Talk:Abraham/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

Name in different languages in the lead

Given that Abraham is seen as the father of both Jews and Arabs, I understand that his name is given in both Hebrew and Arabic. English is of course evident, as this is the English Wikipedia. I'm less sure about Ge'ez, Greek and Russian. I'm not very familiar with the Ethiopic tradition and don't know if they claim Abraham as their ancestor, but at least that claim is not supported in their scripture. As for Greeks and Russian, there is absolutely no connection.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For Ge'ez, I can see where one could draw a connection as there is/was a Judaic (now Christian) community in Ethiopia which claims descent from Israelites, and claim to have the actual ark of the covenant (there's a better wiki article about it, somewhere, I just can't recall an article name). However, I'm not sure if this tradition is notable enough to include — yet another — language to include in the lede. My thought is that it is better without it, as your edit currently is. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Repeat, no cursor

Like I say, you're the one who wants me to edit. True, the paragraph did not say specifically that that the evolving tradition evolved in oral form, but it certainly does require that they evolved in pre-exilic Israel, and this is what JB is supposed to have said: "Joseph Blenkinsopp writes that a common view among modern scholars is that the Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE..." "Originated," mind you, which precludes pre-exilic evolution of either sort, scribal or oral. Moreover purely scribal evolution of tradition is inherently unlikely; steady accumulation of incremental variation is automatic in oral transmission, as when you play the game "gossip."

So I repeat, the interpretation attributed to Blenkinsopp is quite at odds with the "basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary," since the "secondary" stage of the tradition entails the reprocessing of an earlier tradition, and it behooves us to be informed as to the historical settings that produced these developing stages. Arguing through JB's quote we must assume both stages were post-exilic, that the northern shrines were incorporated into the tradition for the gratification of a northern, Samaritan audience. And this in a time when shrine worship outside the temple at Jerusalem had long since been abolished, unless we take the Deuteronomist also to be post-exilic.

Accordingly, the text is inconsistent in both respects: in that it reports the theory that the Abrahamic tradition is both scribal and of post-exilic origin, while depicting an evolving tradition which almost certainly requires a pre-exilic setting, and which by far favors an oral form of transmission (as I argued in my first post). There was no post-exilic motiff for a post-exilic attribution to Abraham of ancient outlawed shrines. If anything, the P and D writers would have wished to distance Abraham from the embarassing shrine legends, and in fact it is possible that the Dathan/Abiram passages do just that, if Abiram was Abram in another, eventually overruled, tradition.

If you don't follow my argumentation I suggest you consult with a professional Bible scholar--I'm just trying to help. --AGF67.128.133.10 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf

All I hear (see) is noise. A lot of blah, blah, blah that means nothing without WP:Reliable sources. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A fictional Abraham?

A major upshot of the report that "Joseph Blenkinsopp writes that a common view among modern scholars is that the Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE..." is that Abraham is a necessarily fictional character, a late invention with not even a legend behind him, much less a history. I'm not sure that is what the Wiki contributors intended to convey, or even that Blenkinsopp really intended to convey such a nihilistic portrayal, but it is apparent that those who control this page don't have much of a clue at all of what they are conveying. Therefore, caveat emptor: sometimes you get what you pay for. You might want to check EB. 

--AGF67.128.133.10 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf
There aren't assigned editors who control the page, it's volunteer duty. As one of the volunteers, I am notifying you that this is not a general discussion board for the topic, nor a place to discuss original research, and I will remove all future posts that do not bring forth sources (even ones used in the article). If you really think your own interpretations and views are so important, get published, then cite the book here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think wiki controls me...  :/   — Jasonasosa 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No oral tradition?

I find this modern claim that little or no oral tradition is incorporated in the story of Abraham a bit odd. Here is just one example of an older tale that was recast, obviously in the oral stage, into a story involving Abraham: Jud 19 > Gen 19. Especially cf. Gen 19:5-8 with Jud 19:22-24:

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Jud 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

The multiple parallels and near equivalence of dialogue are not likely to be due to chance, nor is such invention or confusion on the part of the story tellers easily attributed to post-exilic scribal activity. The fact that Ezekiel's triad (Noah, Job, and Daniel) differs from that of J-E-D-P (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) does not mean that the Abrahamic tradition was not already old in more limited circles (Judah or Benjamin?), if only in oral form. We could give many more examples of evolution in the oral stage, e.g., the variant traditions of a patriarch's wife being taken by a pharoah or Philistine king. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.133.10 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rest assured, no original research is involved with my statement above. Such discussion may be read in any good commentary of Genesis or Judges. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.133.10 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to make a new section for each new statement, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). If it is not original research, please provide sources for your statements, or we cannot add them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing directing me how to respond other than adding a new section. I don't care whether or not you change anything, and I feel no need to provide a bibliography of higher criticism to respond to such a spurious claim as that attributed to Blenkinsopp to the effect that the "Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." This is utter nonsense. What is it doing in an encyclopedia article? 67.128.133.10 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)AGF

There's a button right next to new section saying "edit." You can also look to the right of any section title, and click the edit button there to edit only that section. WP:CITE is one of the cornerstones of this site. Nothing goes into articles without sources, and the burden lies on you to provide those sources. It's no different than any college. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "edit" function provided no cursor--can't work with it.

Rather than respond to your insistence on sources I'll simply show how the article text itself contradicts the spurious claim that no oral tradition is involved:

"There is basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary and originated when he became identified as the father of Jacob and ancestor of the northern tribes; his association with Mamre and Hebron, on the other hand (in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah), suggest that this region was the original home of his religion."

Do you not understand that this "secondary" connection entails a later historical period and a change in tradition in response to this period? That is, the tradition evolves over time in accord with an evolving historical setting. And this "sitz in lebn" is of course pre-exilic. So your "basic agreement" here flies in the face of Blenkinsopp's claim and the article seems oblivious to the fact that it is presenting conflicting viewpoints. I am merely pointing out that Blenkinsopp's is untenable and should be deleted. At the very least the article should note the different viewpoints, rather than present an incongruent picture. --AGF 67.128.133.10 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf

I'm having trouble understanding how you could create a new section if you can't edit: it's just variations of the same function. Again, we do not take original research. If you do not wish to provide sources for any assertions, Wikipedia is not the place for you. Editor understanding does not matter here. The basic agreement part does not say that the secondary connection was the same as the literary inventions discussed by Blenkinsopp or that the Mamre and Hebron connection was part of any oral tradition. It could just as easily be read to mean that that the literary tradition changed over time. If you can provide evidence that the sources being cited are contradictory, and that the two sections need to be clarified as competing theories, then you'd be on to something. Otherwise, any relationship between the two sections is totally being read into the article.
If you do not wish to provide sources, all your assertions will be treated as unsourced original research. One fact of life in any academic field is "cite your sources," and Wikipedia goes to an extreme to exclude anything that is not cited to a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Just in case talk is still around: Anyone can edit a wikipedia article, including you. Just experiment a bit to get the hang of the mechanics. Read what Blenkinsopp says (there should be a link to the book in the bibliography section), and correct any mistakes the article makes regarding what he says - but don't correct the man himself. (For example, I think he talks about Abraham's "cult", not his "religion"). Get other books too by all means. I think, by the way, that what Blenkinsopp means is that the Abraham story in Genesis is a literary creation, not a written version of an existing oral tradition. There was an earlier tradition, but Genesis is a late work, c.500BC, and the authors were out to create a foundation myth that tied the traditional ancestors to the Exodus, and they had no qualms about making things up. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Abraham is real.

