Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 15:53, 30 January 2023

This is an archive of past discussions about Abraham. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Revision of the chronology of Abraham needed

My username is ThaThinker, and I have been a significant contributor to the article The Exodus; especially the archaeological sections. Most archaeologists do not place the date of Hammurabi's reign at 2000 BCE, as it is stated here in the article. The encyclopedias Americana and Britannica both placed his reign from 1792-1750 recently. Some archaeologists support even lower chronologies. The matter is somewhat similar to the Early Exodus/Late Exodus controversy, and in part, depends on how that is ultimately resolved. I was pleased to see that the archaeological parallels with Gen. 14:1 had been mentioned, but it also should be mentioned that while Abraham is more often placed in the time of Hammurabi, there are those who maintain that he should be placed contemporary with Sargon the Great. I'd like the opportunity to update this article to address these issues, if possible. It need not lengthen the article by much, to make these corrections, as some of the material is already present, and a fuller explanation of the chronological issues related to Hammurabi still would not be very long. --ThaThinker 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised nowhere in this article is it mentioned that using the ages given for the births and deaths of the humans from Adam down through to the Flood and then to Abram/Abraham, his date of birth is most likely 1948 A.M. (anno mundi - c.f. http://en.wikipedia.org/Anno_Mundi ). It is a most interesting observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.152.101.65 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamurrabi Law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon Date: ca. 1792-1750 BCE yes, Sargon c 2600 BC No. Rim Sin best. Matching up with the Exodus 480 years before the fourth year of Solomon, and Abram 430 years before that would be a plus. That calculation is 966 + 480 + 430 = 1976 years but the year in use at the time is a lunar year of 354 days so c 1915 BC. (c 1850 BC for Rim Sin and a little later for Hammurabi as mentioned above). Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The biggest clue is the territorial range of named opponents in Genesis 14 as you note. The only way to cover that much ground overland is with horses and they are simply not used in warfare prior to c 2000 BC. Donkeys, yes, camels yes, oxen, yes even elephants are a possibility in Syria, but there is no evidence of horses being ridden that dates much before the expansion of kingdoms into empires. Matching the named persons places and things in Genesis 14 against their common chronology c 1850 BC Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing some studying on the chronology of Abraham, and studied the "Chedolaomer Text" in conjunction with this. This is the tablet that is thought to refer to three of the four kings of the Eastern coalition in Gen. 14:1. It's a rather involved issue, and I'd like to revise and extend the materials relating to his issue. I'd be more or less following the materials on the subject in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, but will treat Astour's identification of the kings in this cuniform tablet (from the Spartoli collection in the British Museum) with a healthy grain of salt. This would lengthen the section on modern historical criticism. I have about six paragraphs on the subject, in order to explain it properly, which would replace the two that are there on the subject. I'd also like to add a few sentences on the end of the section to better represent some things that archaeologists do find that they correlate with Abraham. The chronological section, by contrast, would have only three paragraphs. I just didn't want to start revamping the article without warning anyone. --ThaThinker 02:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You should probably stay away from the religious references and go for the archaeology which is both more recent and more interesting. Kenneth Kitchen uses textual artifacts such as the form of contracts, the price of slaves and the geopolitical context to establish chronologies that match up to the topomyms, king lists and other evidence. Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you post your emendations as a sub-page of the article, or of your user page, and request comment? Making sweeping changes to the article would likely devolve into edit warring. Also, I would suggest that if you do make archeological additions to the section, you do so as a sub-section, as any archeological supposition will likely not be close to the various religious datings, which should have their own subsections. -- Avi 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I created a subpage with the proposed edits here: Abraham/Proposed Chronology Edits. You might have a point on an archaeology section. Other than the first paragraph, the whole historical criticism section is about archaeology. An archaeological section might belong under a secularilst historical criticism section, or else have one of its own. (BTW: While much archaeology concerns historicity, the two topics really are a bit different.) A section one paragraph long would seem rather odd, but others might have more to add later. Also, archaeology is often concerned with historicity, but the Chedolaomer materials were already here. The only work I've done on religious datings concerns the dating derived from the MT, i.e. the orthodox dating. These are actually discussed at the beginning of the article, and one only need supply a traditional Exodus date of ca. 1446 BCE to get absolute dates. I have in mind to add a sentence on the modern Catholic Encyclopedia's dating, and to proof it one more time for readability before adding it. I invite anyone who is interested to comment on these proposed edits, as well as how to organize various sections involved. --ThaThinker 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to say "lived between 2000 and 1500" in the lead when we then go on to say that Abraham isn't considered historical by secular scholarship. All dates will necessarily have to be attributed to one or another religious tradition or pious calculation. This is something for the "Dating" section, but it will not do to just pretend Abraham's floruit is a matter of educated estimates neutral scholarship doesn't even expect there is something to be estimated. dab (ᛏ) 06:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of what is in the Bible matches up pretty well with the history and archaeology. Once you remove the modern religious gloss, identify the participants historically with an appropriate chronology, and allow for the four gods mentioned; Yah wah as the power of the air, el shaddai as shamsi adad of Mari, lord of the earth, Moloch as the god of fire and el roi as the water god of the well being in perfectly good accord with the gods whose blessings and curses were used to bind contracts such as land grants in that period.

Perhaps it might say "is thought to have lived between 2000 and 1500". It's just introducing the subject at that point anyway. --ThaThinker 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"is thought by" is weasling: this is 'thought' by pre-modern writers, and by biblical literalists. Abraham isn't "thought" to have lived by encyclopedic sources at all. Here is the 1911 EB text for reference: it is perfectly fine, not that much progress has been made in this field since 1911, although we should of course collect more recent literature. If we must give a date right at the beginning, we have to specify exactly how we arrive at it, for example citing the (17th century, literalist!) Ussher-Lightfoot Calendar, as I am doing now. Of course the UL chronology has nowhere near the notability required to feature it so prominently. dab (ᛏ) 07:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham is presented as a character in a story whose geopolitical context is c 2000 - 1850 BC Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be accurate to say that secular scholarship or encyclopedic scholarship universally holds that he didn't exist, just that archaeological correlates are scarce. How would you revise it? --ThaThinker 07:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

archaeology doesn't enter into it. Abraham is, as the EB puts it, the product of the traditions of many generations, as fixed in the text of Genesis in ca. 700 BC. Archaeologically, it is interesting to note (per EB, what's the original source for this?) that the *name* Abi-ram- is actually attested in Bronze Age sources (which isn't surprising, after all, it is straightforward NW Semitic, and both members of the compound are extremely frequent elements). That's it. After that, we're discussing Genesis, viz. traditions of early Judaism, 1st millennium BC. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Before surveying some of the recent works on Abraham, I knew from my research on the Exodus that the Pentateuch may well contain 2nd millennium BCE traditions. For example, the mention of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 seems to belong to a period in the 19th Dynasty, if you accept the identification of Yadin's Solomonic gates, as many scholars still do. In fact, acceptance of them is mainstream, and you have a Conquest some centuries before that. Your date for the fixing of the text under the Documentary Hypothesis is early. This is generally thought to have been done in the era of Ezra, which took place in the years preceding 459 BCE, not in 700. This does not prove there were no early Hebrew memories in there. In fact, followers of the Documentary Hypothesis generally do believe that these documents came from older documents; with some going back as far as the divided kingdom, perhaps within a century of Solomon's death, and some materials, like the Song of Deborah (in Judges ch. 6), perhaps even well earlier. Before we can dismiss evidence of Abram's historicity altogether, we must dismiss three topics:

