Talk:Abraham/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

first para of lead - anyone like to comment?

I've re-written the first para of the lead so that everything is sourced. To do that I had to remove a few items - I don't disagree with them, but they weren't supported by the source I was using. If you want to put them back in, please find a source that can be used (look in the bibliography to start).

Comments? Changes?

PiCo (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks good to me PiCo. I am removing the tags on the article as it does not seem there is a dispute any more and those "whom?" etc questions have been answered.Smeat75 (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've talked to Mercy11 (talk) and he seems ok with us continuing to edit - he says he'll come back and jump in if he sees a problem. I want to keep him in the loop, but I don't want everything to stop while we wait for him. PiCo (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Whole lead

I've extended the lead (last para) to take in modern ideas on when/why the Abraham story was written (that's para 3). Para 2 is more about the meaning of the story in terms of covenant. Para 1 touches on the meaning of Abraham in modern Judaism/Christianity/Islam. Any comments on how accurately it reflects sources, questions of balance (anything left out, over-stressed), etc? Please check against existing refs. PiCo (talk) 11:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Given that Abraham became a popular name in the English-speaking world, e.g. Abraham Lincoln, why is the English pronunciation not given?77Mike77 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentences are misleading about historicity

The first sentence describes Abraham as if he were known to be a real historical figure, which is contradicted by later statements in the article. The events described in the next few sentences are also incorrectly presented as factual. 86.176.209.238 (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the lead to an earlier version, not so much because of this comment (though it did motivate me) as because various edits have successively moved the contents of the lead away from the sources it cites. Please try to make sure that any edits are accurately sourced. PiCo (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately I don't think that this edit has addressed the main problem of the opening sentences. Now it says "Abraham, first patriarch of the Jews, plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; his story is told in chapters 11:26-25:18 of the book of Genesis." Still it is worded as if he actually existed. 86.160.219.163 (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I've edited it to read "Abraham is a key figure in the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. First patriarch of the Jews, he is first mentioned in chapters 11:26-25:18 of the book of Genesis." I hope that's better. I changed the "story is told" as there is also Islamic material not in Genesis. I think it needs tweaking to get rid of "first" twice in one sentence. Dougweller (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, except that "first mentioned in chapters 11:26-25:18 of the book of Genesis" isn't accurate - he's first mentioned in Ezekiel, about a hundred years before Genesis. I'd take out the word "first", maybe have something like "his story is most completely and most famously told in..." Personally the word I don't find the word "story" to imply true story - Bilbo Baggins the hobbit is a story, after all. PiCo (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I meant when I said I'd changed "story is told" - and I agree about what story suggests - at least to me stories are often fiction. I don't know that it is told more completely in Genesis than in Islamic sources, but if you do I guess that can be used, but not 'famously'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole entry reads as though the bible were a reliable book of history, which is not the case.--21:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is possibly rather tangential, but I've removed Andrews as a source for that first sentence. His article is in the Mercer Bible Dictionary, and when I read it, he represents a very Protestant/Chrtistian voice. He says Abraham is "an example of faith" in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and this just isn't true - he's an example of faith in Christianity only,in Judaism and Islam he serves quite different roles, as explained further on in our article. I'll look for something better. PiCo (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• (OP) Thanks, I think the present opening wording is an improvement. 86.171.43.151 (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Good. I've also tried to solve the "first mentioned in" problem (or at least I find it a problem) by noting the Genesis chapters in brackets. PiCo (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Earliest camels dated to 930 BCE

The recent excavations in the Timna Valley dating copper mining to the 10th century BCE also discovered what may be the earliest camel bones found in Israel or even outside the Arabian peninsula, dating to around 930 BCE. This is seen as evidence that the stories of Abraham, Joseph, Jacob and Esau were written after this time.<ref name=camels>{{cite news|last=Hasson|first=Nir|title=Hump stump solved: Camels arrived in region much later than biblical reference|url=http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/.premium-1.569091|accessdate=30 January 2014|newspaper=Haaretz|date=Jan. 17, 2014}}</ref> Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Abraham's incestuous marriage with Sarah

I hesitate to make a new section but I can't see a place to put this. Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm a Catholic, but none of my Catholic friends have realized that Abraham was married to his half sister Sarah. This business all seems played down, presumably in light of cases such as Fritzl in Austria.Fletcherbrian (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The article already mentions that Sarah was Abraham's sister in two places (section Abram and Sarai, near the end, and section Abraham and Abimelech second paragraph. I don't really see the need for a seperate section on this, though you could mention it briefly in the lead of the article, or where Abram's marriage to Sarah is first mentioned. - Lindert (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Fletcherbrian (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Christians and your line by line study and no knowledge of history. Sarah Was Abraham's niece - his half-brother's Haran' daughter, not his father's Terach's daughter. The quote you are referring to was Abraham trying to justify his lie because grandchildren are considered as children according to Rashi. You can't actually read Torah lines in isolation and expect to understand it. With love, a Jew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:31D6:1900:D527:B5A8:1B8D:5560 (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Genesis 20 verse 12 Abraham says Sarah was the daughter of his father, and not of his mother. I don't know where the argument is based that Sarah was Abraham's niece. Geneis 12 and 13, especially 13, records the family in detail, and it does not confirm the parentage of Sarai, but it does mention Lot and Sarai together in several places, and it never adds that Sarah was Lot's sister. Does anyone want to give a source on that? Also I want to mention another point regarding incest for this article but I'm not sure where it would go; Isaac married his second cousin, the daughter of Isaac's cousin Bethuel. See Gen. 24, verses 15 and 24. The article merely says that Isaac married one of his own people, and I think that's insufficient. Catsheepsut (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Abraham in religious traditions

This section needs some work. I don't know much about Islam, so I'm focusing on Judaism and Christianity. In the first place,

"Christianity and Islam in their beginnings challenged this special relationship, both Paul and Muhammad claiming Abraham for themselves as a "believer before the fact." In both cases the fact was the Mosaic law or its symbol, circumcision. For Paul, Abraham's faith in God made him the prototype of all believers, circumcised and uncircumcised;..."

Circumcision is not a symbol of the Mosaic Law, it is a rite that symbolizes one belongs to God - ergo, the ancient Jewish teaching that if one is not circumised in heart as in flesh, one is not a real Jew but only a Jew in appearance. Jewish Tradition has evolved beyond this, but, the ancient Jewish understanding of what circumcision symbolizes still stands.

Christianity did not challenge Jews' sonship with God, else it would challenge Jesus' Divine Sonship and His Messiahship as a Jew. Secondly, Abraham was always regarded as the Patriarch of the Jews' Covenant with God - he is, in fact, called so in the New Testament by Jesus and by Paul.

And Catholicism honors Abraham for his obedience to God and his faith in God: not as highly as Jesus since Abraham is not God, but, in accordance with dulia and hyperdulia, he is called - alone with the Virgin Mary - a model of faith and obedience, else Catholicism would disregard a piece of Sacred History: Abraham, his family and sons, Israel's lineage, etc.

Lastly, to claim "Christianity" considers Abraham one way or another is a fallacy: hasty generalization. Not all Jews think alike and not all Christians think alike.

