Talk:Abraham/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Baha'i

I see the new section about it that was added; but wonder if this is in due weight. Unfortunately I see such sections on so many religion related articles and often wonder how come such an obscure (other than on Wikipedia) group has so prominent coverage everywhere (this is even true in templates). I will not remove it in case I am wrong, another editor can determine this. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

There's something like 6 million followers of the Bahai religion on the earth. If every group of 6 million people got this kind of coverage, anything Bible-related would get very cluttered. For example, Kimbanguism has about 6 million followers, and I don't see "the Kimbanguist perspective" given prominent coverage all over Bible-related articles. I imagine for most articles like this, a reasonably short Jewish/Christian/Muslim three-way coverage would be enough. Alephb (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. There could be Hinduism or Buddhism too if they were relevant (which is not the case here). PiCo removed the section for now, thanks. — PaleoNeonate — 05:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done

Hi @PaleoNeonate:, @Alephb:, and @PiCo: -Just for a comment, 6 million Baha'is is not the only notability issue. See also Growth of religion, and note that it is distinctive in how it is present in almost every country on the planet. This is highly distinguished from Kimbanguism which is highly localized, and also Kimbanguism is simply a branch of Christianity so it is a false comparison as the notability of Kimbanguism would be in the context of Christianity and not other religions. So are there other 6 millions member religions with an large international presence that is an actual independent religion and not just a denomination? Smkolins (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You may be right. One of the examples of new religious movement I'm more familiar with is the Jehovah's Witnesses. In many articles it was generally considered inappropriate to mention them (an ~8 million notable international group); if the topic is important enough in relation to them, a short mention in a Christianity section usually suffices. Apparently the Baha'i would also have a presence in Canada, although I yet have to know any, despite my friends of various ethnic and religious backgrounds. On the other hand everyone I know have at least heard of the JWs. I have learned of the Baha'i's existence from Wikipedia, and in most cases when reading on topics that only seemed minimally related to them. I was told once that the reason may be that they do not consider themselves part of any of the world's great religions, and could be represented as a separate one. I have a lot to learn, but unfortunately the little that I so far read about them that was considered scholarly (from the WP articles) was also from faith members. One was mostly a rant against categorization of syncretism (although it seems obvious to me that it consists of yet another syncretic new religious movement, historically derived from Islam). In various demographic statistics charts, even the JWs are often mixed in "others", I also often see the same about the Baha'i. In both cases this is probably explained by the fact that they're less than 1% of a country's population... I also realize that this is probably not the best place to have a central discussion about this however, I'll stop here, but I would also be glad to know where this type of discussion would be most appropriate (preferably other than the Baha'i Wikiproject's talk, but who knows). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 08:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses are a non traditional branch of Christianity so, again, would be in context as minority view of a very large religion and JWs are well known, in my view, because of their practice of some of them going door to door. Baha'is rarely do that. Everything - everything - in wikipedia should be driven by good sources and what they have to say in proportion to the overall subject. If the sources are vetted by responsible publishing institutions why does it matter if the writer was a Baha'i or Christian? How about a Jewish editor? You mention it being derived from Islam. Cannot Christianity historically be seen to be derived from Judaism; but that surely fails to grasp the breadth and depth of Christianity and the authenticity of Jesus' experience. So returning to the point, given that the Baha'i Faith is a distinct religion, and is notable in a couple of ways but surely not size, are a few lines supported by some sources? We're talking about a few lines of text plus the cites. I've gone through the effort of cleaning up the citation syntax, better sources/urls and those points and removed the link-rot:

Bahá'u'lláh, the prophet of the Baha'i Faith, affirms the highest religious station for Abraham and generally for prophets mentioned among the other Abrahamic religions, and has claimed a lineage of descent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. Comparisons are also made between the sacrifice of sons, and journeys of Abraham and Bahá'u'lláh from east to the Holy Land.

