Eisspeedway

Talk:Garden of Eden

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lf414.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus in the Garden of Eden

There is a traditional Christian belief which claims that Jesus was in the Garden of Eden at the time of Eve's innocence. This belief has been represented in the paintings of Hieronymus Bosch. Since it is a fairly unusual belief, it ought to be researched more in depth in order to find out where it came from. [1] ADM (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've heard that theory too. Essentially, when God talks to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2, and when God walks in the garden in Genesis 3, "God" is actually Jesus (since, according to most Christian beliefs, Jesus is God). See particularly Genesis 3:3 -

"Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day" (GEN 3:3 NIV)

--Hendrixjoseph (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord is a title of power, Lord God is meant as a different person to Lord Jesus. Slightnostalgia (talk) 13:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gobekli Tepe as a suspected location

I propose a link to Gobekli Tepe as a suspected location, even if it's only in the "See also" section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobekli_Tepe

Dianaramadani (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC) The only thing in our article relevant is a couple of links, but see [2] - this is so tenuous it just floats away. No one is seriously claiming this so far as I can tell. dougweller (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however this is a city, there were many fourth race cities around the dawn of the bible. The true location is Elazig in Turkey. There is a dried lake bed of green water, there you will find eden is indeed true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd8888 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, the discussion was over five years ago. Second, Wikipedia merely summarizes reliable sources and is more concerned with verifiability, not "truth". Ian.thomson (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Author Andrew Collins in his work "Gobekli Tepe: Genesis of the Gods. The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden" adduces a convincing argument that Garden of Eden existed in the Armenian Highlands (or Armenian Plateau), in the Plain of Mush of ancient region of Taron in Greater Armenia, that is north of Gobekli Tepe and west of the Lake Van, and not in Gobekli Tepe. In this context, Collins uses extensively the correct toponyms, such as "historical Armenia", "Greater Armenia", "Armenian Highlands", "Armenian region of Taron", etc. in which, based on his findings, the Garden may have existed. The fact that the Plain of Mush is now located in Turkey as a result of mass murders and forced deportation of the entire Armenian population during the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey, doesn't change the historically known toponyms, such as Armenian Highlands, or the fact of existence of many Armenian sanctuaries, such as the Monastery of Yeghrdut, which Collins particularly emphasizes as being--possibly--an important landmark that came to existence as a result of Armenian Biblical traditions that placed the Garden of Eden close to that monastery. Therefore, at least as one possible site for the Garden, the Armenian Highlands ought to be mentioned in the article with reference to the reliable source, i.e Collins' account.71.191.12.221 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Davidian71.191.12.221 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how does a book written by 2 fringe authors and published by a fringe publisher meet our criteria at reliable sources? Doug Weller (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And how one can characterize—or stigmatize, rather—an author or a publisher as being “fringe”? Is there a clear-cut definition of authors being fringe and non-fringe? The publisher, Bear & Company, aka Inner Traditions, publishes books related to several areas of interest, including Earth mysteries. How does the publisher meet your criteria at reliable sources? Simple, I guess. IRS states: “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered”. Collins’ account is (a) a published source; and (b) in it, plenty of majority and minority views on possible locations of the Garden of Eden, which are found in ancient, medieval, modern, and traditional ethnic accounts, are covered.71.191.12.221 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)Davidian71.191.12.221 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on the Gobekli Tepe claim from the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut

"From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: [3]: On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements." That's pretty clear, we shouldn't use the Daily Mail stuff. dougweller (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dante

I think the page warrants a mention of the Earthly Paradise at the top of Mt Purgatory in the Divine Comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Facts with no POV

This article needs to be present the basic facts with no POV. This is what I mean:

  • Basic fact: "The Garden of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis"
  • Personl POV's: "The Garden of Eden is described in the Book of Genesis. This is a myth. The is part of Abrahamic myths."

Now the article already states that the source is the Bible. Fact. Done. If you now have your own personal opinions that the Bible is all myth, which is great, but they don't belong here at all. They belong over in the Bible article. Please go there and put them in, and leave the pedantic qualification, upon qualification out of this article. SAE (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy is deleting everything and called everyone who disagrees with his opinion a POV-pusher. I would appreciate if he would begin to use the talk pages and not erase everything in sight. This is my 4th attempt at trying to have a civil discussion with him. Hopefully he will respond to this. SAE (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopia paragraph, in Location - Africa

This paragraph is unsourced and has other problems. While it is true important human and pre-human fossils have been found in Ethiopia, the statement that "Paleontologists have excavated six million years of life" seems like an exaggeration or oversimplification. I also don't believe that they have concluded "that Ethiopia is the scientific location of human origin", since australopicine fossils have been found in other areas of eastern and southern Africa, too. This paragraph needs revision. Jbartelt9 (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Other Gods?

The Biblical Garden of Eden story has close parallels with other Ancient Near East stories, most of which are polytheistic. I'd be interested to see inclusion of arguments for and against the view that the Biblical story retains some polytheistic elements. Is the Serpent another God? Are the Cherubim with flaming swords (Gen 3:24) Gods? When God says (Gen 3:22) "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever" who is he talking to? (clearly not to Adam or Eve). Who else is he referring to when he says "one of us'? --Tediouspedant (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources "one+of+us"+polytheism&lr=&as_brr=3&ei=dnWSS92qIaD2MNPJ_NUM&cd=11#v=onepage&q=garden%20of%20eden%20%22one%20of%20us%22%20polytheism&f=false, "one+of+us"+polytheism&ei=OXWSS-_jJ4SMNtz0lPsM&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false, "one+of+us"+polytheism&ei=OXWSS-_jJ4SMNtz0lPsM&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false. Dougweller (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In hebrew you pluralize as a sign of veneration, not actually to imply multiple, translated to english i can see how it appears differetnly then in hebrew though.. As for the cherubim and serpent , there is nothing that suggests they are gods. Seeing as this theory would be WP: fringe, it would be giving undue weight even if you find some source that would actually suggest polytheism in early judaism (espeically given that the early books make polytheism a grave sin, and contradict this notion. Unless you word it very cleverly to simply say that there are some adaptations from other near east stories, without actually suggesting polytheism in judaism itself. I.E. they took a ploytheistic story, dropped the other gods, and baam Judaism! (written less stupidly then i just did and sourced of course) Smitty1337 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In hebrew you pluralize as a sign of veneration". No, you don't - there's no "royal plural" in Hebrew or other Semitic languages. The plural ending on elohim is simply a grammatical oddity, not a sign of respect. The seraphim were just snakes (literally "burning ones"), but also, with a different usage, serpent-demons (the seraphs in Isaiah were "burning" in the literal sense, but also probably had snake-bodies in addition to their wings and human heads and hands - there are depictions of them in the archaeological record). PiCo (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can in some cases: cf. not just the data on Elohim you cited, but also things like the fact that the name of the great beast Behemoth is the plural of Hebrew bəhēmâ, "beast". Adam Restling (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is very interesting. Is there a larger set of consistent examples? A small sample of 2 is not convincing, especially considering they are different genders and the suffixes very possibly just coincidental artifacts of parent languages. Is this ever used in conjunction with "גדול" or similar adjectives? Jyg (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The real location of Eden

Dougweller seems to continually delete the suggested location of Kharsag / The Rachaya Basin, Lebanon - and is mistakenly claiming Laurence Gardner's mainstream published book "The Origin of God" by Dash House Publishing is inadmissable on Wikipedia on the basis that this is "self-published". He is wrong, they are a reputable publishing house, please recheck and restore as appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.32.44 (talk • contribs)

Dash House Publishing [4] - its front page clearly says "print on demand enables authors to print from only one book to thousands. You, the author, decide how many. You may wish to publish the family story for relatives and friends, or you may be a bestseller yet to be discovered. POD gives you the freedom to publish your work and reach your chosen readership cost effectively." This is not a mainstream publishing house, this is print on demand. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! I'll get you next time Penelope Pitstop!!! Just wait until someone verifiable reviews it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.32.44 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gan 'Edhen or Gan Ba(r) Edhen?