According to a Wikipedia page on Babylonia, Abraham has been known since the reign of Hammurabi. He is referred to in Babylonian scripts as Abi-ramu.

71.164.209.66 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

The existence of someone with the same name doesn't prove anything, how could it? Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Narrative in the Qur'an

I've moved the Narrative in the Qur'an section to Islamic views on Abraham#Narrative in the Qur'an out of respect for the hard work that was put into preparing such material... because, the alternative was delete that section since it did not have WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and could be viewed as borderline WP:ORIGINAL work. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The "Historicity and origins" section is massively biased, and even self-contradictory.

"none of the kings mentioned are known" Known? Known by who? Known by anyone? Almufasa (talk)

"Abimelech could not have been a Philistine (they did not arrive until centuries later)" Completely false. Is the writer believing that no kings existed in this area?

"Urwould not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans"" Questionable, and possibly irrelevant, if it was written down later.

"Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century" Utterly irrelevant, even if true. Aram was an area, not just a political entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits you made to "fix" this plagiarized from the source used. Copyright violation is never right.
This site does not take original research, your assessment of the sources does not matter.
When McNutt says "none of the kings mentioned are known," it is followed by "from other sources." You have completely taken this part out of context, which is only either dishonest or incompetent.
The argument "Is the writer believing that no kings existed in this area?" is both a non-sequitor and a straw man argument. It demonstrates that you're not properly reading the source used. The author stated that Palestinian kings of that time and place are known, and that the records of that time and place do not match those in the Bible. The author also states that a king of the Philistines is given as being in Palestine in the Bible, when there is no evidence that the Philistines had arrived in Palestine yet.
The author points out that Babylon was not known as Chaldea until a later date. This does show that the text was written at a much much later date, which does drastically decrease the possibility that it was history and not legend.
Your reading comprehension is questionable at best. Quit attempting to push your misunderstanding bias of the source into the article. Your misunderstanding bias is not bias on part of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
"The edits you made to "fix" this plagiarized from the source used."
I did no such thing. That's a pure lie.
"your assessment of the sources does not matter."
Well, the article is massively biased, and that violates the guidelines.
"When McNutt says "none of the kings mentioned are known," it is followed by "from other sources."
Oh, really? Because the Wikipedia article said no such thing.
"Your misunderstanding bias is not bias on part of the article."
I'm afraid this refers to you far more than it does me.
"do not delete sources."
With this false accusation, you undid my edits. You are fighting to keep the article from being neutral.
Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here between the two of you. I hope that my new revisions to the Abraham#Origins will clear some of this madness up. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Jewish tradition holds that Ezra edited Genesis, adding contemporary place names. 124.198.202.25 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Even with a reliable source for that assertion, you would also need a source applying it to this stuff, as applying it otherwise would go against WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely there is no evidence for any of this so the whole article should start with "According to Jewish and Christian mythology..." Almufasa (talk)

That is just an ignorant comment when the lede already makes it clear that "he plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam." and the first section of the article delves into the Biblical criticism of the narrative using secular sources. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
He may play a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. all of which are mythologies hence my suggestion that the article should be prefixed as such. Almufasa (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So who wrote the Torah?

This section worries me (headed Form):

See also: Form criticism

Scholarship for more than two centuries have agreed that the Torah, in which the Patriarchal stories are found, was drawn together from different literary sources. However, any particular identification or dating of the textual sources have been strongly debated.[1]

It is widely held by modern biblical scholarship that the Patriarchs, including Abraham, are not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Hebrew Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile. This has led modern scholars to propose that the entire Torah, which include the stories of Abraham, all originated from literary circles either during the Persian period of the late 6th century BCE, to the 5th century Babylonian rule,[2] or as late as Hellenistic times.[1] Under these dominions, the Patriarchal stories are seen as hope for the Jewish people when Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Davidic kingship were all but destroyed. YHWH's dealings with their ancestors provided hope for a future in which an ancestral foundation could be built.[3] Thus, Abraham served as a model for those who would return to Judah.[2]

There are however, modern supporters for an earlier dating. Robert Alter interjects that the Hebrew language evolved over nine centuries of biblical literary activity, from the First Commonwealth (1000 BCE to 586 BCE) to the late Persian/Hellenistic periods.[1] Both Alter and Ronald Hendel argue that there is very little Hebrew in the Torah that could bare a late dating to the 6th-4th century BCE eras, due to their linguistic differences.[4]

