Talk:Abraham

Historicity of Abraham Section

The current status of the section on the historicity of Abraham and his contemporaries seems pretty one-sided. It concludes, “By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.”

But even in academia, there’s not a consensus on that, and there’s a compelling point to be made for the other side. I’m not here to debate the historicity as such. I’m pointing out that I think we should change this section to not make it look like the book is closed on the subject when it’s not, since there are other perspectives which should be referenced. I suspect a gut reaction may be to claim I have a religious fundamentalist bias, but let’s also consider that the firm a priori belief in the inveracity of these events can equally constitute a bias. Setting biases aside, we should be objective and make sure to reflect the multiple academically credible views currently out there.

Kenneth Kitchens argues that some of the more recent biblical minimalism completely ignores entire swaths of cultural evidence from Egypt and the Ancient Near East. I propose an edit to this section that reflects some of the academic work that argues for the plausibility of historicity, not in place of what’s currently there, but as an additional legitimate point of view. To this point, consider:

- Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Genesis 12-50 in the Near Eastern World”. P. 67-92 (in “He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50,” edited by R. Hess, P.E. Satterthwaite, and G.J. Wenham - Kitchen, Kenneth A. “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” - Hoffmeier, James Karl. “The Archaeology of the Bible” especially p. 84-90.

If there’s not any cogent argument that substantially rejects adding a line or two about this scholarship, I’ll go ahead and make the edit soon. But I want to confer here first. What are the community’s thoughts? I am open to discussion, but aware of the religious context, I particularly invite reasonable and respectful contributions. Severinus Boethius (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (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)

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel

See also WP:GOODBIAS and WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts and the links. Kitchens definitely represents a minority view, but his credibility can’t be wiped away completely simply because of his evangelical background and the fact that he publishes a lot about his views. Rocket science differs from evolutionary studies far more than the study of ancient Egypt differs from the studies of the Patriarchs and the Ancient Near East. Besides, the documentary hypothesis is largely falling out of favor anyway – not to say people no longer think that several documents underlie the current form of the Pentateuch, but that the traditional theories, especially that of Wellhausen, aren’t totally sufficient to talk about how. Others are taking an increased appreciation in the literary form of the whole books. On another note, major recent scholarship in Catholic circles (Bergsma, Hahn, Pitre) is becoming more open to the historicity of the Patriarchs, not from a dogmatic need for it to all be historically accurate (cf. Vatican II’s Dei Verbum), but from a better look at archaeology, patterns in oath/covenant formulae specific to that time, and a critical evaluation of the prevailing minimalist views.

I guess all I would be looking for would be a sentence nod to the existence of these views, even given their minority status. From my reading of that link on fringe theories, even if this amounts to one of those, the article only says it shouldn’t be given undue weight, not that it shouldn’t be mentioned. Again, thanks for the discussion. What do you think? Severinus Boethius (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. That clarifies things. I wish it were otherwise, but it makes sense. I concede the point, then. Severinus Boethius (talk) 08:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, you not only stop your efforts to include such information, but you concede the point? I'm sorry, but I can't believe you're for real, since, while supposedly defending the Word of God, you fold faster than Superman on laundry day. 2600:1700:C690:3640:D15F:C90:D1C3:7D60 (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

There are better ways of defending the Word of God: be nice to people and do a good turn daily, not quarreling about broadly debunked claims of historicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, what was removed from here was a demonstration that Tgeorgescu was mistaken twice, which was my way of beginning to encourage him to defend other articles with whose subjects he had more familiarity.

According to Tegeorgescu, when an editor who differs from him in opinion edits the article without commenting, they are "editing boldly", and he heeds calls quickly made for a Request for Comment hearing. When a second editor with a different opinion tries to lay a foundation for amending the article instead of plunging in, he allows that material removed by those who claim that editor is treating the talk page as a forum.

What makes you think you can allow the circles of limitation imposed by the policies you summon to intersect in such a way that they deny people, namely religious practitioners, their human rights? 2600:1700:C690:3640:1552:EB:E47:9E44 (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

deny people ... their human rights—who do you think I am, Saddam Hussein? Get a life. See WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH: you don't have a constitutional right to push your POV in our articles. This is not Facebook, it isn't Twitter. WP:NOTFORUM. Only WP:PAG-compliant edits are allowed, this is an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning, not an internet forum for free speech. You have no right to tell us what to write, same as you have no right to impose your POV unto Britannica and Larousse. You have no constitutional right to impose upon Oxford University Press what they should publish and what they shouldn't publish, same applies here. This website kowtows to what OUP publish, not to what you publish. So, if you are asking us if you have here the right to WP:SOAPBOX for fundamentalist religion: no, you don't. According to WP:DEM we don't assert theses just because millions believe them to be true.

