Talk:Abraham

Historicity of Abraham

The article questions whether Abraham actually existed as a historical figure citing his emergence within the realm of legend and religious dogma around the 7th Century BCE. Yet we were always taught in school back in the day that Genesis, where Abraham is introduced to the reader, along with the other first four books of the Bible, was written by Moses circa 1200 BCE. So it seems the legend or myth, if not the person, goes back much farther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.97 (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

What you have learned in school is bunk, see Dating the Bible. Also, we don't know if Moses has ever existed, his historicity is highly dubious and in the case he was historical, he wasn't the leader of the Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't just question, this and other articles pretty much assume Moses and Abraham never existed. Admittedly we don't have anything like a giant pillar or castle from 3 thousand years ago with words like 'Moses wuz here' AFAIK for them but we have a lot more evidence or what passes for evidence that many other figures and concepts this place treats as fact. However standard secular practice nowadays is to automatically discount all evidence linked to certain religions ie you'll often find historical accounts, even firsthand ones written by Christians regarded as suspicious or dismissed in favor of rival pagan accounts. As you can imagine its pretty hard to find evidence for extremely ancient Jewish/proto-Jewish religious events and people if you blanket dismiss all sources which are tainted by Abrahamic religious tradition. So while it may not be the most fair or accurate way to do things it is the way it is because this place is run according to the tastes of the unemployed leftwing hipsters that dominate mirroring how the larger world of historical research is run by leftwing professors. So you'll either have to accept it or find a way to wrest control from them. Jarwulf (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jarwulf: Re we have a lot more evidence or what passes for evidence that many other figures and concepts this place treats as fact: could you please provide some examples?

Also, it's kinda hard for Wikipedia to favor rival pagan accounts over firsthand ones written by christians as both would be primary sources -- Wikipedia favors modern professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, what you dismiss as leftwing professors. (At any rate, there would be no first-hand accounts of Abraham by Christians, so bringing that up is rather irrelevant). If your approach isn't compatible with modern academia, that's your problem. Trying to make this about politics is a cop-out. Frankly, I get the impression that you didn't bother checking the citations. If you did, you'd know that this article cites:

• Francis Edward Peters - a Catholic
• James Barr (biblical scholar) - a Presbyterian minister!
• Michael Coogan - another Catholic
• William G. Dever - a graduate from Christian Theological Seminary
• Israel Finkelstein - Jewish (and so a bit more concerned about the existence of Abraham than Christians would be, what with us being more focused on Jesus and all)
• Louis Ginzberg - not just a Jew but a leading figure in Conservative Judaism
• Zondervan - an evangelical publishing company
• Westminster John Knox - a Presbyterian publishing company
• William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company - another Christian publishing company

Just because something doesn't line up with the Sunday school crowd doesn't mean that it's wrong, it just means that Sunday school ain't well read. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

But fails to cite anything from Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists, who specifically addresses this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.238.98 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Whatever may or may not be the case about "the larger world of historical research", the field of biblical studies is securely run by religious people: Christians and Jews, almost entirely. While in theory an atheist or agnostic could enter the field of biblical studies, they just don't, for the most part. There's just a handful of non-religious biblical scholars out there, and that handful almost always entered the field religious. And it's not just that biblical scholars are mostly just nominal Christians or Jews; they are precisely that small subset of Christians and Jews who decided to make a living studying the Scriptures full time. If a Wikipedia article relays that scholars don't think, say, Abraham as described in Genesis was an actual historical figure, that's because a bunch of Christians and Jews who study the Bible full time concluded that he wasn't a historical figure. If you have a story in which angels tell Abraham that his eighty-nine-year-old wife is about how to have a baby, and then leave to visit a city where they supernaturally blind a town full of wanna-be angel-rapists before destroying the town with burning sulfur from heaven, it doesn't take a vast leftwing political conspiracy to start digging around and asking whether this document is historically reliable when it tells you about a guy who lives 180 years and is outlived by the 600-year-old survivor of a global flood who stowed away on a giant boat with all the world's animals. It is possible to appreciate and even love an Abrahamic religion without treating Genesis as a history book. Alephb (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists"

Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data."

In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

This article expresses the atheist agenda of so many of the moderators of Wikipedia. Look at Ian Thomson's attack on Christians above - he doesn't even try to be covert! If the moderators of Wikipedia were truly devoid of prejudice and agenda, then they would word this article in a way to reflect the POSSIBILITY OT THE STORY OF ABRAHAM BEING A MYTH. 2601:580:104:3828:3590:7AA6:7E29:2DAB (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Resting place coordinates

How can the article provide "resting place coordinates" without being even sure if the guy actually existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.10 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

81.111.192.146 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)In Islam, Abraham holds an exalted position among the major prophets and he is referred to as "Ibrahim Khalilullah", meaning "Abraham the Friend of Allah".

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence is wrong and contradicted by Wikipedia

The first sentence, "[Abraham] is the common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions" is wrong. Click the link in the sentence. In addition to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, there are other Abrahamic religions like Druze, Samaritanism, and B'hai, so to say "three" instead of "all" or some other phrasing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Fix it. 73.11.81.111 (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Change to either "the three main" or else "the Abrahamic religions." StAnselm (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

"three" would still be factually incorrect as Abraham is a patriarch to more than three religions. Smkolins 15:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)