E / P" source that can be reconstructed. The Maccabean "evidence" is flimsy, and is really only a rehash of religiously-motivated allegations first made at Yavneh in 80 AD, when it was excised from the Masoretic canon. Jubilees was held in high regard with the other books at Qumran. It was held in high regard by the Jews until Yavneh. It continued to be held in high regard by the Christian Church Fathers until Nicea. Modern scholars should make an honest reassessment of whether Numbers 13:22 isn't really based on Jubilees 13:12 as an older source, and like I said, that's only the first thing on my list, the tip of the iceberg. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The nature of sourcing

WP:CITE doesn't just mean listing some sources at the bottom. In this article, the "striking similarity" between the narratives must have been observed by someone, whether this is Finkelstein, Friedman etc etc or of course Francis' favourite Jewish Encyclopedia.

I have no doubt the article is notable but only if the topic can be traced to individual discoveries by Bible critics and there is an indication that the Bible criticism community has accepted this view. At the moment, the article does not indicate this. JFW | T@lk 17:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the idea is from Lane Fox. But the article doesn't say that. At the moment it is equally possible the idea is from FDuffy. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

FDuffy seems to have left Wikipedia for a little while. Meanwhile, we are left with an article that reads like original research but has some references at the bottom. Francis has consistently refused to reveal which writers actually pioneered the explanation he has attributed to "scholary views".

I have now moved the view of the classical commentators to the top (as they came first). I have also inserted an interesting view from Feldman. The articles in "Challenge" (Carmell & Domb) are very useful in dealing with Bible criticism. JFW | T@lk 11:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article

Now that the whole deletion debate is over, I suggest that the title of this article be modified to something that is a more accurate description and slightly more neutral, such as Wife-sister narratives in Genesis. Dovi 20:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

One last inquiry whether there are objections or better title suggestions. Otherwise I'll just move it. Dovi 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest expanding it into a wider Wives of the Patriarchs, then we could also include what other information there is about them, like Rachel, Keturah, et. al. Thoughts? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that Francis has departed, some drastic reorganisation will now be possible. Does anyone know who actually came up with the wife-sister business? The whole issue can be reduced to 2-3 paragraphs in a longer article about the matriarchs. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you think the article should be renamed to? --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 20:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Matriarchs (Bible) is a good merge candidate, but it needs expanding of other content related to the imahos. For example, some commentators have pointed out that all of the four Matriarchs had reproductive difficulties, and the Talmud states clearly that "G'd desired their prayers". JFW | T@lk 22:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a merge tag. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Will you be performing the merge? JFW | T@lk 22:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If no one gets around to it before I do, however anyone could. I would prefer if someone else did it, only because I am lazy. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First we should notify any editors who are watching that article with a mergefrom tag... I'll do that part... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page should move there too, at present there is none there... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you guys are making a mistake with the merge. Do you really want Matriarchs filled with a debate about source criticism? This article is about three specific closely parallel stories that became the ultimate, most bandied-about example of source-criticism in the school of Wellhausen. (In fact, that is probably why the author chose to write an article about this - he probably learned it as a basic example in some course he was taking.) But there is no doubt that the three stories are in a unique class of their own. This is not just "Matriarchs" (in fact, it is no less "Patriarchs").

So I once again suggest the same title above: Wife-sister narratives in Genesis - precise, to-the-point, and unbiased (unlike the current one). The whole long debate about this as a prime example of source criticism can go in that article, both pro and con. Once again, if you merge it, you are eventually going to have that entire debate within "Matriarchs" where it really does not belong. Dovi 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

What Dovi is proposing sounds good as well. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 05:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have moved it for now. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the new title. --User talk:FDuffy 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

P.s. In regards to JFW's comment, I haven't departed, I've just got a degree thats slightly more preoccupying at the present time. --User talk:FDuffy 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the new title as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

The "Opinion" section seems to display a disturbing lack of the Neutral Point of View, as it focuses solely on questioning the accuracy, without mentioning ANY of the scholarly research supporting its accuracy, and glossing over (barely mentioning) the fact that the majority of Christians believe the stories to be literally true. --Tim4christ17 14:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Francis wrote the whole article from one perspective, neglecting to cover dissenting opinions. I added the Feldman reference, which is a summary of findings that give a plausible explanation for the phenomenon that is more in keeping with the literal reading.

Tim, don't worry. Jews are generally Biblical literalists. The majority of Jews believe the stories to be literally true as well. JFW | T@lk 21:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)