Well for a start, this is source criticism, not form criticism. More importantly, it relies rather heavily on Robert Alter's Five Books. Alter is a great scholar, but here he's arguing his personal convictions, not setting out the position of the scholarly community as a whole. Despite what Alter says, there's a growing consensus that sees the five books getting their first version in the late 7th century and reaching final form in the early Persian period. And the argument that the forms of Hebrew are pre-Exilic isn't Alter's, he's just repeating it. Anyway, I'd prefer to see a more generalist book used for mthis - and it can be done in a single sentence, not a whole subsection. PiCo (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Form Criticism part of Source Crticism
Before you start ranting about "dangerous" and "worrisome" things... you should know what you are talking about first. The first section Abraham#Form is very much Form criticism.
"Form criticism is a method of biblical criticism that classifies units of scripture by literary pattern and that attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission. Form criticism seeks to determine a unit's original form and the historical context of the literary tradition."[1]
All of these points are covered within that section. Also note that...
"It is used to supplement the documentary hypothesis explaining the origin of the Pentateuch."[1]
Which means that Form Criticism is a sub-part of Source criticism (documentary hypothesis). If you User:PiCo understood this, you would save yourself from getting all worked up again. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
[1] Quotes taken from Form criticism referencing ("form criticism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Dec. 2007 read online)
Supporting citations
If you had verified all of the supporting citations, you would find that the lede sentence is a neutral statement from Alter, Robert (2008). In the 2nd paragraph, Alter only reiterates what Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2009) says about how modern scholars believe the texual sources were rooted from the late 6th-4th century BCE eras. The last paragraph is the only paragraph used to show Alter's alternative view of an earlier dating. Thus the wp:weight of the article is balanced enough not to push either view too hard. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Jason you like to have it both ways, when there is too much stuff in an article about a Bible topic you don't like, you try demolishing it with arguments about too much "weight" and "undue" etc, BUT when you are left to your own devices and no one opposes you, you insert voluminous reams of material that are primarily from Christian and evangelical POVs. I can back up all these claims with a careful look at your recent editing history. Please stop the charade and stop chopping up and attacking long-standing articles just so you can get your way. You need to learn how to proceed with more CAUTION and build WP:CONSENSUS CAREFULLY and not come in with guns blazing and then put on the innocent act when you are called on it. By the way, have you considered that this title "So who wrote the Torah?" is outright offensive to many editors and could lead to uncalled for edit warring? Like asking "Who wrote the New Testamant?" or "Who wrote the Koran?" would be HIGHLY offensive to many Christianity and Islam editors given your tone here and the dismissive stance you take citing liberally from latter-day secular (university? pop? pulp? ghost?) writers but ignoring what those ancient religions and their scholars would have to say on those topics and not even caring to hear them out. Kindly note Wikipedia is not iconoclasm either!! Or do you miss that as well? Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  1. You User talk:IZAK state: "you (User:Jasonasosa) insert voluminous reams of material that are primarily from Christian and evangelical POVs. I can back up all these claims with a careful look at your recent editing history." - So are you saying that the Abraham#Scholarly criticism section, that I edited, is all Christian POV?
  2. Did you even take a look at the edit history to see who wrote the title, So who wrote the Torah?
Before you start ranting, why don't you deliver? It's apparent that you don't check your information, which makes me question your abilities to edit as a wikieditor. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
PiCo wrote it, and it is demeaning. Minor typo on my part. WP:AGF. I am not ranting and you are not reading what I have to say. Pity. You just want to have it all your way, and call anyone who disagrees with you as "ranting" or what? IZAK (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no indication of a typo here, as it is read...
"You (User:Jasonasosa) need to learn how to proceed with more CAUTION and build WP:CONSENSUS CAREFULLY and not come in with guns blazing and then put on the innocent act when you are called on it. By the way, have you considered that this title "So who wrote the Torah?"...
So, as you can see... the two thoughts in your brain were put together spilling through your fingers faster than you can keep up with. You just need to slow down and pay attention to what and who you are writing to, backing up your comments with solid evidence, just as I had done in my retort to User:PiCo. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Jason, you are deliberately ignoring what I am referring to, not just the comments here, but to your recent spate of rash editing all over the place when it comes to Hebrew Bible topics, such as when you rushed to chop down the Genesis 1:1 article after it survived a recent AfD and you were called on it and retracted; when you were ready to "hack away" (your phrase) as you put it at Talk:Noach (parsha)#Scope proposals that contributed to the massive downhill slide of a discussion that degenerated into squabbling. While for a while now you have edited these kind of religion topics wherein Judaism/Christianity/Islam intersect and overlap with little opposition, you seem to have now reached a point where you are running into headwinds where you need to slow down your efforts to become the almost sole editor and final voice-over for more and more Bible topics in what can only be described as a form of creeping annexation of these topics to reflect your POV as you merrily "hack away" to carve things up the way you want them to appear. I have long ago ceased that type of editorial style that was more suitable to WP's early days when articles where first appearing and all content was welcome, the more the merrier and there were relatively few alternative views, whereas today there are many layers of content submitted by waves of editors over many years that cannot be simply hacked away and what you are seeing is a reaction to your zealous approach, especially as you veer into more topics that directly interface with core subjects in Judaism that you do not display a strong grasp of. Just slow down and cool it and try to win over allies. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:BOLD. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Analysis of User:IZAK's statement, "...and try to win over allies" seems to suggest habitual WP:EDITWARRING. -   — Jasonasosa 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. You just don't get the message, no matter which way I send it. You have obviously not heard of WP:CONSENSUS and taking heed when you are up against WP:CONTROVERSIAL see it, WP has a list of Wikipedia:List of controversial issues and RELIGION is one of them. In almost ten years of editing on WP I have not been known to edit war in religion topics, and you have probably never noticed the {{Controversial}} warning template (even when it's implied) and many others like it that warn you to proceed with CAUTION. IZAK (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, because you argue about Talk page titles rather than Main page content within wp:scope. I can see how you've skirted from getting caught from edit warring as you spend most of your time ranting on talk pages rather than contributing content within wp:scope to the main page.  — Jasonasosa 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. You don't know my history. In the early part of my ten years on WP I wrote many articles relating to rabbis and Judaism. Then when the categorization system came in I created the entire framework of categories for the huge Category:Jews and Judaism, I spend a lot of time improving almost all articles with Category:Jewish history. I used to spend more time on Israel-related articles but I don't have the time and there is too much controversy there that I avoid like the plague. The Hebrew Bible-related articles are a TOTAL mess because they try to blend opposing views in a maddening way so that they all suffer from severe multiple split personality disorders as they cannot make up their minds what to communicate, and many good Judaic editors have lost interest and confidence in them precisely because you have Christian and secular editors telling them what they should think and say and convey about a subject which rightly commenced with Judaism and was then conveyed to Christianity and which latter-day secular scholars have converged upon to tear to shreds. I spend time trying to IMPROVE non-Biblical articles relating to religious Jews and Judaism that could need help. I keep track of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, and I very seldom nominate articles for AfDs. There is just so much one person can do, as you well know. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Focusing on latter day Bible critics and secular professors while ignoring what classical Judaism maintains puts the cart way before the horse

Why is this not mentioned when it is such an obvious point, accepted by Judaism for 3000+ years:

  1. Classical Judaism, meaning Rabbinic Judaism not just "believes" but accepts it axiomatically that the Torah was written down by Moses (no link to WP article because it's a total shambles) as dictated from God based on nevu'ah which means "prophecy" -- a divine phenomenon whereby God communicates with select men and women that the secular mind cannot grasp. This is called "Torah from Sinai" or "Torah min hashamayim" and that it came in stages:
  2. The Decalogue when God spoke the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel gathered at Mount Sinai;
  3. then the Ten Commandments were given carved on stone by God (first set) and Moses (second set);
  4. then during the forty years the Israelites spent in the wilderness the Five Books of Moses (Chumash or Pentateuch) was dictated by God and written down by Moses who then handed it to Joshua and the Seventy Elders (forerunners of the Great Sanhedrin).
  5. The rest of the Tanakh was written by the successive leaders and prophets ending with the Men of the Great Assembly who then "sealed" and closed the epoch of the Written Torah.
  6. Judaism also holds that the Oral Torah (Torah shebe'al peh) was transmitted at the same time as the Written Torah.
  7. The Oral Torah was written down by later sages and does not have the same status as the Written Torah but it was reliably transmitted through the Mishnah; Talmud and various Midrashim.
  8. Drawing from both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah and based on their great Torah scholarship and piety in Judaism the most competent and greatest Jewish sages (meaning rabbis, not university professors and pop writers) have written further works of Jewish Law (Halakha), and commentaries.
  9. Deciders of Jewish Law, have published later works based on the Written and Oral Torah such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Joseph Karo's Shulkhan Arukh the Code of Jewish Law that is the basis of all Jewish Law today.
  10. Mystical, moral and homiletical commentaries on the Written and Oral Torah based on the Midrashim are a different but related field of knowledge with their own great works, such as the Sefer Yetzira and Zohar, and with its scholars specializing in Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah such as Isaac Luria, Moses Cordovero and the early great rabbis of Hasidic Judaism.