Oct13 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding edit wars over sections 2.1 and 3.1

@Jerm729 and @Kwishahave reverted my edits to sections 2.1 and 3.1, apparently without reading them, certainly without adequate explanation (the edit summaries are among the least informative I've ever read).

These are the passages in question.

Section 2.1: I deleted this sentence: Archaeologist and scholar William G. Dever argues that the biblical story of Abraham reflects a real figure from that period of history. This is unsourced, and I don't recall ever reading it in anything of Dever's. This should be obvious from the way it contradicts the immediately preceding sentence, in which Dever himself is quoted saying that archaeologists have "given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible 'historical figures'." The sentence I deleted should remain deleted unless a source can be provided.

Section 3.1: This is a single paragraph consisting of a number of sentences, all sourced to pages 170-171 of Peters' 1970 book "The Children of Abraham". The cite is at the end of the paragraph. For some reason our two editors want to have citations for every sentence, individually. That's ridiculous, but I suspect they haven't looked at Peters' book.

Given that the editors are acting in good faith, and my edit summaries haven't convinced them of their error, the next step is to begin the arbitration process. I propose that we ask @Dougweller, a respected admin who's been active on this article, to give us his informal views. Beyond that, of course, we have the entire arbitration process before us, all the way to Arbcom. But first, do you, @Jerm729 and @Kwishahave, agree to asking Doug to comment? PiCo (talk) 17:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Page 170 of that source can not be previewed. -- ♣Jerm♣729 18:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A somewhat dubious and totally irrelevant assertion; there is no requirement for a source to be readily available online, and assuming "that source" refers to Peters, pages 170–71 can be seen at Amazon.com 2600:1006:B11B:827:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, do provide a link since it's readable because the one provided in the article can't view pg.170, and yes it's important for a source to be readable genius. -- ♣Jerm♣729 20:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't even care anymore...do whateverJerm729 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming in late, sources don't have to be online. Is there still a dispute? Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

chronology

Ever heard about the notion of chronology ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.178.191.156 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of the notion of relevance? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Paula McNutt

I've reverted an attempt to discredit this academic - by listing her current title and a comment on her current college clearly meant to imply that she isn't a specialist in the subject. When she was appointed this was posted[1] which says:

"McNutt taught in Canisius College’s religious studies department for 15 years, served as the department chairwoman and spent the past 6½ years as Canisius dean of arts and sciences. She also served as assistant director of the Tell Nimrin archaeological project in Jordan, as well as on other archaeological excavation sites in Syria and Israel.

Her books include “Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel” (Westminster John Knox Press, 1999); and “The Forging of Israel: Iron Technology, Symbolism, and Tradition in Ancient Society,” (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1990); and her work as editor, with David M. Gunn, of “‘Imagining’ Biblical Worlds: Studies in Spatial, Social, and Historical Constructs in Honor of James W. Flanagan” (Sheffield Academic Press, 2002). McNutt holds a doctorate in Hebrew Bible studies, with a minor in anthropology from Vanderbilt University, a master’s from the University of Montana and a bachelor’s from the University of Colorado. Among her academic awards and honors, McNutt won a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship for College Teachers in 1994-1995, received an NEH summer stipend in 1991, and is a multiple-year winner of the Canisius Faculty Fellowship Award."

Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

An unqualified opinion from Paula McNutt was in this article over a year ago. The opinion (currently in the article) states that the stories in Genesis "cannot be related to the known history of that time". First of all, the narratives in Genesis constitute history for the Jewish people. It may not be an entirely scrupulous factual history in the tradition of Herodotus or modern historians, but qualifies as history nonetheless. If we do not accept the Biblical narratives as history, then we also cannot accept ancient Sumerian, Egyptian, or Greek historical writing as "history". If we disqualify all these sources, it means there is no "known history of that time", making McNutt's opinion nonsenical. So either we accept that we are comparing flawed histories, in which case we can relate Genesis to other histories, or else we dismiss all the aforementioned Jewish, Egyptian, Greek, and Sumerian histories as unreliable sources. In either situation, McNutt's opinion is pointless here in this article.

Secondly, this opinion is incorrect on a factual level as there are many, many histories - some less factual than others - which do correlate narratives from the Bible to other known history, such as those of the Sumerians and Egyptians. For example, the deluge story of Genesis has been correlated to a Sumerian flood that happened c2950 BC. In another example, historians have attempted to correlate the events of the Exodus to the reigns of various ancient pharoahs, most commonly Ramesses II. While these are far from universally-accepted historical correlations, the fact that such links have been proposed demonstrates that the Bible has been related to historical narratives outside Jewish history, meaning that McNutt's statement is factually inaccurate.

Furthermore, the version of the text present in this article a year ago directly quotes more than three words from McNutt's source without any quotation marks around it, in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's standards for citation listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

The second half of McNutt's opinion states that "most biblical histories no longer begin with the patriarchal period." If McNutt had written such a thing on Wikipedia, we would say "citation needed". Biblical historical work by A. M. Rothmueller, R. E. Friedman, and even the contrarian Israel Finkelstein do, in fact, begin with discussions of material in Genesis. Various scholars treat the Genesis material in different ways (Rothmueller accepts it as fact, Friedman questions the reason of its origin, Finkelstein dismisses it as unsupported by archaeology), but the majority of these works do start by talking about the patriarchs. As such, the second half of McNutt's sentence (again, which failed to be presented in quotation marks) is a factual error that has no place in this article on Wikipedia.

A year ago, I attempted to correct the plagiarism and factual inaccuracy while removing an irrelevant opinion from the article. I attempted to paraphrase McNutt (rather than directly quote) in a way that respected and reflected McNutt's opinion (however inaccurate) while mitigating the obvious inaccuracy. Where McNutt says "cannot be related", I paraphrased "it is difficult to relate" and removed the inaccurate latter half of the sentence. Again, relations have been made and still are being made, but the historicity and factuality of those relations is in question. My paraphrase more accurately represents the ambiguity of historical argument, enabling all sides of the debate to be respected until more solid facts come to light. McNutt's statement reflects one scholarly opinion in a much larger debate, and in its original form is unsuitable for use on Wikipedia.

I am going to re-instate my original edit and paraphrase, but would appreciate a third editor taking a look at this situation and either support my attempts to balance the article or propose his/her own method of balance.

Zeppelin42 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that the current version of the article has eliminated McNutt's inaccurate statement, making my re-instatement of the balanced paraphrase unnecessary. I still question the placement of McNutt's opinion in the header. It properly belongs in Section 2.1 (Historicity), though a paraphrase in the header might make sense. The quotations by Thompson and Van Seters are far more reliable than McNutt's observation, especially as McNutt's opinion is based on Thompson and Van Seters (and others), so if it is necessary to leave a quote in the header, it should be from Thompson or Van Seters, not McNutt.

Zeppelin42 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I second Zeppelin42.