References

Smkolins (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Christianity has roots in Judaism, but it is one of the world's great religions. Just like Islam is one of the world's great religions. Unlike the JWs (a minority yet notable denomination), and unlike the Baha'i (also a minor religion that seems even less notable). For now my impression is that it seems undue weight to add it, but that's only my view, not the consensus. I'm glad to let others comment, if they also want the material I agree to include it. For your other question about the sources written by members, it is always nice to read material written by scholars who have no conflict of interest and have the expertise to do comparative studies. Just like Wikipedia articles are ideally written by editors who lack a conflict of interest in relation to the subject they are writing about. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 03:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

If there is something notable to be said about a Baha'i view of Abraham in suitable secondary sources, a brief section might be warranted. Comparison with JWs is not really suitable as one is a religion and the other is a denomination. JW isn't even a branch of Christianity, it is one group of the Bible Student movement, which is itself a branch from Adventism, which is derived from Protestantism. As for whether JWs, or similarly small denominations, should be mentioned in an article, it depends on the context and scope of the article. If their view on a particular matter is distinctive and is discussed (note that 'mentioned in passing' does not mean 'discussed') in secondary sources, it merits a section. If their view is very similar to that of a group of related denominations, it might be suitable to mention them in a list of groups, but not to restate their view in a separate paragraph. If their view on something is identical to that of most denominations, they would not merit mention at all. The last two criteria (identical or similar to another denomination) do not apply to Baha'i as a religion, but may be analogous if the scope of an article were discussing denominations of Baha'i (if that's even a thing).--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion depends on the context and importance. Out of curiosity I have also verified if Britannica mentions the Baha'i in their Abraham Hebrew patriarch article, but they also don't. That said, their article is shorter than this one. —PaleoNeonate - 05:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming good faith is an important part of wikipedia just as is seeking concensus building. And all formal institutions keep on eye on conflicts of interest which is one reason they are trusted. In that context questioning the legitimacy of a scholar is not normal. People do not get a standing of recognizing their work because of their affiliations or beliefs, but because of the recognized content of their scholarship among the community of practice. Smkolins (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This small selection of sources may be of use:

• "Why 'Abrahamic'?". Lubar Institute for Religious Studies at U of Wisconsin. Retrieved 3 March 2012.
• Lawson, Todd (13 December 2012). Cusack, Carole M.; Hartney, Christopher (eds.). "Baha'i Religious History". Journal of Religious History. 36 (4): 463–470. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2012.01224.x. ISSN 1467-9809. Retrieved 5 September 2013.
• Collins, William P., reviewer (1 September 2004). "Review of: The Children of Abraham : Judaism, Christianity, Islam / F. E. Peters. – New ed. – Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 2004". Library Journal. 129 (14). New York: 157, 160. Archived from the original on 27 September 2013. Retrieved 13 September 2013.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Smkolins (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requesting extended confirmed protection.

There has been a disproportionate amounts of vandalism done to Patriarch related Wikipedia articles. In past 10 edits, (16:10, 13 June 2017‎ - 18:57, 6 June 2017‎, five edits have been purely IP vandalism, four have been purely reverting vandalism, and as the math will tell you, that only leave one actual edit being made to the page. With that in mind, I checked the first page of logs, 8/20 edits were vandalism, wherein in two IPs made multiple unconstructive edits, so 2/6 IPs in question were destructive multiple times. I took it another step further, I reviewed the last 100 edits made to the page, my results were as follows:

• 100 total edits, 10 Apr 2017 - 13 Jun 2017
• 23/100 edits were considered vandalism - 22 out of those 23 edits were made by IP users.
• 19 edits were purely reverting vandalism done by IPs, and on that note, the count is truly 18, because the 19th edit I have counted (which coincidentally was also the very edit made 100 edits ago) was reverting IP vandalism that was made before the 100 edit period began counting, so take that as 24 IP vandals in the 100 edit period)
• 10 edits were the result of an edit war instigated by IP editors
• In the 23/100 vandal edits, many IPs vandalized repeatedly, one IP made 2, another IP made 2, another IP made 2, another IP made 2, and another IP made 4. So 12/23(24) edits were made by the same user(s).