Best not to refer to your own Original Research. You can probably source a lot of it to things like king lists, or Kenneth Kitchens textual artifacts. You can cross reference Abraham to Sinhue and take it from there to the Beni hasan inscription and other such relatively well known evidence. Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1. the correspondence with the Chedolaomer texts: I have just done a lot of research on this, and in general, it seems that the Genesis account may resemble this exilic text, perhaps betraying a late composition date, as per Welhausen's followers. Even so, of the kings mentioned in range Abram in the Chedolaomer texts, AmrapBhel wIhose naGme mayD bIe CvalK<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>id spelling for Hammurabi-El is the closest. If one adjusts for a Late Exodus, this becomes even more of a possibility. True, it is quite tenuous on this basis, but even this one isn't 100% guaranteed to be devoid of any historical memory.

Hammurabi (Ha ammur abi - the fathur of ammur) Chedorlaomer (Che dor l amur) Shah of the (southernmost) region Dor in Amur Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

1. the similarity of the names of some of Abram's ancestors to cities of the 2nd millennium BCE: while archaeology finds a cluster of cities in Syria and nearby with the names of Abram's ancestors, whereas the Bible would lead us to expect personal names, many serious scholars have not abandoned the idea that Abram's ancestors' names might not somehow be a memory of these city names. Since some of these only existed in the 2nd millennium, it still could be considered evidence of 2nd millennium memories.
2. similarity of customs: Some scholars assert that similarity of social customs place Abram firmly in the 2nd millennium BCE, while others claim that these customs also appear closer to the time of Ezra. In fact, there is no broad consensus on this subject, and it seems more exact studies need to be done.

As a quick survey, the historicity of the Patriarchal age is generally supported in: "The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History?" by Kenneth A. Kitchen (BAR, March/April) The following writer then refutes many of Kitchen's points: "Finding Historical Memories in the Patriarchal Narratives" By Ronald S. Hendel, but still does not reject the historicity of Abram altogether. He writes:

"It seems likely then, that the names of Abram’s lineage and the geographical location of the patriarchal home refer to the Amorite homeland in this area during the second millennium BCE."

In "The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" By P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., revised by Ronald S. Hendel (Ancient Israel, 1999), we encounter:

"A place-name in the Negev section of the inscription ... is best read “the fortification of Abram” or, more simply, “Fort Abram.” The location and chronological context of this site make it plausible that the Abram after whom the site was named was the Abram of biblical tradition. Although we cannot be certain of this identification, the place name probably indicates the presence and importance of the Abram/Abraham tradition in the tenth century BCE"

Thus, there is far more plausible support for the existence of Abram/Abraham in the archaeological record than you admit, even though of these, only Kitchen claims to find extensive support from the archaeological record. Your comments above and below indicate you think there is no archaeology to be done on Abram/Abraham, other than the name, and this is just not the case.

None of what anyone's said seems to criticize my revisions concerning Abram's chronology, so I'll go ahead and add them. A 'Textual Criticism' section will be a fine spot to put a discussion of the Chedorlaomer Text, even though it could just as easily go under an archaeology section, since it really is both. It does tend to support what you are saying, but I'm just cautioning you that there are a number of points that I haven't proposed as yet that could go under an archaeology section that you are overlooking. This is not to say Abram's existence is proven, or even is supported by substantial evidence. Even so, there are plausible archaeological parallels that most scholars believe do hold some kind of memories from the 2nd millennium BCE, even though how many of these traditions ultimately derive from that era an ongoing subject of debate. --ThaThinker 14:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but now define Amor. Is it the same as Egypts province Amurru, (Lebanon) or is it inclusive of Aram, Syria southwest of Damascus

Textual Criticism section

OK, I've made the changes. Hope everybody likes them. If the Textual Criticism section is deemed too long, I hope people will consider leaving off the last paragraph first, as it is really about the historicity of biblical figures in general (and I didn't write most of it). Also, the section on Traditional dating is in years A.M., but for the purposes of synchronzing with archaeology, absolute years are preferable. It too might be dropped, or else folded into the chronology section. --ThaThinker 16:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. However, before I even try and read through it, can you please put the references into one of the acceptabe wiki formats Misplaced Pages:Citing sources#Citation styles? As of now, it's hard to tell what sources support which claims. Thanks, and thanks for being bold on this one. Now prepare to be skewered (good-naturedly and in good faith, of course) by everyone . -- Avi 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been working pretty hard on it. I'd like to have a day or two. Also, I have a few that discuss the problem of the historicity of the Patriarchs that have good Abraham material in them to add. Actually, I see now that the first paragraph only briefly uses years A.M. Perhaps it might be folded into the chronology section. Sometimes, when things aren't referenced, it's because scholars are in general agreement on them, such as the extent of Sargon's kingdom and Hammurabi's. I generally save the references for things that more people might doubt, and are central to the thesis. I think it's pretty tight, and may be worth your read as is. It turns out that Gen. 14:1 may be reasonable case study for both pro and anti histricity sides of the debate (although there are better pro historicity points that could be made). --ThaThinker 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dab: You are being POV again. You write, "... scholarship today has given up attempts to identify Amraham and his contemporaries in Genesis with historical figures." While the Britannica writes that little remains of these attempts, it does not write that nothing does. In fact, a real archaeologist would never give up completely. If you will check my objections to your minimalist stance, you will see:

"It seems likely then, that the names of Abram’s lineage and the geographical location of the patriarchal home refer to the Amorite homeland in this area during the second millennium BCE."