I've noticed Dougweller reinstated that Yet Abraham is rewarded with camels that actually wouldn't live in the area until centuries later; whereas from the camel article we understand that, camels were being domesticated during that period. --» nafSadh did say 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I think McNutt's two quoted remarks in the lead could be boiled down somewhat, while still being a quote. I see no need for the reference to camels in the Historicity section - it's just one of many pointers to the late date of composition of Genesis, and putting it in makes it seem that the entire dating question hinges on this. I added in the lead a summary of what the Historicity section says about the date and the circumstances of composition.PiCo (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham around 2000 BCE. Despite this, "there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively related to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millennium B.C.E.".[3] As a result, "it is now widely agreed that the so-called 'patriarchal/ancestral period' is a later literary construct, not a period in the actual history of the ancient world" (Professor Paula McNutt)"

I know I am a latecomer in this discussion, but would someone fill me in on why these general remarks about Pentateuch historical criticism are stuck into the opening paragraphs of a biographical article on Abraham? This is not an article on the ancestral period at all, so this remark is awkwardly stuck in. This is an article on the figure or character of Abraham. Whether or not some scholars believe the Book of Genesis to be myth or narrative is immaterial. I suggest that these remarks by Professor McNutt should be moved to an article which deals with the history of the patriarchal period of the Book of Genesis, or to a subsection in Abraham's article that deals with modern historians and the narrative of Genesis. Uriah is Boss (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a biographical article, it's an article about a literary character, the Bible being a work of literature and not a collection of biographies. As such, it has to discuss the origins and meaning of the story. PiCo (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for last para of lead

The lead currently has 3 paragraphs, the first dealing with purely technical/descriptive matters that shouldn't be the cause of dissent, and the second a summary of Abraham's story which should be equally acceptable. The third seems contentious, and probably always will be, as it deals with the nature of the Abraham story - is it history. I'd like to expand what's there to take in not just McNutt's summary of current scholarly views on this, but a little about the date and purpose of composition. Drawing on what's already in the article, this is what I propose:

The Bible's internal chronology places Abraham around 2000 BCE, but "it is now generally recognized that there is nothing specific in the Genesis stories that can be definitively related to known history in or around Canaan in the early second millennium B.C.E." and "it is now widely agreed that the so-called 'patriarchal/ancestral period' is a later literary construct, not a period in the actual history of the ancient world" (Professor Paula McNutt). The majority of scholars believe that Abraham and and the patriarchs became part of the written tradition of the Pentateuch in the Persian period, roughly 520–320 BCE, as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah and claimed Abraham as the "father" through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning Babylonian exiles who based their claim to dominance in Jerusalem on Moses and the Exodus tradition.

I'd like the comments of editors on this proposal. PiCo (talk) 04:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It might be wise to be cautious, as a number of recently-discovered "libraries" of Mesopotamian tablets have still to be placed in a historic context - for example, the relevance of Mittani has changed a lot in recent years, since those comments were made.

I appreciate that the source text of these reigious memes was cribbed directly from the Catholic Encyclopaedia, which causes questionable POV, but in this instance can we at least have some modern English? Begat? Forsooth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.252.140.165 (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

"Sacrifice" subsection under Islam section

This subsection is undue weight. The sacrifice (or whatever you like to call it) of Isaac/Ishmmael is one small episode in the Abraham story, no more important than most of the rest and less important than some. It's also an addition to the article, not part of the original article. I'd like to see how it's inclusion is justified. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

A request to wikipedia moderators

There are many topics on wikipedia which are shown on wikipedia as they belong to christianity only. Like if i search for Abraham, the search results show Abraham titled page with Christian Philosophy. The views of other religions are put in under topic titles such as Abraham in Islam, Abraham in Judaism or whatsoever. This was just an example. Here on wikipedia are many articles like this. I want all of them to be merged into one wikipedia page. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faisalwani (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Aramaean

Should it be mentioned that Passover prayer services in Reform Judaism idiotically claim that Abraham was an Aramaean? "My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation" (Deuteronomy 26:5). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.88.177.153 (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Isaiah 63 assertion

The article states, "Isaiah 63:16 similarly testifies of tension between the people of Judah and the returning post-Exilic Jews (the "gôlâ"), stating that God is the father of Israel and that Israel's history begins with the Exodus and not with Abraham." Unfortunately, that's not what that passage says. There's no reference to the Exodus. The reference to Abraham not knowing them is much more naturally understood to express the desertion the Israelites felt while in exile. I suggest that this assertion be dropped from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revtshin (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Abraham's Descendants by Keturah

The "Family Tree" section of this article is a great visual, but it's missing Abraham's descendants through Keturah, another wife he presumably took in his old age. See the "Later Years" heading directly above. This is probably worth including in the family tree, since one of the sons, Midian, plays an important role in the future of Israel (Zipporah, the wife of Moses, was a Midianite). See Exodus 2:15–22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEF8:B6E0:4994:13F1:6238:EB97 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Undoubtedly Biased

I think the intro to this article is undoubtedly secular, and partial only to those who doubt the history of the Bible. Because of this, I find the article biased and undiplomatic. If you want to make a good article, don't come out by saying that so many peoples beliefs are wrong. You don't have to say that it is a fact that Abraham was real (just that that is what the Bible says), but wait for a different section in the article if you are going to discuss scholarly views that the patriarchal period never happened. And by the way, I doubt that most scholars believe the patriarchal period did not happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge spouse (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge spouse, Can you please provide scholarly sources to back this up? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I have altered the section re "Abraham in Islam" whilst it is fine to write all about the relationship between the two, to say that Islam focuses more on Abraham than Judaism and/or Christianity is highly subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.90 (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree the original quote is biased. However as a result I have simply removed the controversial phrases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.15.95 (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2015 (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

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Birth and death place

It is unknown if Abraham ever existed, so how could one know his birth and death place? Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if you wanted to treat the Bible as a book of purely fiction, where he is born and where he died is made clear in the book itself. I don't think there is much that is controversial here, if we are to treat this as a religious article. Lipsquid (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the Jewish Encyclopedia and it gives the same places as now. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't lie to you ;) Glad we are all good! Lipsquid (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Abram

Why do mentions of his given name Abram keep getting deleted? 2.135.254.197 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Good question. The article needs to be fixed so that his name is properly represented at different stages of his life, Abram and Abraham. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Because everyone knows his name as Abraham and it says in the very first sentence: " originally Abram". If you like put a sentence or two in the "Abram's origins section" to note how and when his name changed. If you change all the Abraham's in the article to Abram's, you will just get reverted again because everyone knows his name as Abraham. WP:PSEUDONYM Lipsquid (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

"Abram" is not a pseudonym or a nickname, it was his actual original name before being changed. See the pages for Metta World Peace, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Muhammad Ali; all mentions of the person prior to his name change use the original name to keep the chronology of the name change clear. I've listed this on Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. Rowsdower45 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion request: The 3O request made in reference to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined). Requests for 3O's like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia require thorough recent talk page discussion. Two of the comments in this section are not recent and there has only been one comment by each of the two recent editors. Wikipedia is built on a model of collaboration and discussion must show some effort to actually work through the disagreement not merely disagree. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC) (3O volunteer)

I reverted myself and incorrectly believed Rowsdower45 had changed all of the instances of the name. I apologize and have restored your edit. Sorry for the confusion on my part. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 05:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Text deletion

Large amounts of text were deleted in various edits yesterday. Some of it was good, but I do not feel that the rewritten lede is an improvement. This article is about Abraham from all Abrahamic religions and the focus on Christianity in the lede does not serve that purpose. Lipsquid (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both those points, but it's complicated. Take this sentence:

• "His story is a center piece of all Abrahamic religions and Abraham plays a prominent role as an example of faith in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam."