I'm from Romania. In highschool, my teacher for "History of Religions" class(he was 1/4 jewish ...grandmother from mother's side) told us that the correct name is Gan Bar Edhen, with a whispered, almost extinct "r". He gave us 2 versions: Gan Ba'Eden and Ba'Gan Eden, but I don't remember what was the difference between them, it was about 15 years ago. Bigshotnews 08:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of Ge Ben Hinnom ("valley of the son of Hinnom") as being the truer name of Ge Hinnom (source of the word Gehenna), but not this "Gan Bar Eden" (which would seem to be "garden of the son of Eden", using Aramaic bar "son"), and a Google search seems to turn up nothing, either. Perhaps the teacher was wrong, or citing some other thing/construction? Adam Restling (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Bar' can also mean "(having a quality) of". E.g. "bar kayma" - sustainable development. WillNess (talk) 13:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. The OT has one Gan b'Eden -- the b' is a prefix here meaning "in" -- in Gen. 2:8; every other use is Gan Eden. Gershonmk (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Eden is Kashmir Valley

Some good people have been reaserching and found that The Garden of Eden is Kashmir Valley This interesting map based on that research: http://www.jesus-kashmir-tomb.com/sitebuilder/images/Map_to_Graves-691x418.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bocah anon (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any peer-reviewed material by modern, accredited scientists who actually have kept track of the past century of anthropological and genetic studies, and who have given up on nationalistic biases? Because the material you're presenting doesn't look like that. You have a map from a map from a tourist trap. That doesn't amount to any sort of evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rohl - no POV

Whoever did the addition of David Rohl and his Eden (edin) theories summarized fairly... right up to the last sentence. They then wrote an opinion. My opinion is that David Rohl's ideas are some of the best I've ever heard (and I've heard a lot) but my opinion does not belong here either.

Please delete the last sentence in the David Rohl/Valley of Tabriz section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joenitwit (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we remove something sourced to a well knowna archaeologist? Eric Cline is a reliable source. I did remove the image however citing WP:UNDUE, none of the other fringe ideas have images (which is I think correct). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pishon and Gihon

Dear "scientists" It's totally known where is Pishon and Gihon. Pishon is ancient name for Danube river and I know minimum two middle-age documents where it is axiom:

1. Pseudo-Caesarius - "Caesarii Dialogi" or "Questiones et responsiones". For us is interesting answer of qusetion 110. where he wrote about Slavic tribes who was migrating to Balkan Pennisula "...How again that on the other land S(k)lavs and Danubians, who named Pishones, too." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesarius_of_Nazianzus book - http://www.scribd.com/doc/57783059/S-Caesarii-Dialogi-IV-Didymi-Caeci-De-Spiritua-Sancto-Contra-Manichaeos-S-Phoebadii-Contra-Arianos-De-Fide-orthadoxa-De-fide-1836

2. Constantine the Philosopher - "Biography of Despot Stefan Lazarević", the first humanistic book on the Balkan, where he said that Fishon or Pishon is Danube and Gihon is Nil.

How to understand this? Very easy, Adam is symbol of all men in the world, Eden is symbol of human civilization, place where was the easier place to live. On the Danube River was the first neolithic "civilization" of Lepenski Vir, Vinča and Starčevo, Egypt is the second civilizacion and Messopothamy is the third.

Lepenski vir - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepenski_Vir Vinča - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_culture

Man of the Vinča has maybe the first alphabet in the world, which is prove that this is civilization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar (talk • contribs) 10:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be the problem: you cite "middle-age" documents--for example, Caesarius of Nazianzus apparently lived around 331-368 CE--while the Torah is estimated as having been composed ca. eight centuries earlier (450 BCE), parts from sources even older. So terms like "Gihon" and "Pishon" in Genesis vs. these much-later accounts don't seem prevailing in their connections. The matter-of-fact, didactic claiming of its authenticity, thus, seems faulty. Adam Restling (talk) 11:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Just wanted to make this note, since without it, the current etymological section seems incomplete to me.

According to John Huehnergard's list of Proto-Semitic roots (as featured in [http://www.amazon.com/American-Heritage-Dictionary-English-Language/dp/0395825172 The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language]), Eden does mean "delight", deriving from a Central Semitic noun *ġadan, *ġidn "softness, tenderness, verdure" (root ġdn); the phoneme ġ, as usual, became Hebrew /ʿ/ (ʿayin).

The resemblance of the Hebrew form (if not its ancestor) to Sumerian edin is often raised, and interesting, but doesn't prove much: the Bible is full of linguistic and phonetic punning with terms that don't seem to truly be related, such as connecting Hebel ("Abel") to a homophonous word hebel "vaporous, ephemeral", or Qayin ("Cain") to Eve's comment on his birth, "I have gotten (קניתי qānîtî ) a man with the help of the Lord"--despite the likely true, quite different, theorized etymologies of their names. Adam Restling (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Garden of Eden

I have no objection to including the Quranic garden, and in fact it would be a good idea, but so far there are no sources. We'll do it in time. PiCo (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are variations in the narative sure, but that doesn't mean that the translation isn't still valid.Smitty1337 (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand - what translation, and what variations in what narrative? PiCo (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there are differences between Eden story from the bible to the Quran. But that shouldn't exclude the arabic translation of the name Garden of Eden. It is relevent in that language. Smitty1337 (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. When we get to dealing with the Quranic garden we can add it - but is it going to help anyone who can't read Arabic? PiCo (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same garden. As for who it will help, how does any translation help anyone who doesnt speak that language? Generally wiki seems to put translations in the lede that are relevent to the topic, arabic and hebrew are both relevent. Even if the article is lacking in a description of islamic interpretation, it is still a relevent language to the subject. (though I'm really arguing as a devil's advocate: in reality i think you make an interesting point, i think that translations really dont serve much purpose aside from trivia)Smitty1337 (talk) 09:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to hear that you're playing Devil's advocate :). We'll just take it slowly - I'll go slowly through the references I've gathered and make edits as they become obvious.
There are at least two articles in Wiki already on the Islamic Eden/Paradise - they look pretty complete. We shouldn't go too far here to simply duplicate what's available there. That's my view, anyway. PiCo (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be some mention of the Arabic tradition of the location of Eden being the site that still goes under that place name (Aden, or Ad'n in Arabic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.226.167 (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uner the Persian Gulf

Isn't this a bit long? Why should it be given so much space? Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely too long, and the sources look rather non-reliable to me. The best basic source is Tsumura's "I Studied...", which is a collection of important articles on the subject. Tsmumura's introduction is an excellent summary of the way scholarly thinking had evolved to that point. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you fix it, as I don't have the book. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Eden

Is the Garden of Eden mention in the bible, Is it the land of Paradise that Jesus said to one of the two robbers that got crucified with Jesus on mount Calvary? and secondly, is that garden of Eden which some of us said that it to be Paradise, does it exist on earth or is it in Heaven?.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.62.121.67 (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment from Eden to prevent eating the Tree of Life.

21 The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. 22 And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Editor2020 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

tree of life

hi my question is that in bible there is no menstion about tree of life could you explian to me ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.74.166 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GARDEN OF EDEN

If you read the book of EZEKIEL with understanding in some verses EDEN is used as a comparison to both SATAN and cities names in the verses, as a form of destruction to both. It is not implying that Eden is located in Lebenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.210.61 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure

what you meant by your edit summary Pass a Method talk

Quran in the lead

I heave reverted the addition of the Quran into the lead sentence. It read "most notably in the Quran and the Book of Genesis but the most notable appearance would be in Genesis. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say that? Pass a Method talk 08:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it reasonable to say that of all the religious texts that describe the Garden of Eden, the Quran and the Book of Genesis are the [two] most notable? You could add "two" and this dispute would be resolved, although I think it's unnecessary since readers can probably just count. You could also drop "most notably".- MrX 13:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is particularly the "most notable" phrase that was the problem, since the Quranic occurrence is secondary and derivative. Doing a Google search, "Garden of Eden" Bible -Quran -Koran gives 2.94 million hits, while "Garden of Eden" Quran -Bible gives 70,800 hits. That's a significant difference. StAnselm (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the mention of the Quran to a separate sentence - it flows better that way. StAnselm (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is because the Quran has dozens of transliterations including quran, koran, qur'an, alkoran, coran, alquran, qoran, Qur'ân, Qur'ān, Qurʾān, Ḳurʾān, etc. With so many transliteraions a google return count is not indicative of notability. Pass a Method talk 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, do you have any other suggestions for determining notability then? Is there any particular reason you think the Quranic usage is as significant or notable as the biblical usage? StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is as notable since polls show Muslims are more religious than Christians, which is further reflected on the page religious states. is there any reason you think the Quran is not as notable as the Bible? Pass a Method talk 21:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the notability of the Quran - what it concerns is whether the Garden of Eden is referred to in a Quranic rather than a biblical context in reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Göbekli Tepe