This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. BedrockPerson (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@BedrockPerson: Why not semi-protection? I see no pending request for protection, would you like me to file one? Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 22:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Request made here. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 06:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Result here: pending-changes protection for 6 months applied by Lectonar. —PaleoNeonate - 07:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Abrahams Age seems incorrect.

The dates of Abraham's life indicate 335yrs yet the bible states 175yrs

Genesis 25:7 These are all the years of Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.

Is there something I scripture that I am not understanding, maybe age of Abram added to Abraham? Even then the ages would be well short of 335.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.152.164 (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017‎

No, there's nothing about Abraham's life that indicates 335 years. The biblical number is 175 years. Alephb (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Sarah's relationship to Abraham

Why is Sarah depicted as being Abraham's half-sister? There is nothing in Genesis that indicates that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.7.58 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There is in Genesis 20:12: "Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father though not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife." (Here Abraham is speaking to Abimelech.) - Lindert (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018

In the introduction paragraph states that, Abraham was the father of Judaism. Wouldn't it be better said he was the father of the Hebrews/Israel. Since only stating Judaism would be inaccurate because he had 7 other sons, and the term Judaism/Jewish wouldn't have even been in use for another 600 + years. 72.69.63.213 (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: The lead does not, in fact, say Abraham is the founder of Judiasm but that "In Judaism he is the founding father of the Covenant..." This is an accurate statement. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Josephus isn't a modern scholar

Josephus is not a modern scholar, so I do not see why his view would be relevant for 21st century academic consensus. A granddaughter of Abraham married the son of Zeus, makes perfect sense! Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Abraham in Dutch Folklore

In the Netherlands, Abraham is associated with reaching the age of 50. Dutchmen who turn fifty often have a life sized doll of Abraham placed on their lawn. It is a widespread belief that if one turns fifty, one is able to see Abraham. The Dutch practice is based on a New Testament tradition, St John’s Gospel (8:57), where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”

Sources

• Seeing Abraham a biblical tradition
• Abraham zien een Bijbelse traditie (Reformed Daily)
• Dutch wikipedia on seeing Abraham Astrofix (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: First of all, please cite a reliable source. (Blogs, opinion pieces, and Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources.) You'll also want to indicate exactly where in the article you'd like the text, and you'll need to reword it so that it is encyclopedic. For instance, the phrase "our Lord Jesus" is not encyclopedic unless it's part of a direct quote. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus" Jesus himself was a Jew. Who are the other Jews in the text? Dimadick (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Fix needed in article intro

The article intro currently says:

and, while promises are made to Ishmael about founding a great nation, Isaac, Abraham's son by his half-sister Sarah, inherits God's promises to Abraham

Please remove the words "his half-sister", as the book of Genisis doesn't say this in its own voice. 89.138.147.167 (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Source is Ska 2009, pp. 26–31. You don't supersede a mainstream Bible scholar. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

See also Talk:Abraham/Archive_8#Sarah's_relationship_to_Abraham, and Genesis 20:12. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am well aware of this verse. It's not speaking in the voice of the book of Genisis - it's speaking in Abraham's voice. He had just been caught lying, and he was trying to smooth things over; in this context, he may have decided that the best solution was another lie. Jewish tradition identifies her as Abraham's niece, not his half-sister 89.138.147.167 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We have WP:RULES like WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:VER. Every editor has to abide by these. We don't render our own opinions, we render the opinions of WP:SOURCES. That's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