In "The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" By P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., revised by Ronald S. Hendel (Ancient Israel, 1999), we encounter:

"A place-name in the Negev section of the inscription ... is best read “the fortification of Abram” or, more simply, “Fort Abram.” The location and chronological context of this site make it plausible that the Abram after whom the site was named was the Abram of biblical tradition. Although we cannot be certain of this identification, the place name probably indicates the presence and importance of the Abram/Abraham tradition in the tenth century BCE"

As you can see, McCarter is indeed trying to identify Abram with whoever fort Abram may have been named after in archaeology, in a recent work. You write "While Donald A. MacKenzie as late as 1915, " could uphold the Amraphel/Hammurabi equation, but this is just weasel-like language to imply that you've made a reasonably comprehensive search of all scholarship between 1915 and now, when I doubt seriously you have. You'll need a reference to imply such a thing. Although I'm sure such a search would do little to further knowledge, I'm willing to bet real money that there are some. It'd be nice if you'd talk with people before doing high-handed, wholesale revisions, even if you are an admin. I do admit that I did not notice that the publication date of MacKenzie's book was quite out of date. I am pleased that you do find much of my contribution worthy of keeping. --ThaThinker 11:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Major unilateral changes that may violate POV

dab, you have to be very careful. For example:

• Placing the Lightfoot calendar in the lead automaticlly places a Christian tone. Since there are plenty of Jews. Moslems, and Bahaii who disagree that is a POV issue.
• Saying most scholars hold he was mythological and bringing the 1911 encyclopedia is a bit of a stretch
• Many Jewish scholars feel that biblical criticism is false and your placing it as fact in the paragraphs is a tacit support to the theory, another POV issue.

I do not believe the changes you have made as they are would be allowed due to POV. I maintain having a section about archeological evidence/refutation with this information (suitably corrected for POV issues) is the way to go. Thank you. -- Avi 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to remove the Lightfoot thing, I am opposed to putting a "lived" bracket in the lead altogether. I brought up the EB 1911 reference to show that there was no question of treating Abraham as historical, even back in 1911. There can well be a "literalist" section, but it certainly doesn't represent anything like secular mainstream. I realize that "scholars" may also have a religious bias and be scholars nevertheless. We then require to state such a bias. "(lived between 2000 and 1500)" did nothing of the kind, and whatever format you choose to present Jewish religious scholarship, my point is to get rid of the implication of historicity from the intro. If you want to argue for the possibility of historicity, which is not mainstream at all, the burden to reference very closely who holds such opinions lies entirely with you. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point about "lived in". However, I am firmly opposed to mention of biblical criticism in the open, especially as many believe it approcimately as accurate as the flat-world theory . -- Avi 13:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

um, how do you even want to begin discuss the content of the Bible without biblical criticism? Certain conclusions may be unreliable, but the discipline itself is just philology. You cannot read the bible, and hence you cannot make a single statement about Abraham, without philology. dab (ᛏ) 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but discussing 'P' and 'J' in the lead as fact is a bit of an issue. Discussion of that in the "Literary Criticism" or silmilarly titled section is more appropriate, I believe. -- Avi 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your specification of the calculatons of A's date as "religious", how do you propose to present an "archaeological" estimate for A's date? Seeing that the existence of A is entirely confined to literature? There is simply no evidence for A outside Genesis, so why would archaeologists even begin to give estimates? dab (ᛏ) 13:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Then call it "Literary" and bring the Wellhausen-based discussion there. And perhaps mention that there is no archeological proof. -- Avi 13:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

my point is that the entire article is "literary", and that there is little point in a single h3 section within a h2 section. Why Wellhausen? As far as I understand, Wellhausen proposed a 6th century date for the Pentateuch. "Biblical criticism" isn't necessarily about proposing a 6th century date, it is about discussing dates and context at all. Parts of the pentateuch may date to the 6th, others to the 7th or 8th, and early bits even to the 9th or 10th centuries, that's perfecly open to debate, biblical criticism is just about even having a rational debate about the question. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And since there are those who believe that the Pentateuch dates to 1312 BCE – 1272 BCE, automatically assigning dates based on biblical criticism is an implicit support of one POV over another. Which is why the Masoretic dating is labeled as such, and the literary dating, including brief listings of the various opinions, should also be labeled as such. -- Avi 06:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the headings of that section to something I feel is more NPOV. -- Avi 06:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

well, of course that's a pov too, but a purely faith-based one, and not one defensible by rational scholarship. I do have every respect for faith and mythology, but they shouldn't be misrepresented as being on equal footing with criticism. Saying the Pentateuch dates to the 14th century is like saying the Vedas date to the 4th millennium BC: a pious sense of hoariness which is certainly notable, but doesn't stand up to criticism (to be fair, it isn't off by 2,000 years as in the Vedic case, just by some 500, which may conceivably be bridged by oral tradition at least in fragments; it is more like saying that Homer wrote the Iliad in 1190 BC on his way home from Troy) dab (ᛏ) 07:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV means that “all Misplaced Pages articles must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source.” The literary POV is significant, but so is the tradtional (a few hundred million Christians, Moslems, Jews, and Bahaii). And while “ Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all,” I think the two views we are discussing are not considered minority. As long as they are all presented fairly, without bias, and labeled as such, we'll be fine. For all you know, the literary dating is off by 500 years ;) . -- Avi 13:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't dream of censoring the "literary pov". It just shouldn't be presented as if it competed for factuality with the critical approach. It's beautiful and notable traditional lore, no more and no less. You seem to imply that just by being Christian or Jewish, you necessarily need to subscribe to an Iron Age worldview, reject criticism and enlightenment and burn witches at the stake. This may be the case in the Bible Belt, but certainly not for Christianity as a whole, not to mention Judaism. (I do hope you do mean "literary pov", not "literalist pov" -- biblical literalism isn't of course in any way a "significant" view, but extreme lunatic fringe) dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you totally fail to grasp that not everyone shares your POV, and that there are other POVs beside your own? Please read WP:NPOV again in its entirety, very carefully... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

are you yourself familiar with WP:RS? We do not present urban legends and popular beliefs on equal terms with scholarly opinion. Biblical literalism may be popular in certain circles, and hence notable in its own right, but statements of the age of an ancient Semitic text is clearly the province of the field of Semitic linguistics and ancient history. You want to write about religions, consult religious sources. You want to make claims about the Levant in the Bronze Age, or the status of ancient texts, you consult linguistic, philolocial and archaeological sources. This is NPOV, and if you think NPOV dictates that we treat popular misconceptions (religious or non-religious) as every-bit-as-valid as scholarly mainstream, you have seriously misunderstood almost everything about the policy. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

How convenient for those who get to "decide" what is the "misconception" here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Midrash is considered a reliable source when it comes to Jewish tradition. It is around two millenia old, and has come down basically unaltered since that point. As the Jewish tradition is a significant opinion when it comes to Abraham, there is no issue with WP:RS in this regard. Biblical criticism is a much newer analysis, which has its own pros and cons. I reiterate, this article should have a section about the belief that Abraham is a myth/fable/allegory and the timing of its origin, but not at the expense of the Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Bahaii tradtions which are just as significant. -- Avi 14:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

While I am neigher a minimalist nor a maximalist, I should point out that midrash is comparatively late. By way of comparison, while we might look to the modern Mandaeans for some information about their religion not attested elsewhere, when we want to know what their beliefs originally were or how they got their start, we should give the oldest texts priority every time; fragmentary though it is. Midrash, as I understand it, is only employed where 1) an older text does not speak to the subject in a plausible way, or 2) where it can be correlated with other ideas suggested by older evidence. Midrash is also full of some pretty tall tales. --ThaThinker 21:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC) OK GUYS, MY username is RagingClue, I took part in the Exodus and the articles are completely factual. In fact, Moses is at my house right now. Soo screw all of u anti-religion left wing liberals.