This is Judaism 101 yet look how so few even know this much. IZAK (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The time it took you to prepare these points could be better spent improving the article Lech-Lecha. A lot of the points you bring up here are not within wp:scope of this article anyway. Further, Jewish 101 would be wp:undo weight here. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 16:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. I think WP:SOAPBOX might be relevant to this thread. It is also worth pointing out that Rabbinic Judaism is itself a rather late arriver on the seen, dating to after the destruction of the Temple, and it is not necessarily proven that its beliefs are necessarily identical to those of earlier Jews. One thing that might be useful is to compare and contrast the content of this article to that of other reference sources. Going to the Highbeam Research site, I found articles on this subject in four reference works, the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Encyclopedia Judaica, and World Religions Reference Library. There is also one in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and presumably several others as well. I haven't checked on their lengths, but if anyone wanted copies of them e-mailed to them, just drop me an e-mail and I will forward them the articles I have online access to. Some of the other databanks which are currently offering free subscriptions here may well contain additional articles, as well as other subscription databanks elsewhere. I am on the candidates lists for the other free subscriptions as well, and should know by the end of the month. That being the case, if editors to this article are not themselves given access to those databanks or services, it might make sense to file a request for copies of those reference articles after the first of next month, when I should have access to those other databanks as well. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
John, too bad you reject the occasional reality check from the real world, and it's nice to know you live in your own academic ivory tower that has nothing to do with the real world where Judaism exists. Are you now an authority on Judaism and its beliefs and origins as well? Wow! You see, this is precisely the ongoing problem, that WP has become a "world unto itself" creating one huge mish-mash that would in its own language violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTMADEUP, WP:NEO and even WP:HOAX that is often a reflection of some editors acting like WP:SPIDERMAN. Someone asks who wrote the Bible/Torah, and the correct WP way to answer would be: According to XYX group it is ____; According to ABC group it is ___; According to modern secular scholars it is ____; and instead everyone mixes up all the views, no one knows how anything starts, discredits the religion's own set of axioms, with half-baked, zany and dishonest citations that are sham and discredit the purpose of WP:RS and WP:V with personal views from a mish-mash of zeros, and walla, WP has produced a new religion, or definition for a religion, that no one ever heard of or practices. This is disgraceful and does not become an encyclopedia. Think it over. IZAK (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
If you don't like it, walk away. This is a secular site. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 03:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Wrong! WP is neither secular nor religious, because this is ONLY an encyclopedia (look that up) that draws on ALL bodies of knowledge and welcomes editors from all areas of expertise and incorporates all points of view as long as they adhere to WP policies of WP:NPOV and the WP:FIVEPILLARS and all other long-standing WP policies. IZAK (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, are you claiming that 2000+ years of traditional Jewish scholarship should be disregarded in favor of 200 years of secular scholarship? There are over two millenia of published works, by scholars accepted in their field, and of whom secondary sources certainly exist that compile their collective opinions. I completely agree that modern secular opinion deserves its place here, but not exclusively. In an article which is core to Judaism, I believe it selbstverständlich that the traditional Jewish view, as brought down through, at the very least, 1500 years of commentary, exegesis, gloss, and discussion from the Midrash to Rashi and the Ramban (two name two undeniably notable and seminal figures, who remain accepted as authoritative to this very day) need be discussed. Wikipedia is certainly not a religious project; but it is not anti-religious either. A good encyclopedia will bring both perspectives, as they are both necessary in understanding the topic, its context, its reach, and its effect on people. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Abraham#Judaism section is (+3,322)‎ bytes; The Abraham#Scholarly criticism is (+5,897)‎ bytes... a difference of 2,575 bytes. My contributions to the Scholarly criticism section totals: 1,251 bytes. There is also a wonderful page called Lech-Lecha which is roughly (80,949 bytes) with about (+44,120)‎ bytes worth of "2000+ years of traditional Jewish scholarship", which dwarfs my contribution of a mere 1,251 bytes of scholarly criticism. So, feel free to contribute 2,575 more bytes to the Judaism section of this article if its really eating away at you.  — Jasonasosa 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Jason, look up the meaning of primary sources in real world scholarship, as well as of secondary sources. Besides, when posing a question such as "So who wrote the Torah?" (sticking in the word "So" by anyone in any case, it is oh, SO demeaning) you then have to face the irrefutable fact that the Torah is the primary document of Judaism, and therefore also realize that Judaism has had and has its own field of Torah scholarship and Torah scholars, namely those that are relied upon today, the Talmudists (Judaism's teachers of the Torah), Rishonim (medieval scholars), Acharonim (latter scholars), and meforshim or parshanim, see {{Rabbinical Literature}} and {{Eras of the Halakha}} as introductions. If these terms mean nothing to you, you need to brush up on them when taking on questions about Judaism's most important text/s, such as 'So, who wrote the Torah?". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:IZAK, your reply to my inquiry was: "PiCo wrote it, and it is demeaning. Minor typo on my part. WP:AGF." By this statement and you addressing me "Dear Jason" in your above comment bashing me for "So who wrote the Torah?" means that you back peddled and lied to me. From here on out, I having nothing more to say to you.  — Jasonasosa 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
You and PiCo worked under that heading and at no point disputed it as it's a demeaning heading. IZAK (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you serious? You need to chill out. This does not improve the main page at all!   — Jasonasosa 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, but it's hard to ignore you when you are zooming around and busy with so many Hebrew Bible topics lately, bringing up a number AfDs, moving material around all over the place, that's just nerve racking. I will look into the article with greater depth to see what can be done, if anything. IZAK (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, just a little FYI... you might want to get an update on my contributions to Genesis 1:1 from an admin at User talk:Jasonasosa#Genesis 1:1. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go for Abraham [1] this makes sense, following the chronological and historical order. First you describe and explain the subject in its own terms, then feel free to supply all the Criticisms in the world. First comes the case then comes the analysis. IZAK (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. User StAnselm (talk · contribs) is not an admin, and yes, you do improve things many times, but by the same token you also are overly quick to make mass changes when more incremental change would work a lot better and not get people so nervous. There are so many ways to improve articles and WP content without getting into massive editorial changes of content. One can create useful templates, navigational categories, basic clean up without massive changes in core articles and panic being induced. IZAK (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
StAnselm (talk · contribs) projects himself with such etiquette, even when he is obliged to relay criticism, that I mistook him for an admin. Maybe we could all learn something from him. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 05:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but for better or worse God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) created human beings who all have different faces and different personalities, characters, temperaments, and even different souls/spiritual and psychological make-ups. There are seven Billion+ humans on Earth today and they are all different to each other. But yes, there are rules of the road and we all need to aspire to them. Mastering WP:CIVIL is not the same for all people, everyone can improve all the time. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the fact that people "can" improve over time does not necessarily mean that they "will", although we can assume good faith that some people might. It is I think the sincerest hope of all of us that no one has cause to raise concerns regarding such matters in the future. However, if reason for such concerns do continue to be raised, then it is not unreasonable for others to take whatever action they might deem necessary and appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for a pre-exilic tradition of Abraham

May I take the liberty of providing a link to arguments for a pre-exilic Abrahamic tradition: http://agfosterjr.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-case-for-a/ 67.169.241.205 (talk)agf —Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A Case for a Pre-exilic Abraham

Tried to edit, got no cursor as before. Tried to add descript, format demolished. Here's a 'non-blog' (since such names mean all) with addenda, making a brief case for a pre-exilic Abrahamic tradition: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NsAhw4e7ifBWQeXi4xTUenFAbDBHOKSgdruVmUkK7q0/edit 67.128.133.10 (talk)agf —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's still a self-published source. We have no idea who it's by, if it's been reviewed, and the paper doesn't even give sources (which means it didn't even get a good grade, I'm sure, not that we cite student's papers). Here are the reliable sourcing guidelines. Many editors have repeatedly linked to them for you for a reason. Please read them. Here is a summary of the reliable sourcing guidelines:
  • Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Please read the reliable sourcing guidelines anyway, even though I have summarized it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for "it is widely believed" - pretty rubbish

Ok the first source is the website of Grace Communion International which says it "is a denomination with 42000 members".

Second source is from "The Ensign Message, identifying the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and kindred peoples as the present day descendants of the Israel of the Old Testament."

Third source is the Kjos ministry, a family ministry which is um, what can I say, a bit unusual?[2][3].

Fourth is to something called "Judaism 101", a page on a personal website[4] (author claims no qualifications).

There 4 sites are considered enough to back the statement "It is currently widely believed by Christians, Jews, and other scholars that Abraham was a true historical figure."? Seriously? An very very small Christian denomination, two groups which might kindly be considered fringe and are even much tinier, and one Jew's website? Clearly none of them are scholars, none of them represent their faiths in any significant way, and in fact at least for the 3 Christian sources are clearly represent a miniscule minority.