... so we'd need at least some biblical scholar comparable to Ska saying, "Wait a minute. The Bible isn't actually implying a half-sister here." before we'd start looking into changing the claim in the text that Genesis portrays Sarah as Abraham's half-sister. Now, when it comes to all the various interesting and often delightful things that Jewish tradition has done with the biblical text, sometimes those might have a place in special sections of articles dedicated to those kinds of things, like the "Judaism" section. But we can't read Jewish tradition back into the description of the biblical text itself as if Rashi were a reliable source on what the Bible says. And there also needs to be a sense of proportion. This article, for example, focuses on Abraham the biblical figure and just gives a couple of paragraphs each to what the big three Abrahamic religions have done with him. For the mention even to be appropriate to the Judaism section, we'd need some indication that Sarah being Abraham's niece is an important enough interpretation to merit inclusion. If we were to put every piece of traditional exegesis into the article, we might as well copy-paste the 126 pages of Rabbi Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews that deal with Abraham right into the article. The article does contain a one-paragraph bit that hits some of the high points of rabbinic tradition on Abraham. Is the "niece" interpretation significant enough to make it into that paragraph? I have my doubts. Alephb (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Resting place coordinates

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2019

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

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

The first sentence is wrong and contradicted by Wikipedia

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

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

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

Historicity of Abraham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists"

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

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

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

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

It is not a possibility. It is a clear consensus that the Book of Genesis is a mythological resource and does not contain any useful historical information. Why would we hide this? :

• "Genesis is perhaps best seen as an example of a creation myth, a type of literature telling of the first appearance of humans, the stories of ancestors and heroes, and the origins of culture, cities and so forth. The most notable examples are found in the work of Greek historians of the 6th century BC: their intention was to connect notable families of their own day to a distant and heroic past, and in doing so they did not distinguish between myth, legend, and facts. Professor Jean-Louis Ska of the Pontifical Biblical Institute calls the basic rule of the antiquarian historian the "law of conservation": everything old is valuable, nothing is eliminated. Ska also points out the purpose behind such antiquarian histories: antiquity is needed to prove the worth of Israel's traditions to the nations (the neighbours of the Jews in early Persian Palestine), and to reconcile and unite the various factions within Israel itself." Dimadick (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ian.thomson is a Christian. Just not of the fundie sort. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Considering that he claims my argument "look, we cited two dozen Christian authors" is somehow an attack on Christianity, I think it's safe to conclude the IP is just a troll (or at least morally and intellectually indistinguishable from one). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

The Problem with this Infobox

the Articles Moses, Ishmael, David, Adam , Eve and Terah (the Father of Abraham) uses Infobox person, Saint or Monarchy, so why this article use the Infobox character ? (Catechism Database) 6:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Because he is a fictional character, mentioned in a mythology book like the Book of Genesis? Dimadick (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

so Why the Son of Abraham Ishmael and his father Terah are with the Infobox Person if Abraham is a character? (Catechism Database) 5:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatechismDatabase (talk • contribs)

"...the substance and souls which they had acquired..."

Under the heading "Biblical account: origins and calling", the last sentence of the second paragraph states "Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran with his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and the substance and souls that they had acquired, and traveled to Shechem in Canaan." (emphasis added) What are these "substance and souls" that they supposedly acquired?! Bricology (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

It comes for the King James Version of Genesis 12:5. Substance = possessions/wealth; souls = people/servants/slaves. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Abraham of the bible is not IBRAHIM of the KORAN

Abraham of the bible has different grandparents to ibrahim of the koran, Abrahams father is TERAH, and in the koran it is AZAR, ABRAHAM is the first JEW who had a covenant with GOD and the isrealistes, He had a covenant is one of circumcision of the flesh, This is not a Islamic covenant and should be noted as such no where in the koran is circumcision mentioned

It is misleading to place the lies of this islam into factual context on wikepedia..