That's well sourced and looks authoritative, but it contradicts what's written in our section "Abraham in religious traditions." There we read that in Christianity Abraham is an example of faith (Christianity says that all people, Jew and non-Jew, are the inheritors of Abraham and the Covenant through Abraham's faith in God); but in Judaism Abraham is the literal father of a single people, the Jews, who are the only inheritors of the Covenant (all others, the goyim, are outside that family - hence Paul's insistence that faith, not descent, was what mattered); and in Islam the Covenant simply doesn't matter, and Abraham is important because he was the first to worship the One God and submit to his will ("islam" means literally "submission", from the word-root SLM, from which is formed salam, meaning peace - one seeks peace by submission).

The source for that sentence in the lead is sourced from Stephen Andrews in the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Normally I'd say that's a reliable source, but Mercer is an evangelical Christian college/printing house, with a very Christian focus, and in this case I think the other sources are right and Andrews is simply wrong. I'd like to cut it back to Andrews' definition of Abraham (it seems succinct and accurate), and use the other sources to explain what Abraham means to Judaism and Islam.PiCo (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So you are arguing that he is not example of the faith in Judaism and in Islam as the first person to worship the One God and the construct of abrahamic religions is a false belief? Surely you jest as that is incredibly well sourced and free of any POV issues. Lipsquid (talk) 04:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I also should have mentioned that I don't have any issue with your edits in the Christianity section. I thought they were good. My concern was only the changes to the lede. Best! Lipsquid (talk) 05:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And yes, that is indeed what Andrews (the source) says. But the sources we use for the section "Abraham in religious traditions." There it's as I outline above - Jews don't see Abraham as a man of faith but as a literal, biological ancestor; and Muslims see him not as a a of faith but as a prophet of monotheism. It's only Christians who put faith at the centre, and that's because, in the 1st century, they had a problem: they had, somehow, to argue that God's Chosen weren't the Jews (Abraham's descendants in the flesh), but the goyim, whom the Hebrew bible goes to great lengths to exclude. They did it (actually, Paul did it) by arguing that faith was what counted, not descent. Andrews is a fundamentalist Christian scholar (that's not to denigrate him, just stating a fact) and I believe he simply hasn't thought about the subject from any other than a Christian perspective. Anyway, we have a conflict between sources, and we have to decide what to do about it.PiCo (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Jews absolutely see Abraham as the first man of faith after a pagan period and so do Muslims. I think your view may be too narrow. Lipsquid (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Pico, et al., it seems that what's being described here is a supercessionist view, which wasn't really present in the apostolic period, but began to be argued shortly thereafter, in the sub-apostolic period. It doesn't really appear in texts that eventually made their way into the Bible, but there are traces of its genesis in sub-apostolic documents like the Didache. That is, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the ascendancy of Gentiles in the church.

A small addendum to what you said: Paul actually argued the traditional doctrine, several times, that Jews were the chosen people, but that the church had been "grafted on" to the Branch of David. Equal in dignity, but unequal in status. Since the Gentiles were not obligated to follow the Mosaic covenant (which he called a "heavy burden"), and only the Noahide (as presented in Acts), he discouraged adopting Judaism, but still maintained Jews had a special status. And for them, their faith would guide them, not the "Law". Just to clarify.

Supercessionism is probably the prevailing theological view among Christians (e.g., Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Calvinists, Methodists, and others), but its certainly not the only one in modern Christian movements (especially Revival movements). And while academics acknowledge its historical importance and early acceptance, scholars of Early Christianity and Biblical Criticism rightfully discount it as a slightly later development. We can quite easily find sources that will present views from both of the latter camps for balance. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

What's at issue is just the last half of the topic-sentence: "...Abraham plays a prominent role as an example of faith in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." I have no problem with the first half of that sentence, and no problem with defining Abraham's importance to Judaism and Islam as well as to Christianity. My problem is that I don't believe this half-sentence is correct, despite being from a reliable source. Being from a reliable source (Andrews) means it can't just be dismissed, but we have to consider that there is a contradiction betgween this and other sources.

We have a section lower down called "Abraham in religious traditions." Four sources are used there - Peters, Levenson, Firestone, and an inadequately referenced person called Lings. (I can't access him on google books, but it seems he was an English Muslim scholar and writer). According to Peters, Abraham is important to Judaism as the founder of the Covenant and of the unique position of the Jews as God's people - nothing about faith. Still with Peters, he says Christianity sees Abraham as important because of his faith in God, thus extending the Covenant from the Jews to all humankind - Andrews says this is true for all three traditions, Peters does not. Still with Peters, he says Islam sees Abraham as one who "submitted" (the meaning of the Arabic word "muslim" is "one who submits"), thus, like Christianity, undercutting Judaism's claim of a exclusive relationship between the Jews and God, though for a different reason (submission, not faith).

Levenson, who is Jewish, says something similar regarding Abraham and the Jews - his importance rests on his status as "father Abraham", a biological father, not a spiritual one, the first Jew and progenitor of all Jews. Firestone says that the quality that constitutes Abraham's merit is his obedience (he's talking about the Sacrifice of Isaac), not his faith. Levenson (again), summarises the three in this way: Judaism holds that one becomes a descendant of Abraham through birth, and Christianity that one becomes a descendant through faith, but Islam holds that descent is unimportant – Abraham, is not the father of the believing community, but a link in the chain of prophets that begins with Adam and culminates in Mohammad.

So Andrews has three people contradicting him. It's always difficult in these situations, but to me the things these three say seem nuanced and convincing, while I think Andrews simply hasn't thought beyond his Christian heritage. But I must say I'm enjoying this discussion. PiCo (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful responses. You make an interesting and solid argument against the use of "as an example of faith" in the lede. I don't want to stray too far into WP:SYNTH but I am going to make a step that way and look for areas of agreement and possibly compromise as this is only a talk page :) . I think we agree that Jews consider him the patriarch of all Jews, as in their singular ancestor, and that Muslims consider him the first person to submit to God. Isn't submission to God and faith in God fairly interchangeable? Christians are encouraged to submit to God throughout the Bible and Christians often pray on their knees as a sign of submission. To submit to the will of an unseen God and to have faith in an unseen God seem to be two sides of the same coin. Two of the most important passages in Matthew speak of Jesus' submission to God's will and they are also acts of faith.

The biological angle seems overly narrow to me too - why laud one biological father over another? I'll agree the relationship is considered profoundly personal - cultural ties, family, "us", but biology perse doesn't seem to catch the meaning. All this speaking in a sense, not a fact, of biology (father to converts? - again it is about the importance of this father figure, not his literal relationship alone that makes him important - ie, a spiritual importance.) --Smkolins (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Matthew 26:39

And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."

Matthew 26:42

He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, "My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done."