Then we have: " For example, the Catholic church takes the stance that Abraham was more than a mere myth, and that archaeology supports this position" with the New Advent Encyclopedia as a source. A couple of problems - what the Church says officially can be reported, but we can't use the article to suggest it's the view of most Catholics. It probably is, but we'd need a better source. But in any case, what does this article represent? Certainly not any modern view, its sources are long dead, eg Theophilus Pinches and Archibald Sayce. So, we are using the century old New Advent encyclopedia to back this claim? Does anyone think that maybe readers might think that where it says "archaeology supports this position" readers might think that means something a bit more modern?

Seriously, this is all rubbish. For the moment, I'm removing the sources and replacing them with fact tags. But unless you can have some good research which would have to be mainstream, not fringe, I think this section needs to be removed or heavily rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I added those, and they aren't "all rubbish." In fact, you just proved one of Wikipedia's main problems. Earlier in this very talk page, I questioned this section and made some edits. I received the reply "This site does not take original research, your assessment of the sources does not matter." So, I ask, Dougweller, who are you to remove that sourced material? You had no right.Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Church websites and newsletters are not academic peer-reviewed works and therefore do not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. "The Ensign Message" is a white supremacist site, which makes it so unreliable a source that you have no choice but to admit you made a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for not catching these bad sources when I moved the said material.  — Jasonasosa 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Apology not accepted. Why would you so quickly assume that Dougweller's analysis is accurate?Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
The apology wasn't directed to you, and Dougweller's analysis is not assumed to be accurate, he is simply repeating observable facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Apology accepted. I note that the The Harvard Crimson is also used as a source (it is clearly inferior to the Yale Daily News of course).
As your penance, you might want to note that the first 3 sources are used in a number of articles.[5], [6], [7](ok to use Grace in its own article of course). Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I would just remove said content altogether if you ask me.  — Jasonasosa 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Done --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

This article alternates between "Abraham" and "Abram". Is there any objection to sticking with one spelling or the other throughout the article? (As the title is "Abraham", that seems like the logical choice, IMHO.) Joefromrandb (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'll take a close look at the book of Genesis, you'll see that the name of the person concerned changes from "Abram" to "Abraham" at a certain point in the story. I believe this accounts for the discrepancy you note. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of it. What I meant to say is that with most people who undergo a change of name, the article usually explains it in the lede, while generally sticking to the name by whom the person was best known throughout the article. As Abraham is known mononomously, this seems even more important. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not to complex to follow and it is considered pivotal. Though I believe most modern sources use Abraham throughout the entire narrative up until the name change when a reminder is made. Religious studies would prefer otherwise, but for the general masses, we should keep it simple. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and "using Abraham throughout the entire narrative until the name change when a reminder is made" seems to be the ideal way to do that. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Urfa

Is there any common opinion about Abraham's birth place? Turk's believe that he was born in Urfa (Edessa).--Ollios (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You may find the article Ur Kaśdim interesting. In short: there is no consensus about what place Abraham was born, there have historically been various views and scholars are still divided in their opinions. The most common view among modern scholars is that Ur Kaśdim is Ur, an ancient Sumerian city located in modern-day Iraq. (source). - Lindert (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Abraham is a fictional charecter

Abraham is a fictional character, however the article reads like there's some sort of proof that he has ever existed (which there is not). This should be corrected or at least acknowledged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.149.187.98 (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how there's also complaints from religious fundamentalists about the article portraying him as fictional, with your complaints I'm fairly convinced that the article is neutral. If it wasn't for those complaints, I would only point to this section of the article to demonstrate that you haven't really read what the page says. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

"The word of God came to Abram in a vision and repeated the promise of the land and descendants as numerous as the stars. Abram and God made a covenant ceremony, and God told of the future bondage of Israel in Egypt. God described to Abram.... " Should supernatural claims like these be reported as fact? --Hugh7 (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not being reported as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.192.215 (talk) 06:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"The patriarchal stories most likely had a substantial oral prehistory"

"The patriarchal stories most likely had a substantial oral prehistory." I have tagged this sentence with "citation needed" as it seems to me a dubious statement and one which is disputed by many scholars, for example [[8]] The Old Testament And Folklore Study By Patricia G. Kirkpatrick 1988 "The pre-literary stage of these legends is impossible to determine and therefore the history of their pre-literary forms cannot be reconstructed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeat75 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The citation was already at the end of the sentence (Wayne Pitard in the Oxford History, editor is Mike Coogan). Also, the source you cite is saying the same thing as our sentence - there are pre-literary forms (i.e., oral forms) behind the known literary (i.e., written) ones, but we can't reconstruct them. Also again, you say that's from Patricia Kirkpatrick, but it's not, it's Wellhausen - Kirkpatrick is simply discussing him, those aren't her own thoughts.PiCo (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The Ebla tablets

I deleted the material on the Ebla tablets. As it's quite large I thought I should explain why here. But first, this is what I deleted:

A recent debate took place in the late 70s and the 80s in the context of Syrian-Israeli conflicts over "Zionist" claims to Palestine concerning whether the Ebla tablets contain a contemporaneous reference to Abraham.Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia - Dumper, Michael & Stanley, Bruce; 2007; p.141-2 Much of the initial media excitement about supposed Eblaite connections with the Bible, based on preliminary guesses and speculations by Pettinato and others, is now widely deplored as generated by "exceptional and unsubstantiated claims" and "great amounts of disinformation that leaked to the public".[5] The present consensus is that Ebla's role in biblical archaeology, strictly speaking, is minimal.[6]

The main source is the book by Dumper and Bruce, "Cities of the Middle East and North Africa: A Historical Encyclopedia" - the link I've given is to the cover. The other two books are by Chavalas and by Moorey, and I'll come to them in a moment.

First, the Dumper/Bruce book says this on page 142: "One of the major controversies arising from the study of the Ebla archives is about their direct reference to places, events or individuals in the bible. Soon after the first translations ... were released (late 1970s), an acrimonious debate arose as to whether the archives confirmed the existence of Abraham, David, Sodom and Gomorrah..." That's all it says about Abraham - it goes on for a few more lines,too much for me to type here.

Anyway, the source does support the statement in the article above that a debate took place in the (late) 1970s and (early) 1980s over whether the archives contained reference to Abraham. What's missing is what happened afterwards - the early 1980s were 30 years ago, and by no means "recent" (Dumper/Bruce don't use the word).

That's where Chavalas and Moorey come in. Moorey's "A Century of Biblical Archaeology" (1991) is a standard work; he says that the present consensus ("present" meaning the late 1980s) is that the relevance of the Ebla tablets to biblical archaeology is minimal (pages 150-152); Chavalas' "Mesopotamia and the Bible" is also a standard text; he describes the initial work on the tablets by the Italians as "speculation" and "guesses" (strong language in academic circles), and says the media speculation described by (and not endorsed by) Dumper and Bruce was fed by "exceptional and unsubstantiated claims" and "great amounts of disinformation that leaked to the public" (pages 40-41)

So for this reason, I think it's better not to mention the Ebla tablets.PiCo (talk) 06:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If that is the case, then isn't it better for our article to say so (as it did), rather than have someone who has heard somewhere that there might be a connection turn to our article and find themselves left none the wiser? (I just thought this point was worth putting, I don't have a strong view either way). Jheald (talk) 10:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that should be a matter for the article on the Ebla tablets themselves - tho a link from the see also section wouldn't hurt. PiCo (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing POV: We in Wikipedia are not taking side in that dispute; specially in the article's lead.

I just removed this phrase from the lead of the article:

"these two episodes signify first the right of his descendants to the land, and second the exclusion of the land's previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, from Israel's patrimony."