How about one section which lists all the speculations, identifies them as sourced from Josephus, Grahme Hancock, Zachariah Sitchen, a religion, whatever and then another which is strictly just the facts maam. Unlike RagingClue I wasn't there myself, but I'm willing to allow you can compare what the story says to what the facts say and see a lot of assumptions fall by the wayside. I'd be interested if anyone knows the exact extent of Egypts vassalage in the 12th Dynasty. Going by the story of Sinhue it has strong commercial ties with Byblos going back at least to the Twelfth dynasty of Egypt Rktect 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dating Genesis

Many years ago came up with a way of using textual artifacts such as the form of contracts and the price of slaves to date bible passages. Genesis: 14 references a war fought over a vast area requiring either horses or camels so sometime after 1900 BC putting the tale in the time of for which the form of contracts would be most correct c 1850 - 1750 BC.

1:In the days of Amraphel king of ,

Arioch king of Ellasar,

2:Chedorlaomer king of ,

Tidal king of Goiim (Tudhaliya)

made war on

Bera king of Sodom,

Birsha king of Gomorrah,

Shinab king of Admah,

Shemeber king of Zeboiim, and

the king of Bela (that is, Zoar).

3 All the latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Salt Sea). For twelve years they had been subject to Chedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.

3 In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings allied with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim, and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as Elparan, close by the wilderness. 7 They then turned back and came to Enmishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they subdued the whole country both of the Amalekites and of the Amorites who dwelt in Hazazon-tamar. 8 Thereupon the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out, and in the Valley of Siddim they went into battle against them: 9 against Chedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goiim, Amraphel king of Shinar, and Arioch king of Ellasar-four kings against five. 10 Now the Valley of Siddim was full of bitumen pits; and as the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah fled, they fell into these, while the rest fled to the mountains.

That would make Shamsi Asad of Mari the most likely candidate for the lord of the land el shaddai, who along with Yahwah the power of the air, el roi the spirit of the well and moloch the fire deity represent the entities called on to give the blessing and curses to the covenent that deeds the land to the descendents of Abram. Its probably best to think of these like nome gods, logos representing regions within the land that agree to the covenant.Rktect 22:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

cleanup required

Oh dear, I am afraid this article is very far from "A-class". I had to remove some blooming nonsense about Rama, and the ToC is rather erratic. What is the difference between the "biblical perspective" and the "Abraham in the Hebrew Bible" sections? I suppose the article is evolved enough to rate it "B", but it does need serious cleanup before it can be considered "good". dab (ᛏ) 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some serious clean-up to reach GA or A again, but it is a solid B, leaning towards the high end, because of the depth of discussion, in my opinion. -- Avi 06:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

fair enough, yes, and I've already addressed what I think were the worst bits. It's A-ish, I suppose, unless you exist putting the Rama-cruft back :) dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Tomb of Abraham photo

I moved the photo of the "Tomb of Abraham" to the section entitled "Islamic view of Abraham". Whilst it is considered the tomb of Abraham by Muslims and no-one else it seems only appropriate in that section. To put it in another section would require a comment such as "Tomb of Abraham according to the Islamic tradition". It is a nice photo and it would be a shame to lose it but I did not agree it ought to be at the top of the article. To move it to the Islamic section seems the best solution.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.76.100.32 (talk • contribs) 11:23, October 19, 2006 (UTC)

Jews also believe that the M'aras Hamachpaila is the resting place of Adam, Eve, Abraham, Sara, Isaac, Rebbecca, Jacob, LEah, and Esau's head; Christians do as well. Thus, it is appropriate. The fact that a few hundred years ago a mosque was built over the church does not make it solely a Muslim reference. -- Avi 14:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

Hi Avi: It should be emphasized on the fact that Moslems have been deluded by the migrating tribes from Hijaz. These tribes brought with them their traditions and the names of their initial deities and townships to where they settled in the north. These eternal migrations are the essence of the History of Arabia whether before Islam or after. The country of Abraham is known to be Mecca and the entire Hijaz, not Palestine not Hebron. If the tradition emigrated from Hijaz to Palestine that does not mean Abraham is burried in Palestine. Meccah is the resting place of all the names mentioned in your article for as musch as its name has changed from Hebron to Bethel to Beersheba to Mecca finally on the hands of Micah the idol maker. Noureddine (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

"historicity debate"

the recent additions seem well-informed, it did, however, contain a lot of rhetorical smoke mis-representing its own content. It is undisputed that

1. there was a "historical Genesis" debate in 19th century scholarship
2. this debate is continued by religionists today

the version seemed to like to imply that there is a continuing scholarly historicity debate, without providing any evidence whatsoever. It cited a 1915(!) publication to answer its own question of "What then is left of this intriguing idea today?" (emphasis mine) -- while I'll grant that 1915 isn't in the 19th century, it is certainly even less of "today". It further cited "the site Abraham - Father of the Faithful", which turns out to be "the site 'the Herald of Christ's Kingdom'", of course a typical example of point two above, viz., the popularity of the question in non-scholarly, religious fora. If there is any serious secular scholarship exploring the possibility of a historical nature of the biblical patriarchs, it should by all means be cited. So far, all we have seen is evidence that the question has been settled since the early 20th century: no evidence for a historical Abraham, period. dab (ᛏ) 12:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not doubt Codex (do you read talkpages at all, or is this a monologue?) that you have "recent" books that claim a historical Abraham. They will be religious literature, not archaeological or philological scholarship. Or if they are, how about you cite them before edit-warring? dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why bother. You have just stated that any source that suggests a Historical Abraham is automatically pre-disqualified, because it suggests a historical Abraham. That's raising the bar impossibly high. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest entries: Out-of-scope?

