Talk:Abraham

Archives

---

April 2004–October 2006October 2006–June 2008

sprotect?

this article's edit history is completely cluttered by anonymous vandalism and its reverts. And in spite of the reverts, the article is deteriorating, since apparently not enough people are watching it. I would suggest semiprotection to get rid of the bulk of low quality edits. dab (𒁳) 18:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be placed in the category "History of Iraq"

Abraham was not a Sumerian, Babylonian, Accadian, or Assyrian. There is a not a shred of evidence that can be gleaned from the Bible that indicates he originated in or is to be associated with a location in what is now Iraq. His area of origin and nativity is repeatedly and clearly named in the Bible as 'Aram Naharaim', which does not lie in today's Iraq. It is nestled between the Tigris and Euphrates in modern southeastern Turkey and northeastern Syria, and was the homeland in ancient times of myriads of semi-nomadic pastoralist tribes led by small-time chiefs, very much like Abraham and the early Hebrews.

Also, interpolating the name of Abraham's abode of 'Ur Kasdim' to mean a location in the area of Babylonia colonized by the tribe of Chaldeans over 1000 years later is without merit or supporting evidence. The Chaldeans are not mentioned as a tribe anywhere in the Pentateuch. Later in the Bible (e.g. Isaiah 23), it is acknowledged that the Chaldeans were a tribe that entered Babylonia at a relatively late date. The term 'Kasdim' appears to be the gentilic plural form of 'Kesed', a nephew of Abraham via his brother Nahor, resident in Aram Naharaim in Upper Mesopotamia in the vicinity of Haran, in Genesis 22. The lands of Iraq are identified by Genesis under names that are not associated with Abraham or the wanderings of the Hebrews: the Land of Shinar (Sumer), Babel (Babylon), Asshur (Assyria), and Akkad.

As for the Sumerian city now referred to as 'Ur', this is a misnomer that appears to have been started by the British archeologist Leonard Wooley and never been since corrected for reasons that are unclear. The cuneiform tablets name this city neither as 'Ur' nor 'of the Chaldeans', but rather: in Sumerian as URIM or URIMA and later in Akkadian as URI or URIWA. This seems to have been the Babylonian city URIE later referred to by the Hellenistic Greek writer Eupolymus.

The trade routes from Sumerian Urim to Canaan normally veered only slightly north to go through Damascus to avoid the desert, but did not go nearly as far north as Haran. It is in Haran that Abraham is told to leave his country and his nativity, and this would not make any sense if Haran were 600 miles to the north of Ur, rather than being just a nearby town.

Also, the claim that Abraham's family went to Haran in order to pursue worship of the Moon god is without any foundation or supporting evidence. The Bible does name the early Hebrews as polytheists, but does not identify or imply that the Moon god was one of their deities. None of the names the Israelites used for God (Elohim, Yhvh, El, El Shaddai, etc.) have any connection to the moon. Indeed, Haran was the center of the moon deity Sin, while Urim was the center of the moon deity Nannar, but in the time frame of Genesis, these had not yet been equated and the cultures associated with the two locations were unrelated.

The names cognate to 'Abram' found in Babylonian records are associated with non-indigenous Amorites, i.e. West Semites. Furthermore, Deuteronomy 26 identifies the patrimony of the Israelites as being Aramaean, i.e. Northwest Semitic. Therefore, it is without basis to associate Abraham and his semi-nomadic pastoralist Hebrews reminiscent of Upper Mesopotamia with the settled hustle and bustle of the well-watered metropoli criss-crossed with irrigation canals in Lower Mesopotamia in what is now Iraq.

Jacob Davidson

Please consider creating an account and helping to correct the problems. I barely edit this article, but let me say that I agree entirely with you. SamEV (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Name and Origin

ARE clearly identifiable as Sumerian. The Semitic languages derive from Akkadian, which preserved many Sumerian words, especially proper names. AB.RAM is readily identifiable. Also, a study of his father's name and profession clearly indicate Sumerian origins. 165.201.140.155 (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Dr.P.

The Faith of Abraham

The article faith needs some help in the The Faith of Abraham section. It isn't very long section of the article, nor does it need to be, but someone with knowledge of Abraham's faith would be much appreciated and it might add a great deal to the article. Please give some direction on the talk page of faith if you care to. Some of the questions I can't answer are

• Why is it a section under Christianity (and not under Judaism)?
• Does it even need to be included in the article since Abraham isn't a religion but a central figure?
• Is Abraham's faith unique?

Thanks in advance. Faradayplank (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abraham#Etymology

This is somewhat of a mess -- if someone with knowledge of this information (perhaps the one who added it) please fix this up into proper English grammar and sentence structure? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Binding of Isaac? Unsourced

I don't agree with the section on the Binding of Isaac, particularly the paragraph on Christian theology. It is unsourced and appears to be original research. As a Christian I have never heard this interpretation. I have been taught that the sacrifice of Isaac pre-figured the Mosaic sacrificial system, in which bloodshed is a requirement for staying in God's favor. I was taught that the figure of Jesus can actually be seen in the ram that is provided for the sacrifice, as a substitute; Just as Jesus was sacrificed in the place of sinful man. I just wanted to note that there is another point of view on the story from a theological perspective, and it should be SOURCED and not original research. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.36 (talk) 16:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"The father of many nations"

Meieimatai, can you explain your edits and edit summaries, viz.