"From the Deutsches Archaeologisches Institut: [5]: On February 28th the Daily Mail published an article by Tom Cox, in which Prof. Dr. Klaus Schmidt, leader of the Göbekli Tepe excavations, is cited as follows: "Göbekli Tepe is a temple in Eden". On the basis of this, the author formulates several conclusions about the biblical paradise, Adam and Eve and other events connected to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament. Several German- and Turkish-language newspapers and radio stations of german and turkish language have picked up on the contents of the article since its publication.
"Tom Cox" or "Tom Knox" is a pseudonym of the British journalist Sean Thomas, who used the article to get publicity for his thriller "Genesis Secret", which is due to appear in March in English and simultaneously in German. Since Sean Thomas is using a falsified version of an interview with Klaus Schmidt made in fall 2006, he presents a distortion of the scientific work of the German Archaeological Institute.
The German Archaeological Institute (DAI) distances itself from these statements and reserves the right to take legal action against further dissemination of the story in connection with the work of the DAI at Göbekli Tepe. Klaus Schmidt neither in an interview nor on any other occasion made the above mentioned statements."
Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added some political rubbish connecting Jerusalem with the garden of Eden, obviously some political religious rationale from pro Israel sentiments of some sort or another. Really it is a very lame ridiculous thing you restored. Just because there is some citation about it does not mean it could be included. Nearly any lame brained idea has followers and a citation can be mustered. Its obvious pov from someone. Also the above thing about Göbekli Tepe being some kind of scam seems far fetched. Its a famous site that happened in a time and place. You deny the significance and connection to the Garden of Eden concept, well that seems really out of line also. If this article is so controlled with pov, I will not touch it again. Right now it is not good. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's following our policy and guideline at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Everyone has a pov - you clearly do as your objection to Professor Terje Stordalen's book seems to be that it doesn't fit your pov. Dougweller (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am taking this article off my watch list and will not touch it with a ten foot pole as it appears to be the playground of pov pushers. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You clearly don't understand WP:NPOV or WP:RS, so it's a good idea for you not to edit this. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zarins view inadequately portrayed

According to Edward L. Ochsenschlager: Iraq's Marsh Arabs in the Garden of Eden (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 2004)[6] "One of the most prominent theorists on this topic, Juris Zarins, believes the Garden of Eden lies some 200 miles south of Sumer under the waters of the Persian Gulf, and he thinks that the story of Adam and Eve, both in and out of the Garden, is a highly condensed and evocative account of the shift from hunting /gathering to agriculture.*" Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed locations

How correct is it to say that "the Garden of Eden is considered by most scholars to be mythical"? The Garden figures in the Bible. To state that it is mythical based on works of just a couple of scholars is to indirectly imply that the Holy Scripture is a compilation of myths. Whereas many geographical places and events mentioned in the Bible are confirmed by scholars to be geographically and historically correct. Other scholars believe that Garden of Eden is not only not mythical, but it had actually existed on Earth, since the Bible mentions the names of rivers that up to this day exist.71.191.12.221 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Davidian71.191.12.221 (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd disagree with a statement that said "Most scholars consider Adam and Eve to be mythical"? Sorry, but unless you define 'scholars' very narrowly, you're wrong. All Creationists obviously do, but how many historians and archaeologists do? And it's a lot more than a couple of religious scholars that view it as myth. Doug Weller (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have I uttered a word about Adam and Eve? I commented on the possible physical location of the Garden of Eden and that it is wrong to outrightly state that “most scholars consider it to be mythical”, because many scholars, i.e. specialists in a particular branch of study, distinguished academics (definition by Oxford English Dictionary), suggest the opposite. One of them is John Morris, a creationist according to his convictions, but with a doctorate in geological engineering and with solid experience of teaching and research as professor of geology. Another one is Eric Cline, professor of classics and anthropology with degrees from Dartmouth, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania, who in his book “From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible” examines the possibility of the Garden’s physical, not mythical, location. There are many other distinguished scholars who do the same. But I fear that for Wikipedia their credentials will always pale in comparison to those who consider the locations and events described in the Bible as mythical…71.191.9.3 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

It never occurred to me that we weren't considering scholars in a relevant field. So let me add that caveat. Morris isn't a scholar in this area. Cline discusses speculations on its location but actually says at the end of the chapter that "It is hard to put the Garden...into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend." In his next sentence he says that most of Genesis 1-11 seems "to be more literary than historical." He does say that there may be a "historical kernel of truth" in that the relevant region saw the beginnings of agriculture, and that both "the Mesooptamiam myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture...." He speculates where it might have been if it existed, and concludes the chapter with a quote from Victor Horowitz: "I doubt we'll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible." Doug Weller (talk) 14:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which area? Biblical Archeology? Except for William Foxwell Albright, none of the authors that you have as “most” scholars who consider the Garden of Eden to be mythological, is a Biblical archeologist. Again, Cline looks into the topic from the position of locating the Garden’s physical, not mythical, site. Cline also refers to many scholars and authors, such as Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Michael Sanders, Gary Greenberg, Joseph Smith, etc. who consider the Garden of Eden to be physical. Yet, this Wikipedia article only cites those authors who consider it mythological. As you can see, the list of their opponents is no smaller or less impressive.71.191.9.3 (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I suggest that the phrase "by most scholars" in "[...]the Garden of Eden is considered by most scholars to be mythological" be removed. References to the garden's mythological location found in the article do not outnumber those whose authors advocate for the garden's physical location.71.191.12.193 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Many editors are more familiar with Wikipedia policies than I am. Still, I note from WP:DUE that neutrality requires articles "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". My interpretation of this is that we don't weigh content in direct proportion to the number of sources citing a certain view. Instead, reliable sources are given the greatest weight (or maybe all the weight). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References 21 to 27 are all significant viewpoints by non-fringe scholars, published by reliable sources. If WP:DUE advocates neutrality, as it does, then the phrase "by most scholars" should be changed to a more neutral "by some scholars", given the fact that several other scholars hold opposing views both in terms of their content and their number.71.191.12.193 (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Those sources might not be as reliable or as supportive as you seem to think. [21] Paradise Lust (yes, that is the title) is a summary of the culture of wanting to find Eden. [25] is an incomplete citation, which should be removed. At least one of the others is a conference paper of content I do not know. Note that these are citations to "speculation". Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with removing [21]. Actually this reference existed in the text before my edit.71.191.12.193 (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Why remove [21]? That is actually rather scholarly as these things go! I've suggested that [25] be removed. Looks like [22] is self-published. Several others look odd and/or are just conference papers. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that the garden is mythological is also a “speculation”. Not to say that except for William Albright, none of the authors that Wikipedia cites as “most” scholars who “consider the Garden of Eden to be mythological”, is an—Biblical—archaeologist. Whereas Juris Zarins is an archaeologist, James Sauer was an archaeologist, David Rohl is an archaeologist (Egyptologist), Gary Greenberg is an archaeologist specializing in ancient history and Biblical studies, and Ephraim Speiser was an archaeologist (Assyriologist). I don’t see how the list of scholars who consider the garden mythological outnumbers or outweighs in terms of content those who consider it physical.71.191.0.159 (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

[25] needs to be removed, yes, although the author figures in Eric Cline's accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.0.159 (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are using Hamblin's article twice, 22 and 27 - and she is only reporting Zarins, not saying she agrees. The fact that someone is claiming Greenberg is a scholar and an archaeologist is very worrying, he's a lawyer writing fringe booksw.[7]. Doug Weller (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brook Wilensky-Lanford isn't a scholar, she's a writer, probably a good one, but not a scholar, archaeologist, etc. Again she needs to be removed from any list of scholars. Doug Weller (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed what seem to be either dubious citations or incomplete citations, changed the sentence to accommodate the "popular" aspect of "Paradise Lust" and, more generally, speculations represented in the press. Hopefully this is a step forward, but, as always, reliable sources are welcome. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Gary Greenberg being a lawyer, he is also a scholar. He serves as president of the Biblical Archaeology Society of New York, is a member of The Society of Biblical Literature, The Egypt Exploration Society, The American Research Center in Egypt, and The Archaeological Institute of America, and has written extensively on ancient history, mythology, and biblical studies. What is so “worrying” about someone holding two or more specializations and how a membership in serious organizations makes an author “fringe”, only Wikipedia editors would know. As one example, Russian composer Alexander Borodin was also a chemist…71.191.0.159 (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

All references to scholars, who were added as advocates of a hypothesis that the garden had physically existed on Earth, are effectively removed. Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Ephraim Speiser, and, yes, Gary Greenberg as biblical studies expert—all are (some were) scholars in archaeology. It looks like the neutrality, according to WP:DUE, is upset.71.191.0.159 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

No, Greenberg isn't a scholar. None of that makes him a scholar. By scholar we normally mean an academic. He's an amateur historian. The organisations he belongs to are irrelevant. And it's his publications that are fringe. Eg Moses was Pharoah Akhnaten's High Priest, etc. He's not an expert by any means. And the others you mention do not all (if any of them do) argue that there was a literal Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were created. Doug Weller (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In "From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible", scholar Eric Cline (academic, right?) cites all of them as scholars who "have suggested the original Garden of Eden might have been located in or near [Mesopotamia]". Every one of them has suggested its possible physical location: in Persian Gulf, Arabian Peninsula, Iran, Egypt, etc., respectively. Bringing Adam and Eve to the talk on the possible physical location of the Garden is irrelevant.71.191.0.159 (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

If we assume that Greenberg is an amateur historian, let’s then take a look at the backgrounds of “scholars”, whom the article has cited as references to the following clause: “Although the Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars”. Okay, let’s see who the “most scholars” in [16,17,18,19,20] are background-wise: [16] Howard Schwartz is a folklorist and a poet, [17] Arthur George is a mythologist, [18] Jean Delumeau is a Catholic Church researcher, [19] Robert Graves was a poet, classical novelist, and critic, and Raphael Patai was an anthropologist and Jewish folklorist, [20] W.F. Albright was an archaeologist and a biblical scholar.