Faith requires submission and submission requires faith. I tend to look at things through a Christian lens, but I also accept that this is an encyclopedia so we must have many views supported by sources and in this case we need to be completely free of religious favoritism. I don't find the word "faith" problematic for all Abrahamic religions, but again I have my own lens. I would be open to changing the wording as long as it remained succinct and was inclusive of all religions. How would you edit to say Abraham is the creator and patriarch of Judaism, an example of faith for Christians and the first person to submit to the will of God for Muslims. It seems, to me, the most succinct version is the most acceptable as the more that we write, the more messy it seems to get, not to mention confusing for the average reader. I think nearly all sources agree that he is the first person to place their faith in a singular God for all three religions and the argument beyond that fact is one of semantics, (though certainly an excellent argument to have as all the best discussions on Wikipedia are pleasant and open reviews of semantics). Also it may be a good idea to ask for additional views, specifically from editors of Jewish and Muslim backgrounds. Thank you again for the thoughtful discussion, I look forward to you answers and I would very much encourage feedback from additional editors. Lipsquid (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-historical

The ancient Hebrews did not have our concept of history, which is a post-Enlightenment one (it was forged by the Enlightenment). So it is anachronistic to speak of pseudo-history in ancient sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Judaic vs. Biblical

The bulk of the current article discusses the text of the Torah/Bible relating to Abraham, which is accepted by both Judaism and Christianity. Abraham's role in "religious traditions" beyond that is treated briefly toward the end, with no particular emphasis on Judaism. Hence, as a description of the article's actual scope, "Biblical" is a more accurate term. Another alternative would be "Judeo-Christian". Eperoton (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "biblical" is far better. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] @Lipsquid: Let's count the ways in which you're acting disruptively:

1. You've violated the terms of WP:ROLLBACK by using it for edit warring, reverting an edit unrelated to the disputed point in the process.
2. You're edit warring against mutliple editors, with a misguided reference to WP:BRD, which is not a policy or a guideline. As it happens, of the involved editors, you're the farthest from following BRD here. If you read it carefully, it's about discussing instead of reverting when your edit is reverted. It's not about edit warring with multiple editors to keep a stable version.
3. The relevant policy which you're violating is WP:CONS, in particular WP:TALKDONTREVERT. So: talk.

Eperoton (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that "biblical" is better, and it is also more unambiguous. There are plenty of people called "Abraham" who are associated with Judaism, such as rabbis, but only one Abraham in the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

It should be Hebrew Bible or Tanakh, at the time the book was written there was no Christianity or any object known as "Biblical". You guys make up WP:OR to turn everything into Christianity. Christianity is a derivative religion of Judaism and Abraham according to all sources was the first Jew. User:StAnselm The leader of our Evangelical apologist club here already reverted it back so what is there to talk about? Lipsquid (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As any dictionary will confirm ([2], [3]), the word "Bible" is used in both Judaic and Christian contexts. Eperoton (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As any encyclopedia can confirm, they mean two different things depending upon whether the context is Christian or Judaic. We even note the difference on Wikipedia. Hebrew Bible & Bible so no, they aren't interchangeable, not even close.Lipsquid (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

How is that difference relevant here? Abraham is a biblical figure in either context. Eperoton (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The adjective related to Hebrew Bible is biblical. "Hebrew biblical" is not a recognised phrase. So, for example, lots of Jewish writers write books with the word "biblical" in the title. E.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative. StAnselm (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

N-P Lemche feels that the Torah was written in Samaria in the early Persian period, which I guess makes Abraham a Good Samaritan. PiCo (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Image movement and faithfulness of the names for the Judaic god in the Hebrew Bible

I've proposed to move images and put in the words for God as the original texts say. Any problems with this?49.144.167.188 (talk) 09:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—66.87.131.82 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't said what coordinate error you're reporting. The only coordinates I see in the article are those of the Cave of the Patriarchs, which appear to be correct (leaving aside the question of whether Abraham was really buried there, or whether he actually existed). If you still think that there is a problem, you'll need to give a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Title change

Should the title for this page (and other pages relating to Torah/Bible/Quran) be changed to Abraham in Judeo-Christianity? I feel like it sends the wrong message have the Judeo-Christian versions of these figures being the default, and the Islamic versions being the odd one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeroBobGamer (talk • contribs) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

HeroBobGamer I agree, though I don't think the problem is the title, it is that Islam is treated like a second class citizen in the article prose and especially in the lead. Lipsquid (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

But we have a separate article on Abraham in Islam, while we don't have Abraham in Judaism or Abraham in Christianity. StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to start Abraham in Christianity and Abraham in Judaism and put all the specific content there. This article is for the Abraham the father of all the Anrahamic religions and it is going to have equal weight for each of the three. Lipsquid (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's not at the moment, and if you want it to be you should start an RfC or something, because that would take the article in a radically different direction. As the hatnote says, "This article is about the biblical Abraham. For Islam, see Abraham in Islam." StAnselm (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Reality check: Jews and Christians use the same Bible. The Quran is written well over a thousand years later, and the Abrahamic material it contains is derived from the Bible. We conflate material from O Brother Where Art Thou? (A great movie.) with material in the Odyssey. Nor do we have an article about Homer's Odysseus. We have Odysseus, then we have articles about derivative interpretations of the original character, Ulysses (poem), Ulysses (novel), etc. Abraham is an article about the original Abraham upon whom all others are based; just as Odysseus is an article about the original Odysseus upon whom all others are based. Period.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox vs. Article

This article states the following in the lead: "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.[3]" It's a cited statement. So according to the article itself, Abraham can't be located on a historical timeline within "actual history." In terms of the biblical timeline, the Exodus occurs in 1440ish, or earlier. The 430 years in Egypt pushes you back to 1870ish or earlier when Jacob enters Egypt at age 130. The birth of Jacob, then, is about 2000; the birth of Isaac 2060. So Abraham has to be born prior to 2000 BCE in the Bible's account of things.

The infobox for Abraham gives the uncited claim that Abraham was born about 1800 and died about 1600. This claim is uncited, and runs against both the Bible's internal chronology and the scholarly determination that Abraham can't be placed in real time. I plan to remove the dates from the infobox. Alephb (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The vandalism to the infobox today made me look at it and I was just coming here to post something similar. So yes I agree that having an infobox presenting "facts" for a mythological character (may be based on somebody who really existed but we will probably never know) is very problematic. I would support removing the infobox. Jytdog (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the infobox should stay, but support the removal of the dates. StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The place where he died, the burial place, the children... this is all mythology and not history. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I just checked Template talk:Infobox religious biography and there is no discussion of this kind of issue there. Hm. i have not checked other mythological religious characters and wonder how this is generally handled. May be a discussion to be held more centrally with regard to the bigger issues. But we can take out the dates for now. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