Abraham was a jewish prophet and not islamic, the koran states that Mohammed is the first Muslim therefore this contradicts itself.,

WHY is islam claiming JEWISH prophets, when all prophets are JEWS and not Islamic ,the GOD of Islam is not YAHWEH and they deny JESUS Who is the word incarnated (GOD) all the names of the bible are taken by islam but new identities have been fabricated for them. this is done so Islam can deny Father and son and this should now be made evident to all people. The geneolgies of islamic prophets are not historical and non existent, even the virgin mary is of a fabricated father called irman, i think its tim ethe world makes a stand and stops these lies from being broadcasted and leading people astray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsedit66 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say "JEWS" and "JEWISH" multiple times, then go on to talk about Jesus and say it's wrong to deny Jesus? Leave us out of this. According to Judaism, Jesus is the most harmful of all the false prophets. Muslims have as much a claim to Abraham as you do, which is either none or as much as everyone else in the world, depending on your perspective. You have no special right or claim to my people's traditions. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 10:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

"It is misleading to place the lies of this islam" And why are the lies of Judaism any better? He is a mythical figure, not a real person. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"they deny JESUS" So does most of the world. There have been multiple messiah claimants, and he is not all that notable. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Albright school

The general view is that the Albright school has been defeated in its purpose to prove that the Bible has historicity by means of archaeology. So, Zhomron, since the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer the only game in town, things are not going better of the historicity of the patriarchs. If anything, they are going worse. Contemporary scholars see DH not as too radical, but as not daring enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Zhomron, I cut your addition to the article because the prose is terrible and the sourcing bad. Here's what you wrote:
However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative. The Documentary hypothesis which enjoyed widespread acceptance in the field up until the late 20th century, postulates an origin of the patriarchal narrative within the Jahwist and Elohist sources which originated in the 10th and 9th century BCE respectively.{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=4}{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}} However, with the collapse of the theory's consensus, the widely proliferated revised hypothesis asserts the Elohist source was likely no more of an independent source from the Jahwist so much as it is largely a southernly supplement to its narratives, which when taken into account puts the core of the Torah, including the saga of Abraham, within the range of the 9th/10 century BCE, the following books being part of a progressive development which was codified, at earliest, with the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The earliest firsthand mention of Abraham is within the Book of Micah, an 8th century BCE composition. As a result, while the historicity of his actions are still outside the bounds of reality, Abraham and his lore were still nonetheless present within Israelite society centuries before written accounts of his aegis were codified.
First the sourcing: only two sources used, and no indication of who they are - did you copy these templates from somewhere else? Anyway, when you use sfn format, you need to have the book details in the Bibliography section. And two sources aren't enough. As for the ENglish, take the first sentence: "However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative." A "school of midway biblical thinking"? "Parsing out a factual basis"? These are meaningless. This is why sources are needed. By all means try again, but use sources, and write meaningful English. Achar Sva (talk) 07:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Chronology

Immediately following the text:

     "The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the 
     exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history."

please insert the following: Although there is little in the Genesis account of Abraham that connects directly to known history, the internal chronology of the Bible places his existence around the year 2000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.156.178 (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses (and Abraham) discussion

Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Reverts by User:Achar Sva

User:Achar Sva, you are adding unsourced sentences to this article such as "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam." I have replaced such opinionated and inaccurate statements with sources published by academic presses authored by Old Testament scholars such as Christopher J. H. Wright and academics such as Guy P. Walters. You will need to gain consensus for adding such nonsense to this article rather than edit war. Also, since you have reverted twice, you will soon cross 3RR if you continue to edit war. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, I have restored your sentence I initially removed from the article. You will also need to learn how to compromise here rather than supplant unsourced content with reliably sourced information. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, I added nothing whatsoever, I reverted to the existing article text. The edits you wish to make involve deleting existing sourced material and replacing it with unreliable sources: Christopher J. H. Wright, for example, is "currently the International Ministries Director of Langham Partnership International", which appears to be some kind of missionary society; he is not a scholar, although I see he claims to be one. I assume you are a committed Christian, and that can make it difficult for you to distinguish scholarly from apologetic sources, but you need to take a step back and learn from editors who may have been on Wikipedia much longer than you. Achar Sva (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Achar Sva, you write that I "need to take a step back and learn from editors who may have been on Wikipedia much longer than you" but you have only been editing since 2019 and I have been editing since 2006, having accrued around 36 barnstars for my work here. Additionally, this section is about the Christian perspective on Abraham so obviously Christian theologians will be cited when discussing the Christian view of this biblical patriarch. You removed a large quantity of information discussing views of the Church Fathers on Abraham, including Augustine and Ambrose as well, all cited to a text authored by David Lyle Jeffrey and published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. The statement that Abraham is viewed as the spiritual progenitor of Christians is a noncontroversial one and is buttressed by the references I have added to the article. On the other hand, for you to add a unsourced sentence saying that "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam" is opinionated and violates WP:NPOV. If you believe otherwise, I would be happy to start an RfC here so we can see which sentence more accurately characterizes Christian views on Abraham. I can find a plethora of other references that describe him this way while none will agree with the false claim that you restored in the article—that Abraham is somehow unimportant in Christianity. For example, Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, authored by Marvin R. Wilson and published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company in 1989 describes the prophet as "Abraham, man of the covenant and spiritual father of both Jews and Christians." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, you need to learn not to personalise differences of opinion with other editors. The basic problem with your edits is that you use second-rate apologetic sources instead of mainstream biblical scholars - in fact you deleted information sourced to suth scholars and replaced it with your own faith-based sources. I can understand your pride in having been an editor since 2006, but I have, in fact, been here longer, and I do know a few things. I agree, though, that given your attitude (multiple reverts instead of going to Talk on the first) an RfC sems the best way to go now. Achar Sva (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, true believers' apologetics is generally speaking not WP:RS for mainstream Bible scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, to show some collegiality I'll let you start the process. I hope you can see the basic problem: you're a faith-based believer, but you need to step back and allow the article to be based on impartial scholarship.Achar Sva (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

User:Achar Sva, is there anything that I have added that you dispute in particular? The claim that Christians view Abraham as their spiritual father is not controversial and a standard belief in Christianity. I am quite surprised that we are even having this discussion. If you wish to replace the sources found with other ones that support the same claim, I can first try to work with you before starting the RfC. Let me know. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 23:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam: You need to distinguish between a Christian belief and a major Christian belief. WP:UNDUE comes to my mind. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam:, here is an outline of why your edits haven't been accepted:
1, sources:

• The existing article has Jon D. Levenson's "Inheriting Abraham" identifying Abraham as the "prototype" of all believers, you deleted that word and inserted the phrase "spiritual progenitor", sourced to David Lyle Jeffrey's "Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature". Levenson is head of the School of Divinity at Harvard, Jeffrey is from Baylor University, which is a conservative confessional university in Texas. I'd like to hear from you why you think Jeffrey outranks Levenson and Baylor outranks Harvard. (Jeffrey is RS, but inferior as a source).
• Into the same sentence you inserted this: "In the NT Abraham is recognized as the father of Israel and of the Levitical priesthood (Heb. 7), as the "legal" forebear of Jesus (i.e. ancestor of Joseph according to Matt. 1), and spiritual progenitor of all Christians (Rom. 4; Gal. 3:16, 29; cf. also the Visio Pauli". This is sourced from Christopher J. H. Wright, who is apparently the " International Ministries Director of Langham Partnership International" - in other words he holds no academic position. He seems to be involved in Christian outreach; he has published quite a few books, but the majority are pastoral or evangelical, and the few that appear scholarly are not referenced by those who have a reputation in the discipline. In other words, he's not RS.

2, content:

• I've already mentioned the way you changed Levenson's "prototype" of believers to "spiritual progenitor". This shows the danger of relying on second-rate sources, but to understand why it's inferior you also need to understand what's being said by Paul, who is the scriptural source here: Paul was arguing that through Christ all humankind, Jew or gentile, became inheritors of the promise made to Abraham; this is what Levenson means by calling Abraham the "prototype" of believers; I think Jeffrey is trying to say the same thing (he's not an idiot, after all), but he expresses it badly. Stick to Levenson.
• This phrase about Abraham being the "legal" forebear of Jesus by being an ancestor of Joseph according to Matt. 1 is simply incorrect, by the way - Matthew's genealogy is establishing Jesus's Jewishness, not his legal fatherhood. Again this underlines the importance of using top sources.
• Far too much about Catholic liturgy - there's an article on that elsewhere.
• You deleted this: "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam. It is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is central to Christianity, and the idea of a divine Messiah is what separates Christianity from the other two religions." That's sourced from Francis Peters's "The Children of Abraham", published in 2010 by Princeton University Press. Peters seems very balanced and useful to me, and I don't see why you want to delete him.
  