Thus, out of six (including joint authorship) authors only one, W.F. Albright, is a scholar (i.e. academic) with experience in archaeology. How does this make the rest of them “scholars” and “most” is being left to the discretion of the editors and Wikipedia policies and regulations.71.191.0.159 (talk) 16:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

  • "in China; at the North Pole; at Jerusalem; in Sri Lanka; at Berlin; under the Mediterranean Sea; in the Seychelles; and at various locations in Africa and the Americas." Why is this change kept in the article? Two out of four rivers flowing out of Eden are firmly known to the historians. Hiddekel is identified as the Tigris River and Perat is associated with the Euphrates. These two rivers are nowhere near China, Sri Lanka, the Seychelles or Africa/Americas. Please remove the above insertion from the aricle.71.191.0.18 (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

 Done Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested location does not mean 'not mythical'

It seems to me that we are talking about two perspectives on the Garden of Eden. One is that of those who believe that God created man there. The other is that of those who don't believe that. As I've pointed out several sections above, with a source, Zarins is one of the latter. If you read Hamblin, she makes this clear, as does Edward L. Ochsenschlager whom I cite above. Although Rohl thinks he has found historical evidence for the stories in the Bible, he doesn't claim that there was a Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve were created. Doug Weller (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. This discussion has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief in Genesis. This discussion is about an incorrect assertion in the article that “most” scholars consider the Garden to be mythological, and that at the same time there is “some" popular speculation about its possible location. Several scholars (biblical archaeologists) have suggested its physical location.71.191.0.159 (talk) 19:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Of course it does. There's a huge difference between believing that there was an actual Garden of Eden and suggesting that a location for the place that later became the basis for the story of the Garden of Eden. Doug Weller (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Cline says, "It is conceivable, however, that there is a historical kernel of truth at the base of the Garden of Eden story, because, as Speiser notes, “To the writer of the account in Gen. 2:8 . . . the Garden of Eden was obviously a geographic reality.” If there is some historical truth to the account, it would seem to be the fact that the region of Mesopotamia was home to the Fertile Crescent, which stretched in an arc from the Persian Gulf to southern Turkey and saw the origins of agriculture and the first domestication of animals from approximately 10,000 b.c. onward. It may well be that both the various Mesopotamian myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture, both back during the original neolithic revolution around 10,000 b.c. and then again during the introduction of irrigation during the fourth millennium b.c." and "As Victor Hurowitz, professor of Bible and ancient Near Eastern studies at Ben-Gurion University, once said: “I doubt we’ll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible.” Doug Weller (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there is a host of authors who consider the Garden of Eden mythical and that there is a host of authors who consider it physical has nothing to do whatsoever with any of those authors’ belief or disbelief in that biblical story. Why? Because none of the scholars representing both camps is basing his or her speculations on their religious beliefs or atheist convictions. The prevailing majority of authors who proposed actual locations of the Garden are scholars trained and experienced in the scientific field of Biblical Archaeology, and not in the field of Theology. Cline is just one of them, and his opinion is one of many, but the fact remains that Wikipedia removed an edit that would tell its readers that there are other scholars who suggested actual locations of the Garden. Neutrality, according to WP:DUE, has been effectively upset.71.191.0.159 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

You still don't get it. There are scholars who think that the story of the Garden of Eden and other myths originated from things that happened in a particular location, eg agriculture - often a very large location, larger than the Bible suggests. Not a real Garden of Eden. Maybe some of these are atheists, maybe not, I don't know. There are others, who are definitely religious, who think that there was a real Garden of Eden as described in the Bible and propose locations for it. There's a big difference. Doug Weller (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there's no need to lead this talk astray. It is not about whether the Garden of Eden is a myth or where, as such, it has originated from (by the way, agriculture is not a location). Nor is it about whether the Garden was real or whether authors who suggested its actual locations were religious. This talk is about the Proposed Locations section, which states that “most scholars" consider the Garden mythological, but fails to mention that there are scholars, such as Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Gary Greenberg, and Ephraim Speiser, who proposed the Garden’s physical locations. You chose to remove this edit. Again, neutrality, according to WP:DUE, has been effectively upset.71.191.0.159 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Um, agriculture is a thing:"There are scholars who think that the story of the Garden of Eden and other myths originated from things that happened in a particular location, eg agriculture - often a very large location, " I thought that was pretty clear especially as I've added sources for it above. And no, I didn't remove "this edit", I haven't edited the article for a month and that was something entirely different. And Zarins seems pretty clear - he is talking about the origin of the myth:""The whole Garden of Eden story, however, when finally written, could be seen to represent the point of view of the hunter gatherers,". He's saying the myth originated there, not that that was the Garden of Eden. Huge difference. But you aren't listening, as you still think Greenberger is a scholar. If you think he is, go over to Akhenaten and edit that article to show that Moses was Akhenaten's high priest. Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since by "scholars" Wikipedia editors normally mean "academics", as is stated above, please confirm if folklorist and poet Howard Schwartz, mythologist Arthur George, Catholic Church researcher Jean Delumeau, poet and classical novelist Robert Graves, and Jewish folklorist Raphael Patai, are scholars by the same Wikipedia definition. Thank you.71.191.0.159 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

You're actually getting into another area here. Graves was as you say a poet and novelist, Arthur George is an attorney, Schwartz "a collector and re-teller of Jewish stories and midrash." according to his article, Delumeau is a specialist in Catholic Church history. He's the only academic among the lot. His History of Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition talks of others who try to locate it, what does he say himself about it? Doug Weller (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Sir. Zarins has actually argued that the Garden was situated at the head of the Persian Gulf, at the spot where Tigris and Euphrates run into the Persian Gulf. This is confirmed by Eric Cline in his work “From Eden to Exile: Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible”. This is what Cline wrote: “Juris Zarins, professor of anthropology at Southwest Missouri State University, has suggested that the original location of the Garden of Eden is now underwater, at the head of the Persian Gulf, near Bahrain.”

Myth or no myth, agriculture or metallurgy, religion or atheism—these are not the subjects of this discussion. This discussion is about Wikipedia’s statement about “most scholars” who “consider the Garden to be mythological” and the failure to admit that several other scholars in the true sense of the word have proposed actual locations. Actual—not mythological—geographical locations on Planet Earth.

If we discount Greenberger as a scholar for the sake of compromise, still, most authors whom the article cites as “scholars” who consider “the Garden to be mythological”—except for W.F. Albright—are not scholars in the sense that Wikipedia seems to admit, that is, they are NOT academics. How does this fact make these authors “scholars” and, more so, “most scholars”, only Wikipedia editors would know…71.191.0.159 (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Fringe writers

I've just removed one. There are of course a number of fringe writers making various claims, eg Florida. Do we want fringe views? Doug Weller talk 10:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The views of scholars, such as Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Gary Greenberg, John Morris, and Ephraim Speiser—all proposing physical locations of the Garden of Eden cannot be considered “fringe” by our all-knowing Wikipedia editors. Yet, no reference to the works of these authors was allowed by them in order to support an important edit testifying to the fact that scholars, who consider the Garden of Eden to be mythological are NOT in the majority, and that there is an equal number of other scholars who propose its physical location. Yet, in the article we read that there is only “some popular speculation” about the Garden’s physical location. In other Wikipedia article, an editor wrote this funny line: “Wikipedia is a place for “reliable academia”. Ugh… Then, following the logic of this editor, scholars Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, Gary Greenberg, John Morris, and Ephraim Speiser are not reliable academia. They are just next-door neighbors, working in used car sales business.71.191.0.18 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
David Rohl is the creator of the New Chronology (Rohl), which is generally regarded as anything but reliable by academia. His views definitely fall under WP:FRINGE. That you include him indicates that you don't know what is fringe or not and rather discredits your argument.
The issue is that the majority of academics don't think there was a physical location, and the figures you list disagree with the majority of that minority that do believe there was a physical location. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Rohl is a famous Egyptologist, with a degree in Ancient History and Egyptology from the University of London. The fact that he holds a so-called “unconventional” view on one issue: the chronology of ancient Egypt, in no way undermines his overall professional qualifications and expertise as compared to the absolute irrelevance of the individuals, whom Wikipedia editors cite as references to this nonsensical statement found in the article: “The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars.” These “most” "scholars", as we get to know in references [17][18][19][20][21], are folklorist and poet Howard Schwartz; mythologist Arthur George; Catholic church chronicler Jean Delumeau; poet and novelist Robert Graves; and Jewish folklorist Raphael Patai. Since when folklorists, mythologists, poets, chroniclers, and novelists have become “reliable academia” for Wikipedia editors as compared to scholars in Ancient History and Egyptology?71.191.0.18 (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
They are scholars who interpret the story of the Garden of Eden as a myth. Also note that William F. Albright is cited as well. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