No infobox for Sarah, Hagar, Esau, or Rebecca There is a Template:infobox person for Jacob and a Template:Infobox Saint for Isaac and shockingly there is an Template:infobox person for Adam and Eve but no infobox for Cain and Abel. There is an Template:Infobox Saint for Seth. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This has come up from time to time. I personally like infoboxes, and think the best way around the neutrality problem is to have an "Infobox biblical character". StAnselm (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Alephb (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• i removed the dates, and added "(legendary)" after the places, in these diffs. Don't know how else to handle that these are not facts. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be an NPOV violation. Maybe we remove the places, too, then. Of course, the wives and children are in the same category - so there would be nothing less. Perhaps under "personal" we could say "According to biblical narratives only". StAnselm (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know much about template syntax: perhaps we could modify Template:Infobox religious biography to have a "biblical narrative only" field, and if we set it to "yes", then it puts a qualifier in the infobox. StAnselm (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if Wikipedia is going to treat Abraham as a legendary figure, I wonder if "legendary figure" directly under Abraham's name would work better. Otherwise, a reading might get the impression that some of the details are legendary, but the family tree is history. Maybe. Or, if the decision is that neutrality forbids saying things that contradict religious beliefs, we could go with Anselm's option. In other news, there's a parallel conversation going on over at Talk:Isaac about whether we should include unsourced dates in the infobox. Alephb (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not an NPOV violation. Do not throw bullshit into the discussion. This is about how to deal with verifiable content that states events from narratives vs verifiable content that states facts about the world. They are two different kinds of content drawn from different kinds of sources, and we can't treat it all the same way. I like the notion of an infobox that does the "legendary" or "per the story" or whatever so we don't have to. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• i have just removed the infobox for now. we should figure out a global solution.... Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Abraham does not have to be labled legendary just because there is not information on when he lived or may have lived.

I do not think there is any way to verify that he was definitely legendary-- but even if there was, how would we choose which Biblical figures are definitely legendary and others are more "possibly legendary". tahc ^chat 00:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we'd make that distinction by looking for reliable sources on each character or time period. We don't have to reason it out ourselves as editors. I think this would be fairly easy to do for Abraham, as I think we could find plenty of reliable sources that label a 180-year-old man as legendary. Though it could always get hairier with a Shamgar or a David. I don't know the templating, but is there a way to produce a custom disclaimer near the top of the infobox? We could deal with it pretty easily then, with something like, "Here's what the Bible says about him. Historians think [whatever]."Alephb (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC) PS: Make that 175-year-old. The parallel discussion at Isaac momentarily disoriented me. Alephb (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• somebody who works on articles about Hinduism proposed a new "religious character" infobox at Template_talk:Infobox_religious_biography#Character and that is what we need. Happy that it would be used across multiple religions if we can get it done. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox epic character already exists and is in use for characters from the Hindu epics, so a new one is not needed there. in the same way "Infobox Biblical character" might sound neutral enough if limited to Bible scope, or it could be "biblical figure". I think it would upset some of the delicate balance on Wikipedia if we tried to put figures from unrelated religions into one box marked "character" as in fictional character. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Would it still upset the "delicate balance" if we just edited out the word character from appearing. I don't imagine many people would complain if we used a template called "epic character" as long as the term "character" didn't appear in the infobox as it displays to readers. Would that work? Alephb (talk) 01:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to use the "epic character" template. If later there are objections there could be a biblical template, but there is no point increasing the number of templates if not needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice!! I didn't know that existed: Template:Infobox epic character. Will try it now. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, here. What do you think? Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I think the epic infobox is a bit too out of place here. Have you tried Template:Infobox religious biography? 47.20.180.129 (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No need to ping me, as I am watching this talk page. Nobody thinks that is appropriate for a legendary character like this. If you read the discussion above that is exactly the problem. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

went back and counted. One. One fucking person said it was a bad idea. No one else offered any opinion whatsoever. Consensus implies multiple people having a say. Not one dude. Epic character makes no sense. Use religious biography. The Bible and Quran don't even fit the definition of a literary epic. 47.20.180.129 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

They actually do. That is how scholars treat the legends in Genesis. There is no extrabiblical evidence that Adam, Eve, Abraham etc ever existed. They may have; they are legendary. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the "epic" box, Jytdog supports it, StarryGrandma supports it. Other than the IP editor, I'm not sure opposes it. I object to the IP editor's misrepresentation of what has happened in this conversation so far. Alephb (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• have removed the infobox as there is no agreement about how to use one in this article. We may need to hold an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If we simply didn't have the angry, disruptive IP hopper who is distorting the content of the talk page, I don't think we'd have much of a problem here. Alephb (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: the thing about infoboxes is that you can use any box you like, as long as the end result is what you want. Now, I don't think we can call Abraham an "epic character", but that doesn't mean we can't use the box. However, "Torah, Bible, Quran character" isn't quite right, since the Torah is part of the Bible. The other option would be "Book of Genesis" character, but that sounds too much like a fictional character. StAnselm (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It appears that WP only uses "epic" in regards to epic poetry (which Genesis clearly isn't). StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Infoboxes are for simple facts only. Do not add nonfactual content to an infobox. The "bible" is a christian construct and treating the Torah like it is "just" part of the bible is not OK. It looks like we will need a multi-pronged RfC to deal with all the Christian/literalist POV pushing. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

No, "Bible" is used to refer to the Tanakh as well. StAnselm (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Putrid but a different issue than your demanding that we treat legend as fact. I am sure there will be more fresh hell from you to deal with elsewhere. RfC anon. Jytdog (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Plenty of Jews use the term "Bible" to describe the Hebrew Bible. I've met plenty of them. Anselm's right on that point. Here's some Jews using "Tanakh," "Bible" and "Holy Scriptures" as synonyms, at the appropriately Jewish "Jewish Publication Society" [4] which produces the most recognized Jewish Bible translation into English in print. I imagine their publishing house will be shocked to know that they're pushing a literalist Christian POV. Alephb (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment If Adam, Eve, Noah, Seth, Methuselah, Isaiah, and Daniel..... are any indication the Wikipedia consensus seems to be that we either use {{Infobox person}} or {{Infobox saint}}. This article stupidly uses BOTH. What gives? Just use Saint and get over it. IMO, that would satisfy everyone.

Dates should be given in Anno Mundi and use dates that can easily be found in Chronology of the Bible with a good source attached! —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Janweh64 the issue here is that saints and religious figures are often people that we have historical information about; the infoboxes convey facts. Abraham is legendary; the dates are entirely constructed from people doing all kind of calculations and the places are based only on tradition; we have no extrabiblical evidence for either. Jytdog (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying there is historical data on Noah.

Then use infobox person like they do in Adam and Eve, which AFAIK are not historical. Calling him "character" is clearly not NPOV. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Historicity

The historicity of the biblical texts from Adam and Eve down through the conquest and even David and Solomon are not widely accepted by ANE scholars; there is very little extrabiblical evidence for any of that. See for example:

• Lipschits, Oded (2014). "The History of Israel in the Biblical Period". In Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (eds.). The Jewish Study Bible (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199978465.

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Taking this to Talk Page, as requested by User:Jytdog. The edit of mine Jytdog was responding to, which he undid, was to specifically attribute this statement to its cited source, Paula Mcnutt. His comment in support of reversion was, :"This is a very widespread view among ANE scholars. Does not need to be attributed." I would like to make a few points.

1. The historicity of the Bible is clearly a contentious topic that many people have strong opinions on. If nothing else, the specification "by ancient near-east scholars" is worth including.