Drawing the line: the POV you're pushing has been rejected by WP:CHOPSY and it is therefore rejected by Wikipedia.

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

That is from a Harvard full professor who is a conservative Jew. Sometimes he makes poignant remarks like I don't know if I believe this myself, but it is anyway what modern Bible scholars say. At the end of the day, teaching is a job, so he has to teach what mainstream Bible scholars say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's set aside for a moment the diversion you originated based on the horrific consequences you predict will or might happen or what might have already happened based on your assumptions about "what I think" or "what I'm trying to do here": your single-viewed approach isn't going to work. Fix the problems, say with comparison of the historicity of Abraham with those alleged to be his contemporaries, or say with the historicity of the evidence in the Bible, not merely generalizations about it, and we can move on. Small fixes with big results and big payoffs. 2600:1700:C690:3640:6054:B099:1315:DA86 (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

By the way, just as I have subverted the character of your reputation for accuracy (although the demonstration of which has now been concealed without my permission), the authority of God's inspiration of Biblical history subverts the authority of the mere professors teaching at the colleges you exalt above Him. As such, argument from authority is the weakest form of argument in most matters of fact, but the Bible's accuracy even outdoes the historical accuracy of the authorities you summon in justifying the article, as I could prove for the purposes of mending the errors found in the same.

I might add, what actually appears in the article doesn't match the scholarly collegiality you pass back and forth here on the talk page with your fellows. If you can't find it within yourself to help, please step aside, allow me to repair the mistakes found in the article and retire to articles more suitable to your temperament and the body of knowledge you may have acquired. 2600:1700:C690:3640:6CDA:F41:FE47:F6EC (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

God isn't an authority at Wikipedia, since it isn't an objective fact that God exists. The Bible isn't WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Bible professors are authorities, see WP:IRS, WP:V, and WP:VERECUNDIAM. So, since, objectively speaking, there is no evidence that God speaks or spoke to people, mainstream Bible professors are the only authorities WP:CITED in this matter. Take it or leave it, it is part of the package. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet, strangely, I suspect even Wikipedians might even agree God is a greater authority than the policies you cite! Do you often select to respond only the portions (or senses) of replies that allow you to parade your religious beliefs or their absence thereof? Why the intense interest in a topic (Abraham) with which few would ever expect someone like that to concern himself? Because it really seems it would affect (and has affected) your conceptualization of the figure of Abraham and what would make for the nature of his historicity.

Bearing on that, I'll tell you what attracted my attention to the article, though I hesitate to engage with a person who has shown little to no interest in discussing the concrete facts. It is claimed here Abraham was a fictional character conceived around 600 BC, yet the Book of Micah repeats an Isaian prophecy as an independent source and seems to refer to waiting for the fulfillment of a prophecy of Isaiah about the miraculous birth of Immanuel made around 740 BC (Micah 5:3), and Micah speaks of:

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. (Micah 5:2, KJV)

—a dated prophecy from a century earlier than that mentioned here which certainly pertains to the origin of the Davidic dynasty from the tribe of Benjamin (11th century BC). It then refers to a patriarchal age that the Wikipedia "Abraham" article says is something that "can't be dated", when it dates it right there—it's before David! So my question would be, why the refusal to look at the evidence just because it's in the Bible? 2600:1700:C690:3640:6CDA:F41:FE47:F6EC (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Per website policy (WP:OR), Wikipedians never look at the evidence, since it's not their job. It's the job of mainstream Bible professors, and Wikipedians simply have to kowtow to the conclusions and arguments of mainstream Bible professors. Tgeorgescu (talk)

@Tgeorgescu: You quoted Alephb here, but they are not active on wikipedia any more. The text you quoted from them above is: As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. (my emphasis not Alephb's)

I have the Dever source, but do you have any other sources on this? Is this accurate: "The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure." Beacuse someone gave me an old source saying there was more controversy over Moses' historicity, but it was an old text quoting even older scholars so I think it was jsut referring to back when mainstream scholarship though the Bible in general was an accurate historical book, and Exodus, Moses, etc were consdirerd historical, which obviously is no longer true. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bilto74811::