→* No, Sir. They are not scholars, by definition. Scholar is a specialist in a particular branch of knowledge. Folklorists, mythologists, poets, chroniclers, and novelists cannot be specialists in Biblical Archaeology or Ancient History. Wikipedia policies require that editors cite ALL sources to the debatable issue. Why THE scholars, such as Juris Zarins, James Sauer, David Rohl, John Morris, and Ephraim Speiser are not being cited as references to support suggestions for the Garden's physical locations? Because if you cite them, it will invalidate your statement that "most" scholars consider the Garden to be mythological, right? Yes, only one, William F. Albright, is a scholar. Thank you, too.71.191.0.18 (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Mythologists interpreting a Jewish myth? We could add a citation to Levenson too. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An edit with references to non-fringe scholars is being removed

Previously, in the Proposed Locations section, there for a long time peacefully existed a reference-supported clause suggesting the Armenian Highland or Armenian Plateau as one of the physical locations of the Garden of Eden. All of a sudden, the view of an author cited in the reference displeased some editor and was defined as "fringe" and the clause was removed. Okay... I now attempt to insert the same clause providing three (there are more) reliable references to support this suggested location, namely: 1. Duncan, Joseph E. Milton’s Earthly Paradise: A Historical Study of Eden. 1972. University Of Minnesota Press; Minnesota Archive Editions edition (July 6, 1972), pp. 96, 212. 2. Scafi, Alessandro. Return to the Sources: Paradise in Armenia, in: Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth. 2006. London-Chicago: British Library-University of Chicago Press, pp. 317-322, and 3. Willcocks, Sir William, Hormuzd Rassam. Mesopotamian Trade. Noah’s Flood: The Garden of Eden, in: The Geographical Journal 35, No. 4 (April 1910), pp. 459-460. All three are non-fringe authors expressing non-fringe views. Yet, some whimsy Wikipedia editor keeps removing this edit together with the cited references. Please attend.71.191.0.18 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I had not seen your edit when I added in John Day's references to the proposed location. He is far from a 'fringe' author, and I agree that your edit and mine should be restored.Maureendepresident (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC) John Day makes the same claim in Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan Bloomsbury Academic, 1 Dec 2002 - Religion - 290 pages see also https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xZv9AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA111&dq=garden+of+eden+armenia&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=garden%20of%20eden%20armenia&f=false Zion Zenit. These are notable writers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maureendepresident (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Highlands

A location of the Garden of Eden in the Armenian Highlands or Armenian Plateau, proposed by several non-fringe authors and supported by several Wikipedia users, is being constantly removed by some bullet-headed Wikipedia editor with no explanation of the reason for removal. The academic sources supporting the physical location of the Garden of Eden in the Armenian Highlands are as follows: 1. Zevit, Ziony. What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? 2013. Yale University Press, p. 111. 2. Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan. 2002. Sheffield Academic Press, p. 30. 3. Duncan, Joseph E. Milton’s Earthly Paradise: A Historical Study of Eden. 1972. University Of Minnesota Press, pp. 96, 212. 4. Scafi, Alessandro. Return to the Sources: Paradise in Armenia, in: Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth. 2006. London-Chicago: British Library-University of Chicago Press, pp. 317-322. 5. Willcocks, Sir William, Hormuzd Rassam. Mesopotamian Trade. Noah’s Flood: The Garden of Eden, in: The Geographical Journal 35, No. 4 (April 1910), pp. 459-460.

There are many more academic sources suggesting the same location.--71.191.1.192 (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Ziony writes "If correct, these identifications suggest that the territory thought of as Eden was imagined as lying somewhere in the western part of Urartu but east of the Halys. The Garden was somewhere on Eden’s eastern side. It may have been imagined as a landscaped artifact in a high mountain valley near the western edge of the Ararat mountain range, where rivulets streaming down different sides of the mountains contributed to the headwaters of four great rivers."
Can you provide the quotes from Day, Duncan and Scafi as I can't access them. 4 would be plenty. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly. I would expect such a request from Wikipedia editors before they go on deleting an important edit.--71.191.1.192 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
Here, as requested. I did Wikipedia editors’ work for you, didn’t I?

Day, John. Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan, pp. 30-31.

“Its [Garden of Eden’s] location at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers suggests either Armenia (at their western end) or the Persian Gulf (at their eastern end). Two important considerations suggest that Eden was located rather at the other end, in Armenia. First, as Albright pointed out, the river flowing from Eden became four head (-waters). Secondly, Eden is set on a mountain. This does not fit the Persian Gulf at all, but coheres with Armenia perfectly, since its mountainous terrain is particularly noteworthy. Interestingly, it was on one of the mountains of Armenia (Ararat, i.e. Urartu) that Noah’s Ark landed. When the Mesopotamian flood hero Utnapishtim is said to be at pî nârâti, ‘the mouth of the rivers’, it is natural to suppose that this is at the Armenian source of the Tigris and Euphrates. This also coheres with the fact that Gilgamesh, in seeking Utnapishtim, crosses Mt Mashu—that is, Mt Masios [Massis-higher peak of Ararat] in Armenia.”

Duncan, Joseph. Milton’s Earthly Paradise: A Historical Study of Eden, p. 212.

“Another location given for paradise was Armenia. This conception was based partly on the observation that streams usually arose in mountains, like those of Armenia, as well as on the assumption that Noah’s ark had not been carried far when it came to rest on Mount Ararat in Armenia. Both Pererius and Lapide had suggested Armenia and Mesopotamia as logical locations for Eden and paradise. Johann Vorstius, maintaining that Scripture clearly stated that the great river arose in Eden itself, also contended that Eden and paradise must be in Armenia. One of the most complete of the earlier arguments for an Armenian paradise was offered by Carver in a tract published in 1666. Because the Tigris and Euphrates were two of the four rivers flowing from the great river, they must have a common source, he reasoned. There Eden and paradise must be, since the great river arose in Eden. He found the site of Eden in Armenia Major, on the south side of Mount Taurus.”

Scafi, Alessandro. Return to the Sources: Paradise in Armenia, in: Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven on Earth, pp. 317-322.

General survey on the cartographies of the Garden of Eden with a mention of the Armenian location of paradise: “True, the Flood had deprived paradise of its original beauty and most of its internal features, but its site survived. Instead of a common source described by ancient writers, in Calmet’s time the Tigris and Euphrates sprang from different places within Armenia. The sources of the other two rivers of paradise were also in Armenia: the Pishon corresponded to the river Phasis (which flowed into the Black Sea) and Gishon to the river Araxes (which flowed into the Caspian Sea).”

Scafi, Alessandro. Finishing the unfinished: Paradise in Fausto da Longiano’s vernacular translation of Piccolomini’s Cosmographia (1544), pp. 5-6.

“Fausto noted, however, that if the Pison and the Gihon were not to be identified with the Ganges and the Nile, there were other two possible candidates, the Araxes and the Cyrus, both located in Armenia. As a possible location, Fausto proposed Armenia, a region which in the sixteenth century included the area between the upper Euphrates and Lake Urmia, the Black Sea and the Syrian desert. The identity of two of the four rivers named in Genesis, the Tigris and the Euphrates, was uncontroversial, and both rivers were known to rise in Armenia. The more problematic Gihon and Pishon could be identified amongst the local rivers (for Fausto, the Araxes and the Cyrus). The idea of a possible Armenian location for paradise was taken up by later thinkers. But Piccolomini also considered the possibility that the human race derived from Armenia, where Noah’s Ark came to rest, once the waters of the Flood had receded (Genesis 8.1-15). So, even though all men originally descended from Adam, it was from the mountains of Armenia that Noah and his family, along with every type of living creature, multiplied on the earth. However, to locate Eden in Armenia, it was also necessary to distance it in the distant past. Paradise must have disappeared, so that it no longer belonged to contemporary geography; and the catastrophic event which had caused this disappearance could well have been the Flood, which, as the Bible reported, had covered the entire surface of the earth (Genesis 7.17-24).”--71.191.1.192 (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Please let me know if many more quotes from professional literature written by non-fringe, mainstream academics, i.e. specialists in the field—and not folklorists, mythologists, poets, or chroniclers—are needed so that esteemed editors stop deleting an important edit without giving several Wikipedia users who voiced their concern a compelling reason for deletion. Thank you.--71.191.11.154 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
Thank you, Wikipedia editors, for adding this important edit in the text. Especially in the light of the June 2016 Papal pilgrimage to Armenia as first Christian nation.--71.191.10.198 (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Pre-Christian Jews did not consider the Garden of Eden to be a physical place?