There have been a number of new entries to the article in the past few days. I am just somewhat concerned that this new data is actually more properly placed in an article about Genesis/historicity/Biblical scholarship than about Abraham. Perhaps most of it should be placed in other articles, so that the work is not lost, and only a paragraph or two mention specific to Abraham is placed here with a {{main}} or {{See also}} tag per Misplaced Pages:Summary style. -- Avi 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

true -- I've adapted the ToC and npoved a little bit, but I do not endorse the additions as on-topic here. As far as they concern Abraham directly, they could be either kept, or a sub-article on the history of the dating debate could be opened, but the tangents that concern the historicity of Genesis (and Exodus) in general should be merged elsewhere. dab (ᛏ) 13:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know that I made any additions that did not concern Abraham, except two sentences that were part of a paragraph which discussed the historicity of Abraham that I did not otherwise write, and a few sentences compariing of the uncertainty of the Exodus with the uncertainty of Abraham's chronology. The historicity paragraph been removed, as I recommended, but a lot else has, although it did concern Abraham. I do not support the continued presence of the misleading statement "Mainstream scholarship in the course of the 20th century has given up attempts to identify Abraham and his contemporaries in Genesis with historical figures." Every time an archaeologist digs up a rock with writing on it from the appropriate era, they look for parallels in Gen. While none hold that any person from Gen. has been found in archaeology, the existence of a Fort Abram could reasonably be taken as support that Abram traditions harked back to a very early period. Deceptive, deceptive, deceptive. What about the part where I show that with a late Exodus, the life of Abraham in the MT would have overlapped the reign of Hammurabi. This is not an improvement, but a hack job. If this is the way here, count me out. Talk about POV, when is Hindu tradition trivia? It also does not mention that many modern, mainstream archaeologists do support the idea of some relationship between a number of place-names, and Abraham and his ancestors. You know they have regions in India with the same tribal names as many of the 12 tribes? They claim they originated them. While this is unproven, it's not disproven, either. Gross oversimplification is no substitute for real learning. --ThaThinker 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

heaping up disparate ad-hoc identifications is even less so. I am certainly prepared to learn that there is a continuing debate of "when did Abraham live" outside bible-thumping circles, but you have shown nothing to the effect. It is, of course, undisputed that "Abram traditions harked back to a very early period". So do, as likely as not, Hansel and Gretel traditions. But since, to the best of my knowledge, everyone agrees that the Genesis text dates to a full millennium after the purported lifetime of Abram, it is clearly a legendary account dealing with the remote past. You will really need to support your assertion that "Every time an archaeologist digs up a rock with writing on it from the appropriate era, they look for parallels in Gen." — this is like saying that every time people excavate things from the 27th c. BC, they look for traces of Gilgamesh, or every time they excavate stuff from the 5th c., they look for traces of King Arthur: no archaeologist would do such a thing. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's getting hard to take you credibly as a neutral editor when you continually use polemic language that betrays your POV, like the above. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean, I am doing my best to be extremely neutral, treating Hebrew tradition on exactly the same footing as Akkado-Sumerian, Welsh, German or any other oral or popular tradition, from a detached philological viewpoint. It is you who seems to hold pious preconceptions, to which you are, of course, perfectly entitled, but if you want to write encyclopedically, you need to be able to detach yourself from them. dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking about the constant polemic language, like "outside bible thumping circles", also the false insinuation that anyone who does not a priori dismiss the possible existence of Abraham, and agree to summarily write off any evidence that ever has or ever will come up, should be labelled as a "bible thumper" and automatically ostracised from discussion without even really looking at said evidence. That's hardly neutral, that's minimalism. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

not at all. I admit willingly that up to 1915 or so the question was open to secular debate, so that by no means do I categorize people as "bible thumpers" based on their belief in a historical Abraham. I was saying that I am open to references to an ongoing discussion outside magazines titled "The Herald of Christ's Kindom" or similar (a kind of forum that, yes, I did summarize as "bible thumping". The hallmark of the bible thumper isn't that he is interested in examining the historicity of the Pentateuch, but that he 'knows' it is historical, in advance, and merely looks for any shred of evidence that may be used to support this 'knowledge'. No honest debate is possible with such an approach, but, again, people did reasonably attempt to find historical evidence for Abraham, it simply happened to turn out that there is none. If a text should turn up in Old Assyrian cuneiform that mentions, say, a contract of one La-ba-an with one I-a-a-qu-ub DUMU Is-ha-a-aq concerning spotted livestock, of course things will be dramatically different, so you cannot say I "write off any evidence that ever will come up", it is simply the case that none has come up so far. dab (ᛏ) 14:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Bible thumpers" to me would imply those who thump only the Bible as the only proof they need that Abraham existed. It shouldn't be applied to those who are looking for, or think they have found, other evidence outside the Bible. I thought that's what you were saying, but maybe we can agree that it's not a neutral term, which is why we don't have words like that on the article page itself... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding the "Hindu connections", I've restored the section title, but this will need some references. This isn't the Lost tribes of Israel article, and not the place for random speculations in that direction. dab (ᛏ) 09:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"heaping up disparate ad-hoc identifications is even less so." I don't see where my defenses of the possible historicity of Abraham are desperate. I am no Bible thumper, or else I would never have added the idea that Gen. 14:1 may well be from a relatively late Babylonian text in the first place. It is ad hoc, in that I only recently began studying this subject. The article, when I wrote my complaint, implies that archaeologists do not even bother looking for connections with Gen. I cannot prove that every archaeologist looks for comparisons from Gen., but then I did not add this idea to the article. You added text that claims that they NEVER do, and you added it to the article. No wonder you get so many awards for you articles. You take what others did, hack it up, and take the credit. Is this a faith-based assumption that archaeologists have completely given up on looking for parallels in Gen.? Hansel and Gretel was never represented as history. True, early traditions don't prove historicity, but the way you changed what I wrote, you would think historicity had been disproven. Hansel and Gretel cannot point to archaeology that has place-names that correspond to character names in the story that were current a millennium earlier, nor a fort perhaps four centuries earlier with one of the names. Perhaps I should have added the references I gave in the talk to the article, but at least I did not change the writing of somebody who knew what they were talking about to imply that archaeologists NEVER looked for parallels in Gen.; and then insist on maintaining it when the error was pointed out. We don't see things from the Gilgamesh story that suggest memories of a millennium earlier, even if of doubtful precision. Even so, an academic community that failed to consider the possibility of an early parallel to Gilgamesh would have blinders on in a way that those who champion learning should never do. Clearly, the archaeological community holds the possibility of parallels with Gen. in higher esteem than recoverable archaeology on a recoverable historic basis of Gilgamesh, if there was one. There are more than a few science-minded agnostics who consider atheism a faith-based position in much the same way as believers engage in biblical litereralism. If you want to revise my scholarship so bad, why don't YOU bring some scholarship to the table, before making wholesale revisions without even seeking support for them? How about inviting some comments on changes before making them, as I did? --ThaThinker 23:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say desparate, I said disparate. I'll say again that I remain open to citations of such "digs for Genesis" in archaeology. I am not convinced just by your saying so. "parallels" to Genesis is a rather fuzzy claim. There are "parallels", sure, such as the very general knowledge that there were Semitic workers in Egypt in the Middle Bronze Age. This isn't the same as "archaeological Abraham" by a long way, however. dab (ᛏ) 06:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"leader"

on what grounds do we translate ab as "leader"? dab (ᛏ) 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