15:23 but what about Moses himself surely 15:27 there must be some evidence for this 15:29 most famous Old Testament hero perhaps 15:32 the most famous of all Old Testament 15:34 figures even if there's no evidence of 15:37 the exodus they must surely be some 15:39 record of a leader as important as him 15:43 the name Moses is a name which is very 15:47 popular from early periods right down 15:51 into late periods so it's a fairly 15:54 common Egyptian name that's that's all 15:57 that we can say there is no text in 16:00 which we can identify this Moses or that 16:04 Moses as the Moses the question of the 16:08 historicity of Moses is the same as the 16:11 question of the historicity of Abraham 16:12 that is to say maybe there was a figure 16:16 maybe there was a leader I am NOT here 16:20 to 16:22 undermined historicity of Moses I think 16:25 that it is possible but I would say it's 16:27 beyond recovery John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein at Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) on YouTube

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Thanks for the quote, I appreciate it. Thats pretty much what I thought. I mean the idea that you could prove someone in the past did not exist seems basically impossible. I just think its that as far as we can tell there is no evidence (archaeological, texts, etc) outside of the Bible, which is not a reliable historical source, for Moses, Abraham, etc (as quoted explcitly in the sources). Same as mythical figures from other religions. Of course they could be real, there just is no indication that they are. Its not really feasible to disprove a single human, vs a major event like the Exodus which is much easier to disprove. Bilto74811 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an obvious bias from the minority groups (mainly atheists which are the angriest and most miserable minority) when it comes to the Bible that everyone here recognizes. Firstly you have to realize that every time someone tries to use terms such as "consensus" for something against the Bible, they are always referring to an extremely small circle of english-speaking radical atheists that are inactive or retired long ago and normal people have never heard of them. In reality, all of the scientists in the world combined are less than 0,1% of the population and the majority of scientists are Christians, Muslims and Hindus, when it comes to archaeology and scholarship attempts to discredit the Bible specific, the group they refer to is so tiny and insignificant that has no effect over the world at all, the specific "consensus" of archaeology that some try to use against the Bible is essentialy a tiny group of english-speaking westerners that retired long ago and has no authority over normal people, all the normal around the world know take all of the Patriarch history for granted.

Secondly, it is a well known fact that wikipedia is by far the most leftist biased website on the entirety of the internet and pretty much everyone knows this, it is not a matter of debate, even the idea of trying to get any sort of reliable information from wikipedia is ridiculous for any subject at all.

Thirdly 99% of all of history is compeltely invisible from the map, in fact if you go to any of the World War areas today it is impossible to find anything sort of that verifies a battle or war, so asking for archaeological evidence for events that happened thousands of years ago is simply ludricous, especially since entire kingdoms disappear from the map within decades. And it is really ironic to reject the documented history while at the same time believing in silly things such as that monkeys became humans and life came from a rock which no historian ever recorded.

Fourthly, Abraham is not a royal person, so even to expect archaeological evidence for him is beyond ridiculous, in fact, if we tried that with any other non-royal person and the majority of the royal people we would have to erase all of ancient and modern history because nothing would ever be able to pass the test, it is a completely irrational double standard that is stuck in the outdated biases of 19th century. And we already have more than enough archaeology for the patriarchs as everything recorded in the Bible for their time matches the culture perfectly and we also have physical material such as the two large buildings with the cave tombs of the patriarchs and the matriarchs.

The truth is that the Biblical documents are by far the most attested historical documents of all time with the largest amount of material and eyewitness testimonies, and to deny those one has to deny all of history because nothing else even comes remotely close to that, it is impossible to escape from this absurdity which comes mainly from psychological issues (the reason why atheists are such a small minority of white male suicidal neckbeards is because it is a mental illness and unnatural, virtually every journal of psychology agrees with this). Every time you see someone with victim mentality using terms such as "the concensus" or "widely accepted" when it comes to science or scholarship or archaeology you can already guarantee it is a useless appeal to specific old circles of very few people that nobody has ever heard of. The real world out there knows that Abraham is a historical person and nothing can ever change that. Kirikagure (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not consent

