Talk:Abraham in History and Tradition

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments[edit]

This article seems to violate NPOV, as the author seems to be a partisan of Van Seter's theory. --Iacobus 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) In that case, somebody should provide some balance, by bringing up any evidence that any of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 is actually mentioned in any ancient extrabiblical source. Can anybody provide any such evidence? Otherwise, Van Seters was not proposing a theory but stating a fact. Das Baz 2 May 2006, 11:59 AM.[reply]

Indeed, some of the kings may have existed, and I am editing the article accordingly. However, what Van Seters affirmed principally - that no king of Elam dominated a vast empire including Mesopotamia, Hatti, and Canaan, remains a fact, not a theory. Erudil 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If somebody has the technical ability to add a map showing Elam, Hatti, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and the Hurrian kingdom, please do so. Erudil 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the prose-style, made it as npov as possible. PiCo 09:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made another cleanup of the prose-style, with a view to making it NPOV. A number of Van Seter's key assertions are challenged by a range of liberal Christian and non-Christian archaeologists. I might find the time to add some details. --Taiwan boi 08:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is laid out very nicely. It is about Abraham, which you state very clearly. I think this article is following all of the wiki guidelines. Lilsharplilac (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to the article[edit]

This is an article about a book, and the book is NOT ABOUT CHAPTER 14 OF GENESIS!!!!! It's about Abraham, and the sources of the Abraham cycle in Genesis. So I've tried to make it more attuned to the book - in fact I think the section abt Genesis 14 should be droppedm entierly, as it's only one chapter out of the about 14 in the book. PiCo 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted this section for the reasons set out in my pervious post - the book isn't about ch.14 of Genesis. I'll find this material a home somewhere in Wiki if I can - maybe there's an article on Ch.14 - but no promises. PiCo 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the article needs revision, as it is is woefully NPOV and out of date. Not only does it use triumphalist language such as 'Specially devastating' and 'Van Seters easily demonstrated', the book was written around 30 years ago and its conclusions challenged by a significant amount of archaeological evidence and studies since. Kenneth Kitchen made the case that although Van Seters justifiably objected to certain alleged correlations of the Nuzi and Mari tablets with the Patriarchal era, there was still a significant body of such correlations which could be demonstrated (Kitchen, 'Patriarchal Age: Myth or History' BAR, March/April 1995). He has also demonstrated a logical case for the confederation of nations in Genesis 14, which should at least be noted in this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section and Adding Sections for Part 1 & 2[edit]

The lead section of the article could use some editing. Adding a few more sentences that summarize both parts of "Abraham in History and Tradition" will help give the reader a good overview. It could also help if the reader got a sentence about the author to give context, or any additional background information.

Also, adding sections for both parts of the book will give clear indication of the organization of the article and make it easier for someone to read through.

Pxm230032 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]