In Biblical Hebrew, "Av" means father. I have no idea where leader comes from, though, other than the relationship between fathers and leaders (father figures etc.) -- Avi 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I figured it out, it is due to some obscure suggestion to analyse Abra-ham or similar. I find it also rather disturbing that the translation "Abraham = 'father of multitudes'" was left standing in an article as developed as this one, when all I needed to do was check jewishencyclopedia.com to find that this is wrong. dab (ᛏ) 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a direct translation, but read Genesis 17: 4 & 5 for the provenance of that meaning. -- Avi 13:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

well, yes: Gen 17:5 has "thy name shall be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made thee," where the "for" is, as far as I can see, the כִּי of וְהָיָה שִׁמְךָ אַבְרָהָם, כִּי אַב-הֲמוֹן גּוֹיִם נְתַתִּיךָ. . Now either God is still speaking Adamic here, and raham might mean anything you like, or the meaning is just "Abram, we'll call you Abraaaaaaaam from now on, because you are an important man now." dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The Midrash brings that the addition of the "Heh" is a letter from G-d's name, implying greatness (cf. Sarai -> Sarah, Hoseah --> Joshua etc.) So that while not 100% linguistically comparable, the meaning is there. Which is why it is undeniable not a direct translation but is undoubtedly related. -- Avi 13:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

that's well worth mentioning, of course (but doesn't make raham any more Hebrew) dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be way off here, but doesn't "raham" mean "mercy"? So could it mean "father of mercy"? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

not in Biblical Hebrew, it would seem. I found this link alleging an Arabic ruham. etymonline says the same. So maybe if we admit the name is Common or Central Semitic we might come up with ab+*raham "father of multitudes"? I cannot find this ruham so far though, not sure if it is ruham, ruḥam or ruḫam. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Rachamim/Rachum (mercy} has a "Hes" as its central letter; this is a "Heh". -- Avi 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be totally missing the point here, but according to the Oxford Companion to the Bible, The name Abram (= Abiram, as Abner = Abiner), used in Genesis from 11.27 to 17.5, is there ritually changed to Abraham, a normal dialectal variant, though explained in relation to ʾab-hāmôn, "father of many", and according to a Dictionary of First Names, by Patrick Hanks and Flavia Hodges, OUP, the Hebrew form is Avraham, of uncertain derivation. In Genesis 17: 5 it is explained as 'father of a multitude (of nations)' (Hebrew av hamon (goyim)). The article already says that in the second paragraph though.--Rudjek 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

the interesting part here is the "normal dialectal variant" bit. I wouldn't know that it is a "normal dialectal variant" to introduce a h where there was no consonant at all, but then I am not a Semitologist. dab (ᛏ) 09:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

ABRAHAM is == amazing ==

and I LOVE GOD!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.254.240.68 (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mandaean issue

Mandaeism is also considered an Abrahamic religion, and Mandaeans regard him as a Patriarch. Considering that several Mandean scriptures are now widely available in English and given the significance of the Gnostic/Sabian link in the history of Abrahamic religions (Sabians are called one of the "people of the Book" in the Qur'an, alongside Jews and Christians) why on earth this article completely ignores Mandean sources, and even a simple mention of the Mandean Aramaic transcription of Abraham's name?201.21.200.15 20:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. If you feel the article should reference Mandaeism, be bold and add it, and be prepared for a host of editors to chime it :) -- Avi 21:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Abraham: Hindu connections

In his book Moisés y los Extraterrestres, Mexican author Tomás Doreste states,

Voltaire was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman priests who left India to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of Ur, land of the patriarchs, was near the border of Persia, the road to India, where that Brahman had been born.

The name of Brahma was highly respected in India, and his influence spread throughout Persia as far as the lands bathed by the rivers Euphrates and Tigris. The Persians adopted Brahma and made him their own. Later they would say that the God arrived from Bactria, a mountainous region situated midway on the road to India. (pp. 46-47.)

Bactria (a region of ancient Afghanistan) was the locality of a prototypical Jewish nation called Juhuda or Jaguda, also called Ur-Jaguda. Ur meant "place or town." Therefore, the bible was correct in stating that Abraham came from "Ur of the Chaldeans." "Chaldean," more correctly Kaul-Deva (Holy Kauls), was not the name of a specific ethnicity but the title of an ancient Hindu Brahmanical priestly caste who lived in what are now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Indian state of Kashmir.

"The tribe of Ioud or the Brahmin Abraham, was expelled from or left the Maturea of the kingdom of Oude in India and, settling in Goshen, or the house of the Sun or Heliopolis in Egypt, gave it the name of the place which they had left in India, Maturea." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 405.)

"He was of the religion or sect of Persia, and of Melchizedek."(Vol. I, p. 364.)

"The Persians also claim Ibrahim, i.e. Abraham, for their founder, as well as the Jews. Thus we see that according to all ancient history the Persians, the Jews, and the Arabians are descendants of Abraham.(p.85) ...We are told that Terah, the father of Abraham, originally came from an Eastern country called Ur, of the Chaldees or Culdees, to dwell in a district called Mesopotamia. Some time after he had dwelt there, Abraham, or Abram, or Brahma, and his wife Sara or Sarai, or Sara-iswati, left their father's family and came into Canaan. The identity of Abraham and Sara with Brahma and Saraiswati was first pointed out by the Jesuit missionaries."(Vol. I; p. 387.)

In his History of the Jews, the Jewish scholar and theologian Flavius Josephus (37 - 100 A.D.), wrote that the Greek philosopher Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calani." (Book I:22.)

Clearchus of Soli wrote, "The Jews descend from the philosophers of India. The philosophers are called in India Calanians and in Syria Jews. The name of their capital is very difficult to pronounce. It is called 'Jerusalem.'"

"Megasthenes, who was sent to India by Seleucus Nicator, about three hundred years before Christ, and whose accounts from new inquiries are every day acquiring additional credit, says that the Jews 'were an Indian tribe or sect called Kalani...'" (Anacalypsis, by Godfrey Higgins, Vol. I; p. 400.)

Martin Haug, Ph.D., wrote in The Sacred Language, Writings, and Religions of the Parsis, "The Magi are said to have called their religion Kesh-î-Ibrahim.They traced their religious books to Abraham, who was believed to have brought them from heaven." (p. 16.)

In Hindu mythology, Sarai-Svati is Brahm's sister. The bible gives two stories of Abraham. In this first version, Abraham told Pharaoh that he was lying when he introduced Sarai as his sister. In the second version, he also told the king of Gerar that Sarai was really his sister. However, when the king scolded him for lying, Abraham said that Sarai was in reality both his wife and his sister! "...and yet indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." (Genesis 20:12.)

The bible also states that Ishmael, son of Hagar, and his descendants lived in India. "...Ishmael breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his kin... They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur." (Genesis 25:17-18.) It is an interesting fact that the names of Isaac and Ishmael are derive from Sanskrit: (Hebrew) Ishaak = (Sanskrit) Ishakhu = "Friend of Shiva." (Hebrew) Ishmael = (Sanskrit) Ish-Mahal = "Great Shiva."