2. Supposing for argument's sake that you are correct, what is wrong with the edition I made, which was simply to state explicitly the source for the statement that the article makes? Surely my edition is both factually correct and precise. Presumably, you dislike it because it opens the door to wonder whether there is room to disagree with Paula Mcnutt. But, in the absence of sources aside from her book, what is wrong with leaving that door open? The statement "it is widely agreed" is both vague and sweeping. If it ultimately rests upon a single person's word, that person should be named.

3. The idea that a thing that is questioned "does not need to be attributed" seems antithetical to the spirit of Wikipedia. I can understand the frustration of someone to whom something is so well-known as to be unquestionable at being asked to find attributions for it, but doesn't the policy of "no original research" basically insist on this? Not everyone has your domain knowledge, and if something isn't well-known and might be questioned by readers, it deserves attribution.

If it's true that there is a consensus among ANE scholars that the patriarchal age does not relate to any period in actual history, it should be possible to find other sources that state this. Contrarily, if such sources are not given, I believe it's unfair to delete attribution to the one given source on the grounds that "she's not the only source—everyone knows this".

4. In my previous edit summary, I gave a link to an article written by at least one academic source, Kenneth A. Kitchen, who disputes the supposed consensus opinion given. Here is that link again: http://cojs.org/the_patriarchal_age-_myth_or_history/

Respectfully, JudahH (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

WIkipedia is not a place for belief to be asserted. We follow the relevant scholars and in this case it is ANE scholars. Same kind of thing with creationism - we follow scholarship, not confessional belief. There are bazillions of scholarly sources that make it clear that we have no extrabiblical evidence for the patriarchs. It is not one person. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another. “The current consensus is that there is little or no historical memory of pre-Israelite events or circumstances in Genesis.” Craig A. Evans; Joel N. Lohr; David L. Petersen (20 March 2012). The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. BRILL. p. 64. ISBN 90-04-22653-2. Alephb (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

JudahH, the reason we don't say "According to X" in articles is because it sounds as if this is an idea that X alone is putting forward. In this case, McNutt is putting forward the predominant view. We would say "According to McNutt" if there were a widely held alternative view ("according to McNutt.... according to someone else"), but in this case there isn't such a view. If you really want to mention McNutt's name you can do it by giving a direct quote and identifying the source in brackets, as: "Roses are red, violets are blue" (McNutt, year,), with a source-tag (those sfn things in squiggly brackets) to direct the the book in the bibliography.PiCo (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

A few more thoughts: I assume the phrase "it is widely agreed" is from McNutt? If it is, that's fine, she's a reliable source and we don't need more. If, you can find another reliable source saying "it is not widely agreed" or something similar, then we have to point that out in the article. Finally, on Kitchen: his point of view is definitely a small minority one, as he would no doubt admit. In our article bibliography there's a book by Moore and Kelle which is an excellent summary of current thinking on these matters, and very fair-minded. See what they have to say about Kitchen's arguments.PiCo (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Well the historicity section of the article is rather thin. Essentially the meat of it is: "His thesis centered on the lack of compelling evidence that the patriarchs lived in the 2nd millennium BCE, and noted how certain biblical texts reflected first millennium conditions and concerns. Van Seters examined the patriarchal stories and argued that their names, social milieu, and messages strongly suggested that they were Iron Age creations."

There are no potential evidence here to be evaluated, no particular contrast between Bronze Age and Iron Age conditions in the area, or pointing out the anachronisms in the Book of Genesis. We are supposed to summarize sources, not just mention the names of the authors.

Although William F. Albright is mentioned, his erroneous thinking and absurd conclusions are not pointed out. From his article: "He insisted, for example, that "as a whole, the picture in Genesis is historical, and there is no reason to doubt the general accuracy of the biographical details" (i.e., of figures such as Abraham). Similarly he claimed that archaeology had proved the essential historicity of the Book of Exodus, and the conquest of Canaan as described in the Book of Joshua and the Book of Judges." Basically less of an archaeologist, and more of a real-life Don Quixote. Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Death of Abraham

A new section was just added claiming as fact beliefs apparently borrowed from pseudepigraphic works such as Testament of Abraham and Apocalypse of Abraham. We could certainly have a section on the subject, but it would need to be reworked, possibly even moved to another section about pseudepigraphic books... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 07:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

—░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please say which option you prefer for the Infobox on this article. Jytdog (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• option 3 makes it clear that Abraham is a character in three major religious texts; does not present content as factual that is legendary (as is discussed in the body of the article). This is btw the "epic character" infobox which is the most appropriate infobox for a figure like Abraham where we have no extrabiblical information to nail down facts about them -- we should also use it for similar figures in the abrahamic traditions (adam, eve, cain, abel, etc etc). and if there is no consensus, then option 4. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• option 3 as most compliant with core content policy (specifically, WP:V). Makes it clear that this is a major figure in three world religions and does not attempt to introduce unverifiable and possibly-disputed personal history details. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3. While information about "influenced religions" would be relevant, I see how it could be hard to include in an infobox about a legendary character. --NoGhost (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• option 2: Option 3 is the worst choice of the three and bad in pointless ways. (1) The Torah is a subset of the Bible. "Torah, Bible, and Quran" is like saying "Granny Smith, Apple, and Pear. It implies that the Torah is not part of the Bible (or that a Granny Smith is not an apple). It should say (a) "figure of the Bible and Quran" or (b) "figure of the Talmud, Bible, and Quran" or (c) nothing. (2) Abraham never joined any particlular Abrahamic religion (at least in that he never join any under the current names for them) and thus did not choose to join all Abrahamic religions. While many would know what is meant, the term is "affiliation" missleading and unnessary. tahc ^chat 21:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• No vote Unless the options state exactly which infoboxes are being utilized, any one can create an infobox. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 PiCo (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, which has the most details, and also mentions which religions he influenced in a general way. But which infobox is this using? That must be specified. I propose to restart this Rfc with more details, not just screenshots. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 seems like the best of the three choices to me. The dates in Option 1 are a problem, and Option 3 saying that he's "affiliated" with entities that wouldn't exist until centuries later seems like a very awkward and confusing way of stating the connection between Abraham and Christianity and Islam. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 is better than the other two because it doesn't insert unsourced claims about birth and death dates, and about where Abraham is buried. That doesn't mean it's perfect. In particular, "Torah, Bible, Quran" strikes me as an odd list. I'd suggest "Bible, Quran," because the word "Torah" in this sense generally refers to a subsection of the Hebrew Bible. Whichever of the three is chosen, there's likely some tweaking that could be done. In particular, I could see the cave of Machpela reference being added to "Option 3" (since it's more of a literary-looking box and wouldn't seem to necessarily endorse historicity of the cave burial). Alephb (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 is the best of these, but still imperfect. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1- the proximate dates there better follow the WP:BIO and MOS:BIO, and matching the precedent of close comparisons Moses and Ishmael for format and for handling of legendary figures, and portraying the period involved. There is some vafriation on that for other ancient figures, as comparing Atys and Home to Sargon or Pharoh Namer -- as well as variations of handling that each has multiple names. I do like the link to Torah, Bible, and Quran of option 3 (but into chronological order) as well, somewhat less needed than dates for a summary though as it seems kind of obvious. Markbassett (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 best of 3 evils. L3X1 (distant write) 13:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option #2 is the best option. Given the beauty of the painting by Rembrandt, you don’t want anything to detract from this feature. Option #2 is better for aesthetic reasons as it is uncluttered and more pleasing to the eye. Option #1 is a bit cluttered looking due to the addition of the dates. In addition, the dates are better introduced in the body of the article where you can provide further elaboration.An added bonus is the article will be easier to maintain. People will not look at the bare date given below the picture and work themselves into fighting mood even before they read the article. This could potentially reduce edit warring. Dean Esmay (talk)
• No infobox. Summoned by bot. Given the lack of verifiable information available I think we can dispense with an infobox. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC) Note: see my further comment below in the "discussion" section. Coretheapple (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 As it has the most information, we are an encyclopedia after all, re: comment above regarding date ranges, and religious affiliations. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 3 - Mentioning the word character would be a good practice. Disclaimer: The template epic charater was designed by me. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 Since we can't have Option 1 BedrockPerson (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2, if option 1 violates policy.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1, the reason being that religious figures should be 'respected' as real persons according to the faith surrounding them. With greater details, it looks more professional for the page.--50.232.205.246 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia changed its reliability policies to accomodate "respecting" religious figures as real persons (and it won't), the dates (in this case) would still be a problem. There's no reliable source placing Abraham's birth at 1800 BCE or his death at 1600 BCE. Depending on which religious tradition one follows, you'll get different dates. For example, when I use the 4000-year (4164 to 164 BC) chronology that many scholars favor as being the Bible's implicit chronology, I get about 2200 BCE as Abraham's birth date.Alephb (talk) 03:45, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Option 2 for the reasons stated by Egsan Bacon. Dbrote (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
• None Specialized infobox should only mention Abraham (also 'Abram') is the claimed father of all the Abrahamic religions There is no obvious need for anything more. Of the choices, 3 is closest, but "aliases" is a teeny bit absurd. Really. There are zero accurate birth and death records for him, as far as I can tell, and such information in the body of an article need not be in an infobox. Collect (talk) 17:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This is RfC is not clear. The end result is not the only problem. Wiki code is also relevant. Readers are not the only audience, editors also can see a POV if one template is chosen over another. A picture of the end result is not enough to base a decision.