• your claim that it is WP:OR to see the words "for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee" ((Genesis 17:5, JPS 1917) as indicating the interpretation of Abraham's new name
• your assertion that "the translation is in the feminine and refers to the Sarah!!!"

AFAICS, these words have overwhelming been seen as relating to Abraham's new name.

• Rashi says of them "This is an acrostic of his name". [1]
• Keil in the page-citation I added (but which without explanation you have removed again) notes the word ruhâm exists in Arabic meaning "multitude", so if a similar word raham once existed in Hebrew, this would explain the allusion.
• Here's Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook citing Talmudic attempts to understand the reference. [2]
• And English language translations overwhelmingly use language similar to the above. (Genesis 17:5)

So reading this verse as alluding to the interpretation of the name "Abraham" is hardly WP:OR !

On the other hand, denying this - and claiming the verse refers to Sarah - seem to be precisely your own original research. So can you give an external citation and reliable source? Jheald (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually though you were referring to a different verse 17:15, however...

The explanation is fairly simple if you have the Midrash Rabbah

The use of av hamon is a form of exegesis called Notarikon. What the Torah is doing is providing an example that this method of exegesis is permitted. There is another form called gematria. In a commentary to the verse Genesis 12:2 the "name" is juxtaposed to the "and I will bless you", with both equalling to 248 (removing conjunctive vav at the beginning and adding a he at the end). This is used to show that gematria is as valid a method of exegesis as notarikon.

What follows is that the statement "'Abraham' yields no sense in Hebrew" is false. Ergo the need for introduction of Arabic into a Hebrew text via "The word ruhâm has this meaning in Arabic. " is unnecessary.

As an aside, the gematria of 248 also equals to the words "Isaac...for me", acting as brackets in the verses 21:5-6 "...Isaac son. Sarah said God has made laughter for me;"--Meieimatai 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

---

This section is a bit confusing. It's difficult to edit it for you dont' want it to to lose its meaning. It reads: "In any case, this did not save her from the Pharaoh, who took her into the royal harem and enriched Abram with herds and servants. But when Yahweh "plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues" Abram and Sarai left Egypt. There are two other parallel tales in Genesis of a wife confused for a sister (Genesis 20–21and 27), describing a similar event at Gerar with the Philistine king Abimelech, though the latter attributing it to Isaac not Abram." Rcjavid (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Died at 175 and other beliefs

Given that there is no solid proof that he lived to 175 (other than biblical), wouldn't it be best to refrain from stating this as a fact?

Of course there are other "facts" too that should be pointed out as belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That he lived to 175 is cited, so there is no reason to remove it. Moreover, there is already a historicity section to deal with your concerns. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pure Laziness

Genesis, Deuteronomy -- fucking spell it out, already.

"Another scholar, criticizing Kitchen's maximalist viewpoint, considers a relationship between the tablet and Gen. speculative, also identifies but identifies Tudhula as a veiled reference to Sennacherib of Assyria, and Chedorlaomer, i.e. Kudur-Nahhunte, as "a recollection of a 12th century BCE king of Elam who briefly ruled Babylon." ("Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives" by Ronald Hindel, BAR, Jul/Aug 1995)

The Anchor Bible Dictionary suggests that the biblical account was in all probability derived from a text very closely related to the Chedorlaomer Tablets, and this in a publication which can be said to do at least a reasonably good job of getting good scholarship. The Chedorlaomer Tablets are thought to be from the 6th or 7th century BCE, well after the time of Hammurabi, at roughly the time when Gen. through Deu. are thought to have come into their present form (e.g. see the Documentary Hypothesis). While Astour's identifications of the figures these tablets refer to is certainly open to question, he does cautiously support a link between them and Gen. 14:1. Hammurabi is never known to have campaigned near the Dead Sea at all, although his son had. Writes Astour, "This identification, once widely accepted, was later virtually abandoned, mainly because Hammurabi was never active in the West." The Chedorlaomer Tablets, then, appear to still be the closest archaeological parallel to the kings of the Eastern coalition mentioned in Gen. 14:1. The only problem is, that in all probability, they refer to kings that were from widely separated times, having conquered Babylon in different eras. Linguistically, it seems, there is little reason to reject the identification of Hammurabi with Amraphel, but the narrative does not make sense in light of modern archeology when it is made. A number of scholars also say that the connection does not make sense on chronological grounds, since it would place Abram later than the traditional date, but on this, see the section on chronology below."

209.212.5.190 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)someguy

abraham- why is there so many, "'they' sometimes say" who is 'they'

    THE way that the people who wrote the passage about abraham need to seriously contemplate 

on the religious people who may read it to check the accuracy. Now i'm not saying your passage is irriliable,

but i am only saying that some catholics might be offended by you addressing 

them as 'they'. Maybe you should make a catholic version of your passage

directly for catholics so no one is offended. 

THANK YOU!!!

-a catholic student(no one can know my name)sorry130.13.67.82 (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Abrahmam and the Trinity

There ought to be a small section dedicated to the links between abrahamism and trinitarianism. This is because many defenders of the Trinity will quote Genesis 18, at the tent revelation scene, to justify the belief in Trinity, where Abraham meets three angels. This is in part why christians give a high value to Abraham as patriarch of their faith. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)