From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Suggestion for last para of lead[edit]

The lead currently has 3 paragraphs, the first dealing with purely technical/descriptive matters that shouldn't be the cause of dissent, and the second a summary of Abraham's story which should be equally acceptable. The third seems contentious, and probably always will be, as it deals with the nature of the Abraham story - is it history. I'd like to expand what's there to take in not just McNutt's summary of current scholarly views on this, but a little about the date and purpose of composition. Drawing on what's already in the article, this is what I propose:

The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham around 2000 BCE,[1] but "it is now generally recognized that there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively related to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millennium B.C.E." and "it is now widely agreed that the so-called 'patriarchal/ancestral period' is a later literary construct, not a period in the actual history of the ancient world" (Professor Paula McNutt).[2] The majority of scholars believe that Abraham and and the patriarchs became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch in the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE,[3] as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah and claimed Abraham as the "father" through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning Babylonian exiles who based their claim to dominance in Jerusalem on Moses and the Exodus tradition.[4]

I'd like the comments of editors on this proposal. PiCo (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be wise to be cautious, as a number of recently-discovered "libraries" of Mesopotamian tablets have still to be placed in a historic context - for example, the relevance of Mittani has changed a lot in recent years, since those comments were made.
I appreciate that the source text of these reigious memes was cribbed directly from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which causes questionable POV, but in this instance can we at least have some modern English? Begat? Forsooth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Shea 2000, p. 248.
  2. ^ McNutt 1999, p. 41.
  3. ^ Ska 2009, p. 260.
  4. ^ Ska 2006, p. 44,217,227-228.

"Sacrifice" subsection under Islam section[edit]

This subsection is undue weight. The sacrifice (or whatever you like to call it) of Isaac/Ishmmael is one small episode in the Abraham story, no more important than most of the rest and less important than some. It's also an addition to the article, not part of the original article. I'd like to see how it's inclusion is justified. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A request to wikipedia moderators[edit]

There are many topics on wikipedia which are shown on wikipedia as they belong to christianity only. Like if i search for Abraham, the search results show Abraham titled page with Christian Philosophy. The views of other religions are put in under topic titles such as Abraham in Islam, Abraham in Judaism or whatsoever. This was just an example. Here on wikipedia are many articles like this. I want all of them to be merged into one wikipedia page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalwani (talkcontribs) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Should it be mentioned that Passover prayer services in Reform Judaism idiotically claim that Abraham was an Aramaean? "My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation" (Deuteronomy 26:5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)