For the record, I object to this article's portrayal of the historicity of Abraham and do not consent to it, much less would choose it. I'm sure most believers would feel the same way. And by this I don't mean "true-believers". This is, I understand, a disparaging term prejudicially imposed upon such believers by some auditing this web page. 2600:1700:C690:3640:D15F:C90:D1C3:7D60 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOBIGOTS: the historicity of Abraham is a fairy tale in mainstream academia, i.e. dead in the water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham. Her story does not include meetings with deities, supernatural events, or arbitrary destructions of innocent cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) by genocidal deities. Dimadick (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with neither these persons' disputations nor their inconsistent manner in presenting them, but just as in the above section, my objections were deleted by the same improper exclusions from the talk page as described above. Nevertheless, I don't withdraw my now hidden objections. 2600:1700:C690:3640:1552:EB:E47:9E44 (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This is private property, you're trespassing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a brief glance at what you and others have written above (or haven't) since I wrote this shows an adhesion to rigid categories that I can well imagine would make a painful read for myself. But please bear in mind I would like to preserve the ability of people to present well-thought-out arguments about what interests them for inclusion in the article and allow myself to return to adding research to Wikipedia.

I haven't read enough to think this article needs an overhaul, and I don't think you secretly do, yet, but it is out of balance on the subject of historicity; I think relatively few religious persons would choose the article in its present vintage to introduce the figure of Abraham to those not familiar with the account of his life. 2600:1700:C690:3640:6054:B099:1315:DA86 (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

We neither cater to true believers nor is this a venue for publishing original research.

Wikipedia is driven by academic WP:SCHOLARSHIP based upon evidence (evidence assessed by scholars who live by publish or perish, not by Wikipedians), and it certainly isn't a pulpit you can use for your preaching.

This isn't Conservapedia, so the idea that Jesus died for my sins is just a subjective belief, not an objective truth. In general, Christian theology, Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindu theology, Buddhist theology, and so on, are subjective beliefs.

Unlike Conservapedia, Wikipedia is not a venue for proclaiming the sovereignty of the Abrahamic God, see WP:NOTTHEOCRACY and WP:RNPOV.

And even if I would convert back to Christianity, the rules of Wikipedia would remain the same, mandatory for all editors. Anyway, I would not convert to fundamentalist Christianity or evangelicalism, and certainly not to Trinitarianism, which I consider the reductio ad absurdum of Christian theology. And most surely I would not abandon trust in WP:CHOPSY-supremacism, i.e. trust in mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. Wikipedia has Christian admins which wholeheartedly embrace such view. They are on my side, not on your side. For them, having faith in Jesus is not a reason to reject science and academic learning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

To put it otherwise: a religion which denies objective knowledge/mainstream science/academic learning is of no use to Wikipedia. It is your legal right to profess such religion and it is the legal right of the Wikimedia Foundation to ban proclaiming such religion within the pages of Wikipedia, stance which has been wholeheartedly endorsed by the Wikipedia Community through precept and example. You simply have no legal right to perform religious propaganda within Wikipedia.

The Wikipedia Community is the judge of what amounts to religious propaganda, and Wikipedia admins, including Christian admins, will block those who persist in spreading religious propaganda at this website.

If I would convert, I would convert to Unitarian Universalists, who are reported to excommunicate people who believe in something, or to some Christian church which allows lesbians to serve as bishops. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"Founder of Judaism, the first Abrahamic religion"

No one but the Jews believe that Abraham founded Judaism. Christians claim that he is a Christian patriarch, while Muslims claim that he is a Muslim prophet, It would be great to say that he is considered a patriarch in Christianity and Judaism, and that he is considered a prophet in Islam, as further he is the ancestor of both the founder of Islam, the founder of Christianity and the other Israelites. Hth-Oguz Han (talk) 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Hth-Oguz Han Do you have any sources for this claim?CycoMa (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't try to make it wrong, what proof do you need? For the claim that Jesus is descended from Jacob and that prophet Muhammad is descended from Ishmael. Hth-Oguz Han (talk) 09:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ancestor of Jesus and Muhammad isn't an objective historical fact. See WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is claiming "Founder of Judaism" in the Jewish sense, objective?, Just adding Islam traces back to his elder son Ishmael, and Judaism and Christianity traces back to his second born son Isaac. Hth-Oguz Han (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Each religion's interpretation of Abraham is relevant to an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, but per WP:NPOV none of these interpretations may be presented as factual. Ibadibam (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

POV PUSH of Judaism

I've seen a lot more POV claims, in the article, including writing "Cave of Machpelah" in the resting place, "Founder of Judaism" in the recognition reason, and only having the Biblical account section, I try to deal with it, and now I am being discussed. Hth-Oguz Han (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

Abraham’s mother’s mame is Amtelai bas Karnevo, Not Amhala. Please correct it 2A02:ED0:432F:FC00:A1F0:1015:7EEE:DEE6 (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)