A third mini-version of the Abraham story turns him into another "Noah." We know that a flood drove Abraham out of India. "...Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, Even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor; and they served other gods. And I took your father Abraham from the other side of the flood, and led him throughout all the land of Canaan." (Joshua 24:2-3.)

About 1900 BC, the cult of Brahm was carried to the Middle and Near East by several different Indian groups after a severe rainfall and earthquake tore Northern India apart, even changing the courses of the Indus and Saraisvati rivers. The classical geographer Strabo tells us just how nearly complete the abandonment of Northwestern India was. "Aristobolus says that when he was sent upon a certain mission in India, he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper bed." (Strabo's Geography, XV.I.19.)

"The drying up of the Sarasvati around 1900 BCE, which led to a major relocation of the population centered around in the Sindhu and the Sarasvati valleys, could have been the event that caused a migration westward from India. It is soon after this time that the Indic element begins to appear all over West Asia, Egypt, and Greece." (Indic Ideas in the Graeco-Roman World, by Subhash Kak, taken from IndiaStar online literary magazine; p.14)

"The Arabian historians contend that Brahma and Abraham, their ancestor, are the same person. The Persians generally called Abraham Ibrahim Zeradust. Cyrus considered the religion of the Jews the same as his own. The Hindoos must have come from Abraham, or the Israelites from Brahma..." (Anacalypsis; Vol. I, p. 396.)

Pas1975 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

a nice collection of sources you have here. Moisés y los Extraterrestres. Sarai-Svati. Subhash Kak. Sounds like you have enough material to start an Abraham and Hindu tradition article, but don't be offended if it ends up in Category:Pseudoscience :) dab (ᛏ) 18:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! See also Islamic view that call Abraham himself as "Khalil Ullah" that means "Friend of God"--Submitter to Truth (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

dbac's position not tenable

Throughout this Talk page, and in his editing actions, dbac claims he is npoving the article when in fact he edits it into an extreme "the patriarchs were purely mythical" diatribe. Scholarly opinion is so obviously split on this (in fact, with a noted recent movement in *favor* of historicity), it's a wonder he has gotten away with it for so long. Let's start with the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Several theses were advanced to explain the narratives—e.g., that the patriarchs were mythical beings or the personifications of tribes or folkloric or etiological (explanatory) figures created to account for various social, juridical, or cultic patterns. However, after World War I, archaeological research made enormous strides with the discovery of monuments and documents, many of which date back to the period assigned to the patriarchs in the traditional account. The excavation of a royal palace at Mari, an ancient city on the Euphrates, for example, brought to light thousands of cuneiform tablets (official archives and correspondence and religious and juridical texts) and thereby offered exegesis a new basis, which specialists utilized to show that, in the biblical book of Genesis, narratives fit perfectly with what, from other sources, is known today of the early 2nd millennium BC but imperfectly with a later period. A biblical scholar in the 1940s aptly termed this result “the rediscovery of the Old Testament.”

Thus, there are two main sources for reconstructing the figure of father Abraham: the book of Genesis, from the genealogy of Terah, Abraham's father, and his departure from Ur to Harran in chapter 11 to the death of Abraham in chapter 25; and recent archaeological discoveries and interpretations concerning the area and era in which the biblical narrative takes place."

It's clear what direction the EB is moving in. Paragraphs like the following leave no doubt:

"Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. “They served other gods,” Joshua, Moses' successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem."...

The Bible provides no information on the itinerary followed between Ur and Harran. Scholars think that the caravan went up the Euphrates, then up the Balikh. After indicating a stay of indeterminate length in Harran, the Bible says only that Terah died there, at the age of 205, and that Abraham was 75 when he took up the journey again with his family and his goods. This time the migration went from east to west, first as far as the Euphrates River, which they may have crossed at Carchemish, since it can be forded during low-water periods... Here again, the Mari texts supply a reference, for they indicate that there were Benjaminites on the right bank of the river, in the lands of Yamhad (Aleppo), Qatanum (Qatna), and Amurru.

Would "most scholars" agree that Ur Kasidim was the Sumerian Ur while believing Abraham was a mythological being? Would scholars place this mythological being in a solidly historical caravan route documented by Mari texts unearthed in recent archaeological digs?.. Dbac, please back off your position and let this article move past 1945. JDG 00:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

'dbac' being me, I imagine? I've only recently contributed to this article, and there was some rather serious cleanup work to be done. I am not aware of any 'diatribes' on my part. Also, I do not see the point of your rhetorical questions. Do you suggest that if we can identify Ur as a historical city it follows that Abraham is a historical character? Thus, if Troy is historical, so is Helen of Troy? If Babel is historical, so is the confusion of tongues? I would never dispute that Genesis is aware of the geography of the region. So what? Maybe it will be useful for you to 'dredge up' your sources now, and tell us exactly which 'recent digs' shed light on the historicity of Abraham, and what secular scholars in the past 30 years seriously attempted to argue for a historical Abraham? It will spare us the rhetorics. I do, incidentially, think that a historical Trojan War is very plausible. But that doesn't mean that I believe that a historical Achilles was shot in the heel by a historical Apollo. That is to say, I don't see how your trade routes contribute anything to the debate. dab (ᛏ) 00:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What we really have here is a Wellhausenite approach to Biblical criticism, an approach that has been thoroughly discredited by at least two generations of scholars who cannot themselves be described as "religious". But in the face of truly mountainous evidence, those coming from a basically atheistic perspective have learned much more respect for scripture and have acknowledged that the supernaturalism, if tacked on, was tacked onto very real personages in almost all cases. That is the modern synthesis and it's embarrassing Misplaced Pages does not reflect it... Dbachmann, my point was not that a historical Ur = a historical Abraham. Read the excerpts a bit closer will you? They don't make sense outside of, at the very least, a real patriarchal figure who may or may not have become a nucleus for legend and myth going forward. What do you make of the sentence "A biblical scholar in the 1940s aptly termed this result “the rediscovery of the Old Testament.”"? Your attempt to reduce these paragraphs to "trade routes" isn't working... The EB article is a good distillation of the latest work and the latest consensus. Are you trying to tell us these paragraphs point to a mythical-Abraham consensus? If so, I would sadly need to raise questions of basic reading comprehension... Do you have access to the full EB? The rest of the article may clear things up for you... My other sources are on my bookshelf, but I question the manual labor involved to get across a point that's already so patently made: your flat statement "Abraham is not regarded a historical figure by secular scholars" cannot stand. JDG 00:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

unbiased assessment

I want to know what non-religous, researchers believe about abraham, what is the scientific view? was he a real person or not? if he was a real person to what do we know about him? excluding the religous view, can someone seperate the scientific information from the religous beliefs, I genuinely want to know more about the person but, you can't tell whether the information given is dogma or science, please draw a line for those of us who want to skip the crazy section and just want an unbiased assessment. If there are religous folks who have taken over the article and wont allow a NPOV, I suggest the secularists make a section called "secular" view or if even this is resisted the "athiest" view this would in their eyes deligitimise (and make less threatening) the scientific view while allowing the rest of us to get the info we want. thank you