This a bandage when surgery is required, as it does not solve the problem of two infoboxes in one article. —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I get what you are saying about the 2nd infobox way down below, but that is not the dispute that drove this. It is the main infobox at the top. We can deal with the 2nd one later. There is no problem with the "code". Any one of them are standard infoboxes. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree about all of what you said. Short of using Infobox person, I cannot see how the choice in infobox is not POV.

Please click around List of major biblical figures especially Seth, Jacob, Rachel, and Moses. What you are trying to do is a very localized solution when what is needed is a major overhaul to make all these articles consistent. Infobox saint is used in over a dozen articles about biblical-only figures, and that is only the once I found. BCE dates are contained in many many articles with no historical data. This is untenable.

This change can only be defended with WP:OWN. Because, it is completely logical for someone to come from David or Moses or Abimelech (Judges) for whom there is also almost no historical evidence, and add dates.  —አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One can start big and aim to address all of them, or start small. This is starting small and is fine. Please just !vote or move on. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I thought the whole problem was that we couldn't list the birth place if it was ahistorical. But with the "epic character"/"biblical character" infobox that problem is removed - so there doesn't seem to be any reason why birth place and death place can't be included. (Dates might be a separate issue.) StAnselm (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The epic infobox doesn't have parameters for places nor for dates, and rightly so, since for epic-type people we cannot determine places and dates as facts Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Option 3 is worst choice:

• (1) The Torah is a subset of the Bible. "Torah, Bible, and Quran" is like saying "Granny Smith, Apple, and Pear. It implies that the Torah is not part of the Bible (or that a Granny Smith is not an apple). It should say either (a) "figure of the Bible and Quran" or (b) "figure of the Bible, Talmud, and Quran" or (c) nothing. (NB-- the Talmud is not part of Bible, and is "a central text of Rabbinic Judaism" but it has very very few stories on Abraham that are not already part of the Torah. I have ever heard only one, and this article, for example, has none of them. "Bible, Talmud..." or "Talmud, Bible..." may seem more fair to Judaism that just "Bible..." but (IMHO) it is not really needed.)
• (2) Abraham never joined any particlular Abrahamic religion. (His faith used none of the current names for them and none of the current formats for them) and thus did not choose to join all Abrahamic religions. While many may know what is meant, the term "affiliation" is missleading and unnessary. A more sensible affiliation would be "Bronze Age Canaan", etc. tahc ^chat 21:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree that option 3 is not useful. All of them treat Abraham as a real person, when he wasn't - if the heading is "Biblical Character" that works for Abraham, but not for, say Nebuchadnezzar, who was. I don't know how to overcome that.PiCo (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:PiCo for somebody who is a historical figure of course option 3 this wouldn't be used for them. Why you would you even think about doing that? Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

You'll have trouble deciding who is and who is not historical. Better to have a format that's inclusive. How about "biblical figure"?PiCo (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I also had proposed "figure of the Bible..." instead of "character..." because it works for both historical and legendary figures. (And between "figure of the Bible..." and "Biblical figure" I also like "Biblical figure" better.) It often unclear what the current oppinon is on who is consider "considered historical, but posiblly legendary", who is "considered legendary, but posiblly historical", and so forth. Even if did have a consistent test-- and we don't-- the views can often change over time. tahc ^chat 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, "biblical figure" would be best. We often use it in disambiguation - e.g. Ruth (biblical figure). StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• It is just unscholarly and horrible to offer dates and places for birth and death for somebody legendary, where we have no good evidence for those claims. Abraham's infobox should not look like somebody in the historical era. Argh. Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 As it has the most information, we are an encyclopedia after all, re: comment above regarding date ranges, and religious affiliations. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• My problem with all of these options is that indeed he is a legendary figure but is treated in all the infoboxes as if he was a real historical figure. I !voted "no infobox" on that basis. If there is an infobox on legendary figures from history by all means use it, however. Certainly the current one now in the article is absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

[[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple] - well, what seems related Ishamael uses Infobox saint, and Moses uses Infobox person. Wider looking at antiquities Hercules or Gilgamesh and Sargon there's use of Infobox deity and Infobox monarch ... Mostly I'm just thinking for put in the era involved, even if it's broad like 'ca. 2nd millenium BC'. Which base infobox is used seems more meh as long as it can convey the information. Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox epic character was created for the very purpose this discussion is about. There is widespread use of biographical templates used on wikipedia for mythical / legendary characters. In my opinion, they should be replaced with either Template:Infobox character, Template:Infobox mythical creature or Template:Infobox epic character. Since, epic character infobox is a new creation, It would be easy to modify it to suit the needs of specific pages. I would be happy to assist in any infobox editing (if required). -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:55, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion at the Moses article (this thread), where I also suggested the possibility to replace dates with links to more information in the article (example), which may also be an option if an infobox with birth/death dates is ultimately used... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• !votes like this are exactly why options 3 or 4 are most appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.