As there are sources that have a different interpretation from the story and we cannot push a specific point of view in Wikipedia:

"God promised Abraham to give his descendants a spiritual land of their own" Ezekiel, By Iain M. Duguid, p. 551 --Kazemita1 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Duguid's interpretation is an interesting one, but it doesn't seem to be widely held among biblical scholars. (For example, the book of Joshua clearly describes the physical seizure of the land and the extermination of the Canaanites whenever possible). Do you have other sources? PiCo (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I do:
Even if you take Jashua's account literally and consider those terms physical rather than spiritual, one should rewrite the sentences in the lead that does not give the impression of taking sides in today's dispute of the land.
"the land of promise was fulfilled in the book of Jashua for it was under the leadership of Jashua that the descendants of Abraham conquered and occupied the land of Canaan.", The Biblical Aspect of Abraham's Life, by Queen Ozuome, p. 320.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't have access to Professor Duguid's book, as I'd like to read what he says. But I do see that it's a study of Ezekiel, not Genesis. Given that Ezekiel lived during the Exile, when the land had been lost, its very possible that he reinterpreted the promise to Abraham. Do you have a reference to the actual passage in Ezekiel that he's talking about?
Briefly on the other sources: the passage from the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery is talking about how Paul reinterpreted Genesis, not what the promise meant to the authors of Genesis; Jonathan Lewis's book is a Christian evangelical work, not concerned with scholarly analysis; the Juvenile Companion is also confessional rather than scholarly; the passage from the Sheridan book is from Didymus the Blind, a very early Church Father, not a modern scholar (i.e., it's an early interpretation of Genesis from a Christian perspective); I can't see that the passage from the Williamson book (quoting A. Abela) can be interpreted as negating the idea that the Promised Land is a real land and that it's being given to Abraham's real descendants; and the Hanegraaff and Gane books are personal interpretations of Abraham from an Evangelical Christian perspective.
So I think the evidence is that our article isn't pushing a point of view of its own, but accurately reflecting the point of view found in Genesis as reflected in mainstream biblical scholarship.PiCo (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I am afraid I do not share this conclusion with you. I just sent you an email on how to obtain the related pages from Ezekiel, By Iain M. Duguid. Duguid is not just addressing Ezekiel; he is interpreting Ezekiel in light of other parts of the Bible and conducting a conclusion that covers all those old texts. Also, regarding the reinterpretation of Paul in the scholarly work Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, the author(s) find Paul's argument a lucid one which means a modern scholar is supporting the early Chrisitan's claim.
Above all, when you say you find the Christian sources religious rather than scholarly, I would like to remind everyone that basing ANY conclusion (outside the biblical world) upon the old testament cannot possibly be considered a scholarly one in the first place. In other words, one cannot remain a secular scholar and at the same time claim "The descendants of Abraham have a right to live in Canaan" as every single word in that claim is relied upon some belief (that God exists, that Abraham was a real figure, and that the old testament is absolute truth and can be a basis for judgement).
Finally, you did not address my other statement regarding the interpretation of the book of Jashua. (that the promise of the physical land -if you translate it literally- was fulfilled already at Jashua's time which leave no room for today's claims)
"the land of promise was fulfilled in the book of Jashua for it was under the leadership of Jashua that the descendants of Abraham conquered and occupied the land of Canaan.", The Biblical Aspect of Abraham's Life, by Queen Ozuome, p. 320.--Kazemita1 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for sending me the pages from Duguid. I'm afraid I can't share your reading of them. Page 549 is the end of a discussion of Ezekiel's final temple-vision, and the only mention of Abraham is to say that he made a covenant with God. The remaining pages are a discussion of how Revelation appropriates Ezekiel's vision, plus a personal gloss about how this applies to modern Christians - in other words, it's not about what Abraham meant to the original authors of Genesis. On page 550 Duguid says: "According to the New Testament it (i.e., the concept of "rest") becomes a reality ... through a spiritual appropriation of the heavenly reality to which the Land of Canaan always pointed." There's not a word there about what the Genesis authors meant.
Ike and Queen Ozuome are not scholars - they are pastors of a church in Lagos. No doubt they're good people, but they don't pretend to be experts on the secular history of the bible, which is what biblical scholarship is. Despite which, I think they're quite right about the Book of Joshua.
I think you misunderstand what the article is saying, anyway. It's not endorsing one side in the current Israeli/Arab dispute, it's just explaining what Abraham meant to the authors of the Book of Genesis (and elsewhere - he's not found only in Genesis). It just so happens that the authors did use Abraham to push their claim to Canaan. PiCo (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking time to read all my references. Perhaps, it is true from a pure secular point of view that there is no notion of spiritual inheritance and it is all physical. Also, it is the case that secular exegesis of the old testament is not taking side in the current Israeli/Arab dispute. I guess all remains is to make sure this is represented in the lead. The current lead says:
"these two episodes signify first the right of his descendants to the land, and second the exclusion of the land's previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, from Israel's patrimony."
I am troubled with phrases such as "right of his descendants" or "Israel's patrimony". In other words, the secular exegesis does not discuss legal entitlement and we the Wiki editors should not write the article to give that impression. So I suggest changing to the following:
"These two episodes signify Abraham's desire first for wanting the land for his descendants and second exclusion of land's previous inhabitants, the Canaanites, from its ownership."
and I say this based on my understanding of the secular source currently provided(The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions By Jean Louis Ska, pp. 30-31):
"This story has a double function. The first is to show that one generation is passing away and so it is necessary to think of the next one. The second is to show that Abraham is beginning to take possession of the land. Possessing a grave in a land means stating one's rights to reside in that land. Lastly the marriage of Isaac solves a crucial problem for the sequel to the story, the one about the second generation. Before dying Abraham wants to be sure that his son's wife belongs to the same clan and he completely rules out her being a Canaanite. The inheritance must therefore stay within the same "extended family" so that the Canaanites have no right to this patrimony. "
Let me know what you think--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
(Deleted my former comment and replaced with this): I don't think you proposed sentence quite works - for one thing, "to desire" and "to want" mean the same thing, so that "desire for wanting" is a tautology. I'd rather take the Ska passage and precis it (means removing as many words as possible without changing anything) - I leave that up to you. PiCo (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the term "his heir" in the lead

I have a question on the following sentence in the article lead:

"Abraham's story ends with the death and burial of his wife Sarah in the grave which he has purchased in Hebron (a town in southern Judah), followed by the marriage of his heir Isaac to a wife from his own people"

My question is whether the bolded word is necessary. I mean the old testament says Isaac would inherit land and his other child would inherit something else. Bringing the term heir here makes it look as if he is the exclusive heir of everything. I propose to just remove it and rewrite it like this:

"Abraham's story ends with the death and burial of his wife Sarah in the grave which he has purchased in Hebron (a town in southern Judah), followed by the marriage of Isaac to a wife from his own people"

--Kazemita1 (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:SILENCE I can go ahead and modify the text, since no one attended the discussion in 4 days. If you are seeing this after my edit, you would need to establish a new consensus before attempting to revert my change.--Kazemita1 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above edit, but FYI Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. Editor2020 (talk)

I don't have any strong feelings about the edit one way or another (it really depends on what the source says), but agree that Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul Johnson (writer)

Besides the fact that entirely too much of the section was devoted to one author, Johnson has no qualifications in this field. Dougweller (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Although much of the section was quoted from Paul Johnson, little content was by him (as was seen through the conferred references). The comment "Johnson has no qualifications in this field" is ad hominem; his book was recommended by Martin Gilbert (a Jewish Historian) and he is a historian himself. Even if you don't respect his method, at least leave the quotes which contain what the Ebla, Mari, and Nuzi tablets say. Also, the phrase "In the 1970s, however, significant new conclusions..." is contradictory because conclusions made 40 years ago is not "new" nor "significant" in light of more recent discoveries and literary criticism. DavidOchabski (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

other Abrahamic Religions

I move other religions except top most famous Abraham religions to "others list", as we have a topic in "Abraham religions" page.--Wiki hamze (talk) 09:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

POV and accuracy, Creationist sources

The lead now says "Descriptions of the culture, civilizations, and lifestyle of the Near East at the time are accurately described in Genesis". This is factually in accurate and contradicted in the body of the article where it says (although not in the section on geography and life style for some reason) "Thompson's argument, based on archaeology and ancient texts, was that no compelling evidence pointed to the patriarchs living in the second millennium and that the biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns; Van Seters, basing himself on an examination of the patriarchal stories, agreed with Thompson that their names, social milieu and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations."

