User:FimusTauri/NA2

Below is my suggestion for the re-structuring of the article Noah's Ark. I must stress that everything in this suggestion is open to alteration and criticism.

Noah’s Ark Introduction

including Para. 1) Opening statement; Para. 2 )Summary of the story; Para. 3) Summary of criticisms.

Narrative

- In Genesis

- In the Quran

- In other sources if required

Please note: I suggest placing the Genesis account first because it is the lengthier account, not because it should be given greater prominence or significance than the Quran version. I do not see a need for ‘Other sources’ as these are given space in the next section, but others may disagree.. Also, as this section is discussing the narrative, it may be preferable to only note the ways in which the Quran differs from Genesis, rather than giving a complete description from that source.

Traditional Viewpoints

Again, the Genesis account is placed first for the reasons above.

- In Rabbinic Tradition

- In Christian Tradition

- Josephus

I would place Josephus here because his work clearly influenced both Christian and Rabbinic tradition. If anyone can confirm that he also had influence on Islamic tradition then it would be better to move his section to below the next.

- In Islamic Tradition

- In Other Traditions

Historicity

I would suggest a short paragraph here explaining that the generally accepted view is that the story is mythological in nature and that the minimalist view is predominant. This provides the reader with a background to the sections that follow.

- The Minimalist View of the Ark

- The Literalist View of the Ark

- The Story of the Ark as Allegory

Each of the above should be relatively short, as I suggest their inclusion as a prelude to the sub-sections that follow. The ‘allegory’ section may need to be slightly more expanded, as this view is not discussed further; the literalist view need only be brief, as the details of that view are set out above.

- The Development of Critical Evaluation of the Story of the Ark

I suggest this sub-section as a synthesis of the sections “The ark in post-renaissance scholarship” and “The ark and science in the 19th century”. To my mind these two sections take up more room than their weight and relevance requires.

- The Search for Noah’s Ark

As there is already a separate article on this subject, this should be short, being notable as it is a means by which literalists hope to defend their position.

- Seaworthiness

- Practicality

- Capacity and Logistics

I have included these last three as they currently appear in the article, although I am not sure that the latter two shouldn’t be merged into one. Also, I leave open the question of other sections that may be added, at least in part because a synthesis of the historical development sections may require some topics to be given their own sub-section.

response from PiCo

Thanks for all the work you've put into this. Just a few comments: 1. The Book of Enoch/Book of Jubilees are very important for the Ark story, or rather for the insight they give into changing understandings and uses of it. Chronologically, they fit in between Genesis and the Quran. 2. Josephus? What is it about this guy? I'm not convinced he deserves a whole section or subsection. What did he actually say about the Ark? 3. "Minimalist" is the wrong word to use. Not sure what the right word would be though. Anyway, good work. I'll let others have their say. PiCo (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I will not attempt detailed discussion until others have had their say. I would ask if Jubilees/Enoch are different in substance (I haven't looked at them in a while)? If the difference is in substance then a section for them should be in the Narrative; if the difference is in interpretation then they belong in the Traditions section.

Actually, I included Josephus in error. The last page I read was the Sodom & Gomorrah page, where he is given a separate section. An easy mistake, as Josephus seems to crop up anywhere that Old Testament stories are discussed. On the other hand, he does generally have interesting things to say on such stories, not least because it is generally assumed that he had access to versions of those stories that have since been lost. See [1] for a translation of what he has to say on the Ark.

Any titles can be changed. I used 'minimalist' because that is the word I have heard used in several TV programmes to indicate the 'opposite' camp to the 'liberalists - maybe its just a British thing?--FimusTauri (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Josephus is a source which should definitely be included, partly because his is one of the earliest interpretations of the Ark and flood as historical events and partly because he feels it necessary to make an evidence based case for both. In whatever way the narrative had been interpreted previously, Josephus felt it necessary to record and substantiate the narrative as history, not just theology or myth. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

TilE is your man for detailed knowledge of Jubilees and Enoch. As for the label "minimalist," as I understand the term, it describes a group pf scholars who hold that the history books of the Old Testament were all written after about 450BC, and are both too late and too biased to be trusted as history. They're a minority in biblical scholarship circles - most would agree that Samuel/Kings isn't entirely reliable, but that it's not entirely useless either. Genesis and the other books of the Torah don't really get a mention - the debate is about the later period, the period of the kingdom of Israel/Judah. That said, the point that you're making doesn't depend on the label we use.PiCo (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

response from Martin Hogbin

Should we say more about the scientific response to the literalist view. There is something about the practicalities in the historicity section but we might add something on the unobserved effect on the human and animal populations of the literal view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, almost the whole of the Historicity will be devoted to exactly that. That section should include all scientific arguments against any literalist view. If you feel there should be any additional sections devoted to specific areas related to the subject then I am happy to include them if that is concensus.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my hope too. Taiwanboi objects to the use of the term "literlist", so we may have to find something else - but the task shouldn't be impossible. Personally, I'm more interested in the Ark story as literature - its original meaning and purpose, its relationship to the theology of the Pentateuch/Primary History, and so on. And I'd also like to see a section about the changing understandings of the story from the pre-Christian period up to the 18th century, when a scientific worldview first became widespread. PiCo (talk)

In my mind, that should be the purpose of the development of critical evaluation section (and I really hope someone can find a suitably succinct version of that title!)--FimusTauri (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have plenty of material on this, from scholarly articles sourced from JSTOR. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'literalist' POV

I see the term 'literalist' is being bandied about loosely again. As discussed and demonstrated repeatedly in the past, the term 'literalist' is an ambiguous term in Wikipedia, directing the reader to a list of different meanings. In the context of this article, the term literalist will be interpreted as Biblical literalist. Neither this term, nor the term 'literalist' should be used to classify all POVs which hold to the Ark's historicity. As demonstrated in the current edit of the article, not all POVs holding to the Ark's historicity are 'literalist'. A distinction should be made between Biblical literalist and non-Biblical literalist POVs, as it is in the current article. A section on historicity should be entitled 'Historicity'. This section would include POVs both in support of and critical to historicity (which is of course what we already have under 'Critical evaluation'). A section on different Christian interpretations of the Ark (literalist, non-literalist, allegorical, etc), should be entitled something like 'Current Christian interpretations', with subtitles differentiating the various views. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the 'loose' use of 'literalist', which is equally as bad as 'minimalist'; however, I must stress again that all of the labels can be changed to something more appropriate. Both 'literalist' and 'minimalst' were inserted rather hastily, as I wanted to get a copy of the structure in place for people to look at. At the moment I am inviting comment on the general structure rather than the specifics.

I assume the latter half of your comments is a general support of the structure, as it is a reflection of exactly that which is proposed.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm in general support of the structure, which is basically what we have in place at present. We can refine the terms. There's plenty of material in the article at present which can be re-used for the purpose. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The Re-Shuffle

I have prepared a copy of the Noah's Ark article as it would look under my proposed re-structuring. Please note: I have not changed a single word from the original article. There is nothing added and nothing taken away (apart from a couple of sub-headings that became redundant). I present this to show what the structure would mean to the article. This may help further discussion about the structure. You can find this copy at User:FimusTauri/NA3--FimusTauri (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)