In the Proposed Location section it said "Pre-Christian Jews did not consider the Garden of Eden to be a physical place." I have removed this assertion. I looked at the reference and could find no such statement nor external support or reference to Jewish sources lending to that idea. I have never heard of this before. This does not mean that it is untrue, but it does not mean that it is, either. So I have removed it. If someone can site more than a title and a link and provide the chapter/page which itself cites primary pre-christian jewish sources, then we can add it back in. Jyg (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garden of Eden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garden of Eden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only secular scholars

@Mrh1325: To clarify that only secular scholars would consider the Garden of Eden mythological. Many Catholics consider it metaphorical too. Origin myths also have particular styles and purposes and mythological doesn't always mean "false", although I also recommend reading Talk:Evolution/FAQ in this case. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen books by Protestant theologians writing about the mythological aspects. Doug Weller talk 21:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terence McKenna

@Aeduh and 81.34.80.42: I think that this view is considered fringe. If kept, the reference to the book should be at the end of paragraph (ideally using {{cite book}}. Let's see what other editors think. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 07:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Terence McKenna shows both that at much of his writing is fringe and that he makes no claims to be a historian, archaeologist etc. WP:UNDUE applies here as well as WP:FRINGE. This doesn't seem to be a view held by a significant minority or a well known expert on Eden. @PaleoNeonate:, you can't ping IP addresses. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about your assessment. Although I didn't read all of his work, I found his material interesting in the context of shamanism and entheogens, but considered it mostly fantasy and food for thought. Hmm I realize that without notifications {{re}} is useless versus plain text (although it wasn't more difficult to type). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Material removed —PaleoNeonate – 16:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mythological vs Real

According to Wikipedia entry Scholar, a scholar is “a person who pursues academic and intellectual activities, particularly those that develop expertise in an area of study”. In this article, the sentence “The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars” is absolutely misleading, because the referenced works that follow this flawed statement are from people, none of whom is a scholar in Biblical Archaeology. Wikipedia cites: [10] Jon Douglas Levenson, who is a Hebrew Bible theologian; [11] Howard Schwartz, a folklorist and poet; [12] Arthur George, a mythologist; and [13] Robert Graves, a poet and classical novelist, and Raphael Patai, a Jewish folklorist. Wikipedia then disparagingly notes: “Among those who consider it to have been real”. Well, “THOSE” who consider the Garden to be real are many, they are certainly not the minority as compared to THOSE who consider it to be mythological. These two sentences need to be changed at least by stating that there are two camps of scholars and related academics: one camp considers the Garden mythological and the other real.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

As far as I know is creationism still pseudoscience. Also just because something is mythology, it does not mean it is necessarily "not real".--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, out of many scholars who suggested that the Garden of Eden was a physical place, only John Morris is a creationist. Others are: Juris Zarins, an archaeologist specializing in the Middle East; James Sauer, a Biblical archaeologist; David Rohl, an Egyptologist; Ephraim Speiser, an Assyriologist; Eric Cline, an archaeologist and historian specializing in ancient Near East; Ziony Zevit, a scholar of Biblical Literature; John Day, an Old Testament scholar; Joseph E. Duncan, a scholar in Ancient Literature; Alessandro Scafi, a scholar in Cultural History; William Willcocks, an engineer and Egyptologist; and Hormuzd Rassam, an Assyriologist. And if mythology, in your understanding, does not mean it is necessarily “not real”, then this sentence in the introduction: “The Garden of Eden is considered to be mythological by most scholars. Among those who consider it to have been real, there have been various suggestions for its location […]”, needs to be changed, because it clearly suggests a conflict between “mythological” and “real”. I suggest changing “real” to “physical” and removing “by most scholars”. It is beyond doubt that people referenced by Wikipedia as “most scholars” are not “most” and certainly not “scholars” in the true sense of the word. Theologians, folklorists, poets, mythologists, classical novelists, etc. cannot be scholars similarly to archaeologists, historians, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, cultural historians, and Biblical archaeologists. Equal or greater number of, indeed, scholars suggest the Garden’s physical locations.98.231.157.169 (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Davidian[reply]
Two points: (1) being a scholar in one field does not prevent you from being a scholar in another field as well. (2) The lead to Myth admirably summarises the meaning of Myth. Specifically, in scholarly circles it does not imply necessary falsehood, but that there is no evidence independent of the religious narrative involved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VenusFeuerFalle and Martin of Sheffield: this guy has posted here at least 30 times and doesn't listen. Take his claim about Cline for instance. I wrote above: "Cline discusses speculations on its location but actually says at the end of the chapter that "It is hard to put the Garden...into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend." In his next sentence he says that most of Genesis 1-11 seems "to be more literary than historical." He does say that there may be a "historical kernel of truth" in that the relevant region saw the beginnings of agriculture, and that both "the Mesooptamiam myths and the stories in the Hebrew Bible have their origins in the simple fact that it was this region that first saw the flowering of agriculture...." He speculates where it might have been if it existed, and concludes the chapter with a quote from Victor Horowitz: "I doubt we'll ever find Eden outside the pages of the Bible." This is getting tendentious, should we hat it? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: Thanks, did not know that. Just thought I make a quick response without further investigating the situation.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Middle-Eastern/Abrahamic Religious Exclusion of European Religious Mentions

Why were religious traditions segregated? There is the Middle-Eastern mention of Eden or Edin & then there is the European mention of Idunn & her orchard. I remember long ago that these subjects were linked & that the page was inclusive & hyper-linked to either subject.


I'm calling vandalism on the part of Abrahamics against European Pagans. This has happened before in history where Christians vandalized Norse/Germanic Art & there was recorded violence that was initiated by the Christians/Romans against the Norse/Germanic. I have also experienced personally vandalism of my own property which was of a religious attribution as well as a scholarly one by my own Abrahamic adherent parents. They destroyed 2 pendants of mine...a Tiwaz & a Valknut. They called me Satanic & a devil worshiper....despite the fact that Tyr/Odin/etc are all fighting against treacherous family/friends, monsters, evil sorcerers, & giants...& are brave enough to face their own ends at Ragnarok.


So don't get me wrong. I'm just saying there is precedent in my experience to religious bigotry that leads to actual destruction of property & harassment of person. [there is more to my own story with my family & friends but that's too abundant to list].


This is why I'm going to find a way to link the Middle-Eastern Abrahamic/Akkadian Eden/Edin with the European Idunn. I'm just probing the waters here before I do so, so I can manage my time & "prime" the page.

True Premise (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence for the garden of eden? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.251.14 (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fake citations

I'm concerned about the number of malformed and/or fake citations I see in this article. In particular:

  • Schwartz, Howard; Loebel-Fried, Caren; Ginsburg, Elliot K. (2007). Tree of Souls: The Mythology of Judaism. Oxford University Press. p. 704.
  • Graves, Robert; Patai, Raphael (1986). Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. Random House. p. 315.
  • Delumeau, Jean; O'Connell, Matthew (2000). History of Paradise: The Garden of Eden in Myth and Tradition. University of Illinois Press. p. 276.

The problem with each of these is that they are all (very suspiciously) on the very last page of each book. I can't read any of these pages on Google Books - I suspect that's because they are blank. As a result, I cannot verify the claim that "most scholars" consider the Garden of Eden to be mythological. But quite apart from the content, the citation system is unacceptable. StAnselm (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've tracked down the edits - they were made in 2015 by an editor who retired in 2017. StAnselm (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The page numbers may have been autogenerated by a citation tool, e.g., by substituting the last page of the book if none are specified.
In that connection, the notion of the Garden as mythological appears to be implicit in the very premise of those sources. The authors would probably see it as redundant to devote much space to arguing the fact, especially if it is already the scholarly consensus.
Note also that not everyone defines "mythological" to imply that a story is 100% made-up. So the "myth" category may not be as relevant to the historicity as one might think. 40.131.173.33 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't dispute the claim, but one editor has, and it should be properly cited. Citing four books saying the GoE is a myth does not prove the statement. StAnselm (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a second. Just for my enlightenment, since I've never been here before, and I just happened to see somebody deleting a reference to the GoE as mythological. Let's leave aside the precise definition of myth for a second.
Do you want to tell me that there are serious Wikipedia editors that do believe, still today in 2021, that there really was a garden somewhere sometime where Adam and Eve walked like two innocent animals and where God the creator talked to them and gave them instructions on how to behave? I mean, if someone is a religious fundamentalist that believes in the inerrancy of the Bible, then yes. I just didn't know that people that declare themselves openly as such do edit an encyclopedia that purports to be aiming at or trying to collect the sum of human knowledge that has been accumulated throughout history? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 20:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it turns out, yes - I believe there really was a garden somewhere sometime where Adam and Eve walked (and that the Bible is inerrant, for that matter). But yeah - whether the garden is "mythological" is actually a different issue. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, if that is the case, i.e. that there really was there such a place where they walked and where God the creator talked to them and later expelled them from, that that GoE is definitely not mythological. It is real. Is that accurate? Thanks, warshy (¥¥) 21:01, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, because according to the academic definition of myth, a myth can also be real and/or true: "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society..." StAnselm (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a sure-fire way to absolutely everyone annyoyed: "Evolution is a myth. But that doesn't mean it isn't true." StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me we are in complete agreement regarding the GoE: i.e., it is definitely a myth. As for evolution, I believe you'd have to say it is a "scientific theory," without implying with it that it is necessarily "true" in all its aspects. But it definitely is not a "folklore genre." But they are also different in their origins. The GoE myth comes from God, if you accept the Bible literally, whereas evolution comes from "scientists," which is to say simple/common, or rather mere men/women. I.e., if you believe the Bible literally, you accept the implicit "truth" of the GoE myth, while at the same time rejecting the assumed "truth" of the other theory. warshy (¥¥) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Graves, Robert; Patai, Raphael (1986). Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis" Why are we citing Robert Graves as a source? The book cited was originally published in 1964, and does not reflect current scholarship. While he wrote several books on various mythologies which contributed in comparative mythology, his works were largely rejected by specialists. For example on his views on Greek mythology we state that "His retellings are well respected; many of his unconventional interpretations and etymologies are dismissed by classicists". Examining my own copy of the book from my teenage years (in Greek translation), I notice that some of his theories on identifications between characters of Greek and Hebrew mythology are poorly supported. He stated that the legends of Cain and Abel, and Agenor and Belus may have a common source, because they both involve sibling rivalry. Which I suspect is not that rare in mythology. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"include: at its source of the rivers"