3, behaviour:
Your first edit was brave - it was, in fact, huge. You were then reverted, not surprisingly since this article has been stable for a long time and we need to keep the content at a high level. On being reverted you should have gone to Talk, and as a long-standing editor you were surely aware of that. Instead you steered this towards an edit war. I could go on, but there's just too much. To be brief, you seem to me to be a committed Christian who is far more familiar with devotional literature than with scholarly sources, and you allow your prejudice (in the best possible sense) to lead you into using poor sources and writing at inordinate length. And no let's proceed to the RfC. Achar Sva (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

In looking at the edit history, there has only been one editor who has not accepted the new edits. And at this point to go to RFC is not warranted. Especially since this talk page discussion is going on. From what I see, the edits were fruitful and I do not see much of an issue since this is an encyclopedia which incorporates diverse views on the topic. I do not see why only one side needs to be featured when both could be featured, though perhaps trim a little on the Catholic adds. After all, Abraham is seen in a diverse way within Christianity. He can be seen as both a spiritual progenitor and a prototype of sorts. Also, reliable sources are diverse, it is not a battle between scholars from one university vs another one. Ramos1990 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Ramos1990, but Anupam suggested an RfC and I agreed. Achar Sva (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Ramos1990, thank you for your comments. I agree that only editor's lack of acceptance of the edits may not warrant an RfC and appreciate that you have called my edits fruitful. As I mentioned before, what I have added is a noncontroversial fact in Christianity that User:Achar Sva may not realize if he/she is not familiar with the religion. Even seven-year-old Christian children would recognize the belief of Abraham being the spiritual father of Christians as a major belief (the song Father Abraham is sung in Sunday Schools throughout the globe to teach this). User:Achar Sva, I was correct to delete the statement "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam. It is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is central to Christianity..." We do not write in the very first sentence of the Islam section that "Abraham does not loom so large in Islam as he does in Judaism. It is Muhammad as the final prophet who is central to Islam...". Such an opinionated comparison is WP:UNDUE and therefore unwarranted in this article. My revision, rather than comparing Christian belief with others and trying to diminish the role of Abraham in Christianity, accurately presents the Christian view of Abraham. Additionally, Christopher J.H. Wright has a Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge and was a professor at Union Biblical Seminary in India, where he taught the Old Testament; his book certainly meets WP:RS; to argue that one's Christian beliefs prevent one from discussing this topic objectively ranks among the top absurd statements on Wikipedia I've seen to date. On the contrary, his familiarity with Christian doctrine as a priest in the Church of England would help him to spell out the Christian view of Abraham in plain English. I hope this helps. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 13:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, please look up the definition of the word "prototype" in the dictionary; Merriam-Webster states that it means "an original model on which something is patterned". That is very different from the word "progenitor" or "father". What word does Romans 4:16-17 use? Does it use "prototype" or "father"? It states "For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”)—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist" (NRSV; emphasis added). You will see that Levenson's description is therefore wanting, with Jeffrey's being accurate. I am willing to compromise and so if you let my additions stand, you can trim the part on Catholic liturgy (which, I did not add by the way). How does that sound? Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 13:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I do not mean to divert from the topic of the conversation, but it seems like you claimed to have been on Wikipedia earlier than 2006, whereas your first edit seems to have been performed in 2019. Could you explain that a bit? --GorgeousJ (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