And note who we are relying upon. Daniel Hillel, who is a soil and water scientist. Leon J. Wood who was a Creationist theologian. In the citations his source is dated to this year although he died in 1977. The only work actually mentioned by him is dated to 1986. It was actually written in 1970. Then we use Woodrow M. Kroll, another Creationist. Both Wood and Hillel are used extensively and are the only authors of the block quotes in the article - another NPOV violation by the way. Wood has a large block quote about archaeology, despite having no qualifications in the subject. So virtually all the lifestyle stuff comes from Creationists with no relevant qualifications and a soil and water scientist. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I also note that Hillel is the source of the etymology. Clearly he isn't a reliable source for that. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining the reasoning behind the article's tags here. There does seem to be a dispute about the descriptions of society at the time and how well it corresponds to the biblical account, so I'll try to make some modifications in the lead. About the sources being used in the "Archaeology and composition of the Abraham narrative" section, it is true that most of the references are from theologians. I don't think there is anything wrong with referencing theologians in an article about a theological subject, but I will go to the library some time in the next few days to look for some archeological sources if I can't find them on Google Books. I frankly don't see the issue with some of the sources being Creationists, as they are all professors with degrees in their chosen fields. (Note that Thompson, the source that is casting doubt on the Abraham narrative, is not an archeologist, so his views should not be promoted above the others). A water and soil scientist is good for discussing the geography and climate of the time period, which is what Hillel is primarily used for. --1ST7 (talk) 22:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I think all complaints have been addressed. The Hillel citation in etymology has been removed, and though the others you mentioned are still being used, a number of other sources (including some from archaeologists) have been added to balance them out. I also altered the lead. --1ST7 (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really. You are still using unqualified sources to comment on archeology. You've added a Fox News report as though it somehow shows something about Abraham - Fox News is not a reliable source, the report in any case is from a newsppaper and not from the actual source, and as I said, it doesn't do anything to prove that Abraham existed. And, a minor issue, we should not link to Ur but to Ur Kas'dim which says "Not only is there much debate in interpreting Ur Kaśdim as Abraham's birthplace, but also identifying this location.". The 2 large block quotes are still in the article. Woodrow Kroll would clearly fail as a WP:RS for most things, Wood fails as a reliable source for archaeology (including descriptions of ancient cultures) as do La Sor, Hubbard - ah, you've misattributed your source for this book, the author is John E Hartley[9], again not a RS. You are using minor scholars such as Joseph P Free to make major points, which is not what NPOV asks us to do. Basically you are lining up unqualified authors, some very minor, to argue against major archaeological sources. I will be reverting this. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Fox News is a reliable source and is used on many articles. All of the people you've designated as "unreliable" are academics with theological degrees. Before you start removing the text, can you please state who would be considered to be a "major" scholar on Abraham? --1ST7 (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
For a start, that's not true. I've found priests, people without more than a Masters degree, etc. Secondly, how is someone unqualified in archeology an expert on archaeology? I don't mean to be rude, but have you ever read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS? Hillel is an expert on water and soil, does he claim to be an expert on climate, particularly past climates? Or even geography? I've left some of his material in but hope we can find another source. I've removed Wood, Kroll (what in the world is "Flame of the Clad-breakers"?), the 3 editors who didn't write the chapter in question. If you disagree with me after reading our policy and guidelines, you can ask at WP:RSN but remember you have to also explain exactly what you want to use a source for, as even reliable sources are only usually reliable for certain things. By the way, the Free book seems to have been rewritten by Vos. If it's still aimed at Sunday school teachers, etc it isn't appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that Abraham is a legendary figure and that the book of Genesis dates from around 500 BCE. The article needs to reflect this. PiCo (talk) 04:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And if it is going to reflect the Maximalist view, we shouldn't be using minor theologians, Bible teachers, etc but sources such as Iain Provan, Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen, William Dever and the Biblical Archaeology Review. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I think, although I have heard others recently dispute this, that the Anchor Bible Dictionary (all 6000 or so pages of it) contains what were, at least for the time of its publication, several articles relating to the cultures of the ANE during biblical times, and that if nothing else it would probably serve as a good source for what the opinions of the academic world of archeology and anthropology thought of the culture of Abraham's time at least 20 years ago. John Carter (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I's sure the ABD is a reliable source, but for me it has two problems: number 1, it's a bit old I think - 1990-something? I'd like something more recent; number 2, I simply don't have access to it :). But yes, a general reference like ABD would be better than monographs trying to argue a case. PiCo (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it is old, but at 6000 pages or so it has a lot of material, including bibliographical material, others don't, and will at least discuss the beliefs present at that time. There are more recent reference works on the Bible, including Coogan's Encyclopedia which came out last year, but I'm not sure it covers this topic particularly, being specifically about the Books per se. The Zondervan encyclopedia of I think 2007? is fairly long to, and might well cover the matter of the historicity of Abraham, but it is also a bit conservative. I can and will try to check all of those, and any others of recent years I have access to, in the next few days. John Carter (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Academics[who?] debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham's life.[original research?]

Mercy11 first added the 'who' tag, then the OR tag saying: "But now that what I suspected has been confirmed, I am adding an OR tag until someone can come up with a citation - does not matter where, the lead or the body of the article - that supports such the claim in question. Just citing sources pointing to individual's works, individuals that happen to disagree with the historicity of the biblical account (biblical in this case, but the WP policy involved applies to anything out there) is not enough. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information and, per WP:RS, we must cite sources that -actually- support added text exactly. Adding citations - as it is the case here - of dissenters is not sufficient (or even relevant). The only valid citations are those that -actually- lend support to the claim in question. That is, someone needs to find a citation that actually says something like "Academics debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham's life." Sources from dissenters who disagree with the biblical account - One reliable source or a million reliable sources - are not enough. This is explained in WP:OR and WP:SYN. A WP editor is not allowed to draw conclusions. There are sources FROM dissenters and there are sources from others reporting ABOUT such dissenters. The only valid sources here would be the second type. There is an enormous difference between the two".