Am I the only one who can't figure out what this clause in § Proposed locations is trying to say? If it had just been added I'd delete it outright, but its stuck around for two years so maybe I'm missing something. "At its source of the rivers" was added in January of 2019 with an unclear summary, and the "include:" bit was later added, making the phrasing even more confusing (the sentence continues as if there hadn't been a colon, before detouring back to mention Armenia in more of the manner you'd expect after a colon). -- Tamzin (they/she) | o toki tawa mi. 11:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I get what it means -- at the source of the Tigris and Euphrates, the most commonly identified rivers, in contrast to the next clause which discusses a location at their termini. But it's very poorly phrased and I recommend you rewrite it to your satisfaction. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be protected?

Recently, this article got vandalized where someone wrote in the lead section image description "The Garden of Eden is in South America...". Can this article be protected? - S L A Y T H E - (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slaythe there's only been a couple edits reverted in the last month so likely does not warrant protection. See WP:Protection policy for additional guidance. S0091 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph on "atemporal fall" and representation of Eastern Orthodox Christian beliefs.

I do not believe an "atemporal fall" is actually a widely held view within Eastern Orthodoxy. The cited authors in question are actually either almost all fringe or publicly condemned heretics according to Eastern Orthodoxy. David Bentley Hart and Fr. John Behr both promote women clergy, universalism, Sophianism, and ahistorical Old Testament (all views which are extremely fringe, if not outright against the dogmas of Eastern Orthodoxy). Bulgakov is one of the original advocates of Sophianism which has been publicly condemned by Patriarch Peter of Krutitsy. Origen and his teachings have been anathematized both in the 2nd and 3rd Council of Constantinople. The only Eastern Orthodox saint listed at all is St. Maximos the Confessor, but the citation given for him [8]https://issuu.com/jacobswell/docs/jacob_s_well_spring_2022_online_1_ is actually a tertiary source which is not representing St. Maximos directly but rather representing the author's own hybridization of views of St. Maximos and the other authors mentioned here for congruency with evolutionary science.

For positive evidence of Eastern Orthodox belief in a temporal fall, the Byzantine calendar actually assumes time is present at the beginning of creation with Adam. The Eastern Orthodox church therefore believes Adam was created in 5509 BC and not from some atemporal eternity. ACatNamedMittens (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About The Eastern Orthodox church therefore believes Adam was created in 5509 BC: we don't believe any editor. We only believe WP:RS. Anyway, thinking that Eastern Orthodox churches necessarily support Young Earth Creationism is quite a stretch. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You make a false dichotomy, even if you don’t want to think about YEC as being dogma in the EO church, it is still the case that this “atemporal fall” view is not “especially Eastern Orthodox”. It is a very fringe view at best promoted largely by authors which are condemned by EO hierarchs. It’s not YEC vs this atemporal fall, it’s atemporal fall simply not being a very popular view at all to begin with. I think the best way to proceed would be to simply remove that line about connection to Eastern Orthodoxy (as well as also St. Maximos, given that the source cited for him is not actually representing his view clearly). Please let me know if you need me to provide any other sources on this.
ACatNamedMittens (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, our article does not claim that the atemporal fall is a majority view among the Eastern Orthodox. So, even if what you say is true, the point is moot, and the article should not be changed. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t think this might give readers a false impression of Eastern Orthodoxy given the phrase “especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition”? This is tantamount to writing that “especially in the Reformed tradition, they believe that the Bible is erroneous because Karl Barth believes this.” Would you at least be okay with an addition of a sentence stating that this is at best a fringe view? Not to mention, you didn’t even respond to the point about the St. Maximos citation here.
ACatNamedMittens (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm going to edit the article with these changes in a couple days if there are no other complaints. ACatNamedMittens (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading with comprehension is a prerequisite for editing Wikipedia. WP:CIR.
Your deletion got reverted by two other editors. You clearly have no WP:CONSENSUS for removal. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're dodging actually confronting the issue that this part of the article is misleading. Sure other editors reverted having this paragraph removed because they themselves admitted to not understanding what the issue was and suggested to start a topic in the talk page. On top of this, the edit I propose here is different than the ones previously done. I am not suggesting deleting the entire paragraph, I am suggesting minor edits to clarify that this is not what most Eastern Orthodox believe on top of a very reasonable deletion of a singular non-representative citation.
Please inform me of what other issues you'd actually want to address. I have already made my point in response to what you said previously on why this paragraph is blatantly misleading and you seemed to just ignore this Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Please also refrain from personal attacks about reading comprehension. Wikipedia:Don't be inconsiderate On your own talk page you write that "Blaming me for the fact that Wikipedia has rules that get enforced is deeply idiotic. I did not ban your pet theology from Wikipedia. I lack the power to do so. It is simply so that pushing fringe POVs is not acceptable to this encyclopedia." Yet here I am trying to merely clarify that one view espoused in this article is indeed a fringe theological view and you have not yet given a good reason for why this should not be clarified. From the sounds of what I can tell from your talk page, I get a gist of what theological views you personally hold. Please do not let that bias you in any way on the implementation for this minor edit [[9]]. You yourself have agreed that this is not what most Eastern Orthodox believe, and I explained why the wording of this article may reasonably lead readers to conclude otherwise (which you have not yet responded to). ACatNamedMittens (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
About reading comprehension: the article does not say what you claim it says. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your intent (to which I have no access to), but this is not how many readers would read such a sentence. Just as I could intend to mean that 1+1=2 but express it with "3*7=94." This would be misleading all the same.
There is no sense in which this paragraph is even stating that the view is not commonly held among Eastern Orthodox. If I was unfamiliar with Eastern Orthodoxy and this was one of the first things I read about it, this paragraph would only give me reason to think this is a commonly held view within the religion. To be honest, I think the edit I am suggesting right now to merely add some clarifying details does not even really warrant such a debate in the talk page. I am not making some fundamental change to the article. I am only adding a clarification on a claim in one small paragraph in it.
Also, what do you think about the St. Maximos citation? ACatNamedMittens (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are two aspects: academic competence and heterodoxy. Wikipedia has no dog in the fight between the orthodox and the heterodox, so for the guideline WP:RS only academic competence matters. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you are describing, from a neutral point of view, the views of Eastern Orthodox, there is an "orthodox" and "heterodox" to which they have a dog in. This is an entirely different statement than saying that those considered orthodox or heterodox are right. Just as if you were to describe the views of Adolf Hitler in a Wikipedia article, you would say that he was anti-Semitic, not that anti-Semitic views are justified or unjustified. If I were to make an edit that said those who are condemned by Eastern Orthodox are truly heretics, then sure, what you said would apply. However, the edit I am actually suggesting is merely discussing what Eastern Orthodox believe, not my own opinions or me trying to make Wikipedia take a stance in them. I am solely arguing for what most genuinely represents the religion in question.
Also, what I have written previously mostly does not even require you to view this as "orthodox" vs "heterodox." We agree that this view is not held by most Eastern Orthodox Christians as a descriptive fact. Therefore, if this section of the article could lead readers to thinking the opposite, we should edit the article to clarify that this isn't the case. For instance, we could change "For some Christians, especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition" to "For a few Eastern Orthodox Christians." This would also help with the concision of the sentence.
Also, are you okay with removing the St. Maximos citation since you have not mentioned an objection yet? ACatNamedMittens (talk) 08:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the fact that your church does not like that citation, does not cancel WP:V in WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to say this is "my" church? Also, I have explained why it is not a good source as it is not actually meant to describe St. Maximos's view but rather the author's own views utilizing quotes from St. Maximos. The citation is a tertiary source which should not be taken as representative. ACatNamedMittens (talk) 09:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean WP:SECONDARY. Secondary sources are preferred over primary sources. Again, it is only a matter of academic clout, not of theological orthodoxy. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did mean Tertiary source, but you may have a different idea of what that is given that "in some academic disciplines, the differentiation between a secondary and tertiary source is relative." I am open to considering it a secondary source though for the sake of this discussion.
The academic clout of the source is not what's in question. It is the content of the citation which does not actually verify the claim being made. I could cite many thousands of highly esteemed articles that have nothing to do with what St. Maximos believes and this would still not be a good citation because it is irrelevant. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Statements of opinion. It would be more accurate to attribute this view to Mark Chenoweth than St. Maximos.
Where did I bring up theological orthodoxy about this citation? You seem to keep assuming these are my own opinions that I'm injecting when I've not mentioned this anywhere and have explicitly said I am not trying to inject my opinions into the article. I ask that we assume good faith here [[10]].ACatNamedMittens (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSOPINION does not apply to an expert in the matter, having academic clout. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Then, we can leave the citation. The only thing that still needs to be resolved would be the question of if you would be okay with me rewording that "especially in the Eastern Orthodox tradition" phrase in the opening sentence of this paragraph. ACatNamedMittens (talk) 10:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persian Royal Gardens