User:GorgeousJ, I noticed that you just created your userpage and your comment above is your second edit. Might I ask how you found this discussion? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:27, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I follow user:Ramos edits from time to time with my ip address, so when I saw him comment here, I just found the curiosity. So I decided to open an account and write under it, rather than display my IP --GorgeousJ (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question User:GorgeousJ. I appreciate it. Anupam^Talk 17:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Just a minor comment, I do think that the claim that is causing some discord: "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam. It is Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who is central to Christianity, and the idea of a divine Messiah is what separates Christianity from the other two religions." seems a bit redundant (probably not needed in the article) since Jesus in Christianity is the most emphasized person above everyone in the Bible. In Islam Muhmmad is the most emphasized person, and in Judaism, Moses is probably the most notable one. I don't see how Abraham would be "ranked" or how useful such a statement would be considering that Jesus, Muhammad, and Moses showed very significant reverence to him. Compared to Muhammad and Moses, Abraham would be less "important" too. Same would apply to others like Adam and Eve or Noah. But that would also be redundant too.Ramos1990 (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with what you have just stated User:Ramos1990 and this is the reason I removed that unhelpful and useless statement from the article. I think we have consensus here with respect to leaving that out for the article and appreciate your thoughtful comments here. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if I'm the only one seeing signs of massive meat-puppetry here... :)Achar Sva (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: lol. I have no intention of getting involved in the discussion. I am not taking a side. I just asked how you can be a member from before 2006 if your earliest edit is on Nov 2019. GorgeousJ (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeousJ: He had another account, he lost its password, so he began another account. In fact, it is not hard to figure which the older account was. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Hi. I will assume you know the person. Thanks for responding. Do you know what the previous account was at all? Thx GorgeousJ (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorgeousJ: I don't know if he wants me to say it, but he openly admitted that he wrote some articles. So, it is fairly easy to say who he is. Oh, yes, it's no secret at all, he told Doug Weller about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks --GorgeousJ (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Dates of Abraham's birth and death

I know the article claims that there are no certain dates, but the Moses article lists dates, from Ussher and Jerome; and The Jewish Virtual Library site has a date for Moses too. It also has dates for Abraham. Do Usser and Jerome? (Under the Chronology post here, someone said Abraham existed around 2000 BC, but that's vague, and doesn't quote the source. I didn't quickly find the complete Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible online for free.) If someone has sources, it would be nice to list somebody's guesses or calculations. Here's the one I found, looking quickly: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/abraham Misty MH (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Founder of Judaism, the first Abrahamic religion"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

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

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

Historicity of Abraham Section

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

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

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

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

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

"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists" Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data." In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Bilto74811::

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to WP:DEM we reject ad populum. We kowtow to WP:CHOPSY. This is an encyclopedia of mainstream scholarship and mainstream science, not of uneducated popular opinion. So, the gulf that separates Wikipedia from The real world out there is part-taking in mainstream higher education. People who have enjoyed higher education have other concerns than the people who have not seen the light of science. There is nothing anti-Christian in that: many believing Christians have seen the light of science. It is not a contradiction. I myself believe in God.

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

In respect to the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy you want to push the POV that fundamentalism is right and modernism is wrong. And that WP:CHOPSY are wrong. It does not work that way. In fact, the vast majority of Christians aren't fundamentalist.

And you got that wrong: the vast majority of mainstream Bible scholars are either Christian believers or Jewish (Judaism) believers. But they are certainly not fundamentalist, if you have a problem with that, you don't belong here. The Fundamentalist Wiki is called Conservapedia, not Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not cater to fundamentalists and this is a fact publicly known for more than 15 years.

We're honest about it: we side with CHOPSY, not with marginal cults. We side with highbrow religious scholarship, not with lowbrow apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

POV PUSH of Judaism

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

It's a literary figure and the various religions based on Arbraham's contract with YHWH have made modifications to the Arbrahimic narrative. You'll have to adjust the article to represent the various viewpoints from that religions' metaphorical tradition which means mutliple entries in particular locations instead of edit warring over those locaations. Alatari (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)