Does anyone think it is really original research to say that academics dispute the historicity of the biblical account? Or that we need a 'who' tag when the sources are in the article? I don't think that NOR applies here. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

AtWP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Academics don't debate the historicity of the biblical account of Abraham life: they dismiss it. I thought we already had a source saying that? PiCo (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, we do: Moore and Kelle's "Biblical History and Israel's Past", published 2011. A good mainstream general treatment of the current state of scholarship. PiCo (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
PiCo, Moore & Kelle is an interesting source. Can you be more specific, such as a page number? I see that possibly leading to a quicker resolution. Mercy11 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edits

In reference to THIS, this is an encyclopedia. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an option. Mercy11 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for tags like that when the material comes from a reliable source. If you don't like it, either point out how the sentence doesn't reflect the source, or find other contrary sources. PiCo (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not that simple: The sentence as written gives the impression that the folks in the mainstream are saying that "the stories in Genesis cannot be related to the known history of that time." This does not appear to be the case; so far this is only stated by McNutt. There are various ways to solve this error; only one would suffice. But I can tell you, when I did not add a source is because I -already- could not find any. Perhaps the adding editor can, and this is, of course, required by WP:RS. Your challenge to find the contrary is a WP:FALLACY and does not belong in this discussion... asking to prove the negative. (See WP:BURDEN) Mercy11 (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The sentence in the lead says: "The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham and the patriarchs in the second millennium BCE, but the stories in Genesis cannot be related to the known history of that time..." McNutt isn't meant to be a source for the first part - she doesn't mention the Bible's internal chronology. But she does say: "[I]t is now generally recognised that there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively related to known history in or around Canaan in the early 2nd millennium BCE..." (She then goes on to give specific details). Note that she says this is "generally recognised" - a reasonable gloss is that this is what "folks in the mainstream" are saying. PiCo (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
McNutt can say "generally recognised" all she wants but note she doesn't source that with a cite to verify it as she does the rest of her work. As such the only plausible thing to do is to re-write the article about Abraham in a form like, "According to McNutt..." This was not done, which generated my objection. Mercy11 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
McNutt is a reliable source, and querying her reliability would amount to weasel-words. (Have you published as widely as she has?) If you want to query this, find a source that says the opposite. PiCo (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
See below. Mercy11 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Could the person who added these tags please detail exactly what's the objection (actual passages or general scope)? I promise not to remove any re-added in-tags before the discussion takes place.PiCo (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The statement above is vague: you need to be specific about the tags you are talking about. Lacking that. I will assume, it refers to my tags in THIS edit. Mercy11 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW, no need to make any "promises", what you need to do is to abide by WP policies. Promise or not, if you are not complying with policy, you are open to be reverted. Mercy11 (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The main tags are the ones in the hat-notes: they say you have queries as to neutrality and factuality. I'd like you to add tags inside the article (i.e., inline tags) identifying the specific passages you object you, and open a new thread here explaining each objection. It's the in-line tags that I promise not to touch. PiCo (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
You are missing something: Guidelines (such as hatnotes) cannot take the place of policies (like WP:RS). There is no need for concern if you are abiding by the policies, but I have an objection to the statement as it read and tagged it accordingly with (according to whom?), (which?) and (vague) tags, and opened a discussion here. Your options, according to WP:DISCUSSION, was either to satisfy the inline citation by providing the required information or to enter the discussion and achieve concensus. Instead you chose to unilaterally change the contents to your liking. This is not the way we work at Wikipedia. You violated the WP:CONCENSUS policy in doing so. As such I have reverted you edits replacing the article to the version it was before this dispute arose. Disagreements at Wikipedia are resolved via dialogue, not via unilateral changes to contents as you are doing. Mercy11 (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me ask this question. How about if the paragraph that reads

"The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham and the patriarchs in the second millennium BCE, but the stories in Genesis cannot be related to the known history of that time, and most biblical histories accordingly no longer begin with the patriarchal period." [7]

instead read like this,

"According to Paula McNutt, former Professor of Religious Studies at Canisius College, "it is now generally recognized that there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitely related to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millenium B.C.E., and that there is, in fact, no solid evidence for any date." [7]

Would this be agreeable? Mercy11 (talk) 16:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the honest attempt to find what you regard as a compromise, but no, it's not. On Wikipedia, we only say "according to X" if X represents one side of an argument to which there's a substantial other side - "according to X, this is the case, but according to Y, something different." You still haven't given any grounds for your tags. Evidently you doubt McNutt's statement that it's "generally recognised" that the Genesis stories (the Patriarchal narratives) can't be definitively connected to the known history of Canaan in the 2nd millennium, but you still haven't said why you believe this. What sources do you have? Until you have sources, there's nothing to do. (In the thread above you mention the Moore/Kelle book: it says the same as McNutt, Genesis 12-50 is Iron Age not Bronze Age - you'll need to read the Introduction and first chapter in toto, but your library should be able to get the book for you). PiCo (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will use this as a learning opportunity; let's go back to basics since so far we seem to be at an impasse: Which WP policy or guideline states that at Wikipedia, we only say "according to X" if X represents one side of an argument to which there's a substantial other side - "according to X, this is the case, but according to Y, something different." I believe if you give me wikilinks I can go there and study their case and perhaps see where I have erred. I am asking for this because WP:BURDEN, which I pointed out earlier, places the burden of evidence on the adding editor or, in this case, on the edit's defender, that would be you. So now that I have done what I believe is my part by wikilinking you there, what is yours, where are your links to Wikipedia policy supporting your claim herein? BTW, let me clarify something so you can get past that concern: In reference to your Evidently you doubt McNutt's statement that it's "generally recognised" that the Genesis stories (the Patriarchal narratives) can't be definitively connected to the known history of Canaan in the 2nd millennium, but you still haven't said why you believe this, let me say that what I believe is not an issue here at all: (1) If it was, I would myself be guilty of pushing POV (2) I actually believe as you do (2) it's not what you or I personally believe that matters here but that we follow WP:PG. I hope that can clarify and put to rest that subject so we dont have to waste our time "going there". Mercy11 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Attributing and specifying biased statements and Fringe theories|#Due and undue weight. (Sorry I don't have links to these - I tried, but I screwed the whole page up). The first is relevant because, by attributing the statement to McNutt, you make it seem as if her statement is biased. I know you believe it is biased, but I don't. The second is relevant because it talks about how to give due weight to two competing viewpoints - in this case, there's no competing viewpoint.
Please bear in mind that the viewpoint being attributed to McNutt is: (a) "the stories in Genesis cannot be related to the known history of that time (the 2nd millennium BCE); and (b) most biblical histories ... no longer begin with the patriarchal period. Not that she's not directly saying anything about the historicity of Abraham, just about the failure of scholars to find a plausible link between the Genesis story and the 2nd millennium, and the fact that modern biblical histories don't begin with the Patriarchs.
I'd be happy to go to Arbitration on this now. Please understand that I don't say that in a hostile way, I respect you as a well-intentioned editor who wants to do his best for the project and play by the rules. The problem is, we have a major dispute here over editing policy and the use of sources. I think it would be useful to us, and maybe others, to get some non-involved input. Would you agree that we jointly approach arbitration asking for guidance? PiCo (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Formatting problem

Anyone know why the Bibliography and External Links sections are doing what they're now doing?PiCo (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fixed now. Problem was that the recently introduced 'indent=yes' parameter of the {{refbegin}} template is incompatible with bullet markers (see Template:Refbegin#Option_3:_Hanging_indentation), and that the {{refend}} template was accidentally removed. - Lindert (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b c Alter 2008, p. x.
  2. ^ a b Blenkinsopp 2009, p. 38-39.
  3. ^ Albertz, R, "Israel in exile: the history and literature of the sixth century B.C.E." (Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) p.246
  4. ^ Alter 2008, p. xi.
  5. ^ Chavalas, 2003, P.40–41.
  6. ^ Moorey, 1991, p.150–152.
  7. ^ a b McNutt 1999, p. 41.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abraham/Archive_6&oldid=1037682010"