In a series of recent edits, user @IncandescentBliss has introduced the following sentences (most important to me is the one in bold):

Scholars note Canaanite parallels and tend to think that the Eden narrative drew from the aspects of the Solomon’s Temple and Jerusalem and that the garden was modeled on Persian royal gardens.

In support of this statement, the last sentence is cited to Mario Liverani: Israel's History and the History of Israel (Routledge, 2007), p. 238, who writes as follows:

[R]oyal gardens are the model for the ‘garden of Eden’ where the biblical story of Adam and Eve is set (Gen. 2.4–3.24). The word paradise (Heb. pardēs, Bab. pardēsu ‘park’) is of Persian origin (pairidaēza ‘enclosure’), and the Persians were responsible for the spread of this kind of enclosed garden. Thus, the Eden narrative should be assigned to the Babylonia of the Persian age.

There is just one big problem with this assertion, however: the Book of Genesis never uses the Hebrew word pardēs in its account of the Garden of Eden. As outlined in this and this sources, the Genesis account uses the word gan to refer to the Garden of Eden, not pardēs. The word pardēs only appears three times in the Hebrew Bible: the passages are Canticles 4:13, Ecclesiastes 2:5 and Nehemiah 2:8. None of these verses are part of Genesis.

While Mario Liverani is a respectable historian of the ancient Near East, he is not an expert in Biblical Hebrew linguistics, and I seriously doubt that his statement on this topic can be considered representative of the consensus of Hebrew Bible scholars. Potatín5 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for approaching this through a talk page. Sincerely.
I need to look more into this. But I just said scholars note—-not arguing consensus. It’s a pretty common view (at least in European scholarship) to view the Bible as being dated later. It seems the English version of Wikipedia is not up to date particularly with German, French, Swedish, and Finnish (and in this case Italian) scholarship. I think that needs to be represented in this encyclopedia.
https://www.academia.edu/44787078/How_to_Identify_a_Persian_Period_Text_in_the_Pentateuch IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list I used I representative of a variety of perspectives from people who date the Eden story to different eras. IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
is* IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, your response does not resolve my point: the idea that the Garden of Eden was modelled on Persian royal gardens is based on Liverani's flawed linguistic analysis of the Genesis text. As it is currently sourced, the sentence cannot stand in the lead of Wikipedia's article.
Secondly, while I have profound respect for European scholarship, North American scholars also have their own set of arguments for how they date biblical texts. For a representative source on this tradition, see Ronald Hendel and Jan Joosten's How Old Is the Hebrew Bible?: A Linguistic, Textual, and Historical Study (Yale University Press, 2018). Potatín5 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you revert that clause, please don’t delete completely. Place in body of article. Thank you.
Note: the above link to Schmid’s piece critique’s Hendel specifically. I think all academic views are welcome here. I don’t necessarily buy the Canaanite views, but I added them, to give a *representative*, *global* view of the topic in scholarship.
Again, if you feel you must revert, please include in body of article. IncandescentBliss (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Hendel's criticism of Schmid's piece, see this article.
I agree with you that all academic views should be welcome, but the claim that the Garden of Eden was modelled on Persian royal gardens is so far as we know supported by a single scholar and based on an incorrect analysis of Hebrew text of Genesis. We need a better source if we want to claim that scholars in general support that idea, as our article currently does. Potatín5 (talk) 01:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest to not be dismissive of historians. It is because of his background as a historian that he places Eden narrative in the Persian period. The vast majority in European scholarship are of this perspective. IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
His argument is not based on the word. That’s just an illustrative point. His argument is based on history. IncandescentBliss (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When reading the quote given above from Liverani 2007, p. 238, my impression is also that he is not trying to demonstrate his claim about the Eden narrative belonging to the Persian period by the etymology of the word 'paradise', but rather by the fact that walled gardens were a feature spread through the ancient near east by Persian culture. The etymology partly supports that latter fact, which may however also be supported by other (e.g., archaeological) evidence.
    The fact that Genesis used the native Hebrew word gan instead might be used by other scholars as an indication against Liverani's claim, but we cannot just suppose that it is used by other scholars in that way. Simply supposing that it is a valid argument against Liverani, on the other hand, would amount to wp:original research.
    Basically, we need another source explicitly contradicting Liverani to invalidate Liverani here. If you're feeling especially cautious, an alternative solution would be to explicitly attribute the claim to Liverani (though without a source countering his claim this is normally not warranted): According to Mario Liverani, the Eden narrative should be assigned to the Babylonia of the Persian age.
    Hope this helps, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful! Thank you. IncandescentBliss (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I can read, Liverani clearly says that the main evidence that shows that Eden was modelled on Persian royal gardens is the derivation of the Hebrew word pardēs from Old Persian pairidaēza; the later argument is subsidiary of the former. I suspect that Liverani's theory might be WP:FRINGE, so unless we can find more reliable sources supporting that theory I do not think it should stand in the lede of this article as it does. Potatín5 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Suspecting is not enough. We need sources showing that his position is fringe, or in any way even simply contested by other scholars. Without that, a scholarly view like Liverani's should be perfectly okay to include per WP policy. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want a source, this article by Ronald Hendel indicates that: The non-P portion of Genesis 1–11 is written in CBH (p. 365, notice that Hendel identifies the text of Genesis 2-3 as part of the non-P portion). That is, the text of Genesis 2-3 is written in the Classical Hebrew of the pre-exilic period, not in the Late Biblical Hebrew of the Persian era as Liverani claimed (based on a flawed analysis). Potatín5 (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems very unspecific. I mean a source that says 'the fact that Genesis prominently features the concept of a Paradise garden (i.e., a Charbagh, a rectangular garden divided by paths or waterways into four symmetrical sections; cf. Gen 2:10–14) does not necessarily mean that this part of its narrative dates to the Persian period'. It seems unlikely that other scholars should not have considered this, right? What do other sources say on this specific subject? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:45, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, the biblical text does not state that the Garden of Eden was rectangular in form. It only says that there were four rivers there, and that is insufficient to show that Genesis features the concept of a Paradise garden/Charbagh. Secondly, I have been researching on this since I first read it from Liverani and I have not found virtually anything about this theory in the scholarly literature (for example, it is not mentioned in Ziony Zevit's What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? even though that book provides a detailed analysis of the Garden's features). This lack of regular discussion of Liverani's theory in the scholarly literature suggests to me that it is indeed a marginal theory. Potatín5 (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for looking into the sources. If the suggestion is discussed nowhere else apart from Liverani it seems reasonable to leave it out here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By all what was written here, Liverani is very much a valid source at the very least for the development of the concept of "paradise", if not for the original concept of the garden ("gan") of Eden. As such, it is perfect material for the body of the article.
    With all due respect, but Potetín, who self-identifies only as Catholic and nothing much else on his user page, is editing in support of biblical maximalism wherever a controversy arrises. He's perfectly entitled to it as much as any other editor, as long as it doesn't stray into POV editing, which can be 1st-degree in terms of aggressiveness and visibility (obvious POV rewriting), or 2nd-degree (completely removing RS-based material from arguably unfitting sections, instead of reintegrating it where it does belong, and using the FRINGE argument w/o backing it up).
    I will reintroduce Liverani in an uncontroversial "paradise"-related context. Pls refrain from 2nd-degree POV-warring. Arminden (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ice age

In the last ice age, the sea level was lower and there was no sea between Africa, The Arabian Peninsula and the Middle East. Thus using a map of today for an ancient place is not correct in the placement location. As the Garden of Eden is most likely under water today. This is where the rivers would have been.Telecine Guy (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Garden_of_Eden