Komaknacon 15:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article that has anything to do with science. Can you scientifically falsify or verify whether Aristotle existed? All we have is documentary evidence that he did, but no more scientific means of testing for this. Same here, all we have is documentary evidence for Abraham, which should be appropriately explained already. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

look I don't believe or care about the mumbo jumbo I just want to know what the secular scientist think, I don't want to hear anything coming out of the mouths of religous people I just want a seperate section for the secular/athiest POV, what is the scientific view?Komaknacon 16:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'scientific view' for things that can't be tested scientifically. Why not go to Aristotle and Marco Polo and Alexander the Great and write "There is no scientific proof these people ever actually existed"... It would be technically true, since the "proof" is all documentary, not scientific... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

look I don't want to hear what you have to say, I "BELIEVE" you and the other 96% of the worlds people are wrong and what any of you say is completely worthless to me. that's why you will go to heaven and I will go to hell, satisfied? I just want to hear from the hellbound totally wrong infidels who are my brethren, you can have your section but I don't want to know about it I've made my decision to go to hell I just want to know what my people think about abraham thats all.

Komaknacon 16:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be talking past each other - your response must be to some voice in your head; it bears little resemblance to anything I actually said. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

the examples you gave are all real people as assessed by my evil brothers, and I want to know what those evil brothers think about this guy, I don't want to know what the truth is I just want to know what the "BELIEFS" of my evil religon (athiesm) are so I can be better informed of OUR dogma for next time when we go to our secret evil meeting.Komaknacon 16:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well getting back to the article, I'm sorry you don't feel all viewpoints are adequately covered, it seems to me they are, but if you have a sourced opinion you feel you can expand the article with, you can always try adding it and see what happens...ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand what I'm saying, I don't know whether all points of view are represented or not, thats precisely the point, I want to see what the athiest POV (and we do have our own dogma) are what i want is a section untouched by religous people, called the secular or athiest view. I'm actually honestly not questioning whether the guy existed or not I don't know I have no incling, actually if i had to bet i'd say he probably was real 50.000001% (one story beats nothing) but the issue is, I don't care! as I said I just want to learn about the athiest views(I mean dogma), The athiest view is it self a concept worthy of mention completely seperate from the truth, for example the muslim view point regardless of whether it is true or not is clearly setout as the view of the muslims, there is no christian contribution there to say "...but christians think..." I just want the same treatment for BELIEFS of the athiests I want a seperate religion free zone so I know what to believe. Komaknacon 16:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you also like editors to swear an oath of fealty to your worldview, before they write this section to describe it for you? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

no... I just want what I said I want a section called "secular view" or something like that, with no reliogous intrusions, any way i'm not a wiki nerd I wont waste my time here anymore if you want to waste your life fighting these fights thats ok don't bother replying I'm outa hereKomaknacon 17:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you won't get a "secular section". We only want the npov of historians and scholars. Goodbye Komaknacon.

For future readers of this section: one reason for there not being a section describing a unified "secular viewpoint" is that there isn't one. There are varying degrees of secularity; it is a relative term. For example, many highly-religious people would view those who believe in their religion's general principles without taking every word of the holy text literally as secular (I personally know several people who hold this viewpoint). Even among atheists there is no consensus as to whether or not Abraham existed as a person or, if he did, how similar he was to his Biblical persona. There simply isn't enough evidence to make anything more than a guess either way. Robin S 11:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, but I was at the City of Ur last year, and was given a tour by the caretaker for the city. The city constists of the ziggurat, tombs, and other ruins. The tombs are for buried Sumerian royalty (kind of creepy to be down in) and one of the other structures is the house where Abraham lived with his merchant father when he was young. They have rebuilt the house from the foundation they have found with walls. The excavation was performed by a combination of British and Iraqi archeologists from the early 1900's to the mid-to-late 1900's. The guy who is the caretaker is the descendent of the main archeologists, so Ur is his life's work. So, scientists (archeologists) apparently agreed that Abraham did exist and that the building that was excavated belonged to his father, and that Abraham lived there at a young age. If the archeologists were religous people, they likely would have been Muslim/Christian/Jewist because of their national affiliations. BmorePunk 21:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't help. Dionyseus 00:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

the use of textual artifacts in an unbiased assessment

Can an article about a character in an ancient text, which is revered as influential by several religions, be given an unbiased scientific assessment. I would argue the answer is yes.

As Ken Kitchen points out, historically Genesis and the story of Abraham have many textual artifacts such as the form of contracts and the price of slaves which can be used to date it and place it in geopolitical context.

Placing a story in a geopolitical context allows us to gain many insights or pointers helping us better understand the moral of the story.

Linguistically the semitic roots found in names of people and places have meanings. Given the geopolitical context its not suprising that there are not only semitic but also afroasiatic roots. The name change of Abram to Abra-ham (using afro-asiatic roots) might be one pointer.

The shared root of Šarah and sharia,(sharia law) are another pointer.

That pointer is reinforced by the Egyptian girl Hagars Egyptian name. In Egyptian Hagar's name is Hotep (the law) and going by the semitic roots her semitic name breaks down to ha-gar (ha = the; gar means to read; to read the law)

ENTRY: qr. DEFINITION: To call (out), read, summon. Koran; Alcoran, from Arabic (al-)qurn, (the) reading, Koran, from qaraa, to read, recite.

In Abraham we have a collection of interdisciplinary textual artifacts indicating that the book of the law is indeed a lawbook. We have the expected form of contracts bound with the blessings and curses of el shaddai, yahwah, el roi and moloch. We have a citation of precedents regarding propery, grants of land, deeds and titles to land, inheritance, all in the context of the precedents incorporated in the claims of the legal sovreignity of the written law over the secular commandments of secular leaders in the ten commandments.Rktect 12:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(Repeated) References to "Yahweh"

Unless I'm much mistaken, the use of the tetragrammaton as the name of God dates to no earlier than the time of the Exodus. Therefore, the references in this article are anachronistic. Does anyone have a problem with changing this? Robin S 21:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Without having Exodus in front of me, (and therefore unable to quote chapter and verse), I think you're referring to the incident where Moses is confronted by God in the burning bush: this is announced, in the text, as the point at which God reveals his name, YHWH.Therefore, logiccally, the name YHWH shouldn't be found before this point. But it is: somewhere around Genesis 4 or 5, there's a verse that says "Now men began to invoke the name of YHWH" (or words to that effect), and word YHWH appears quite frequently throughout Genesis. So there's a conflict between the Burning Bush/Exodus statement that God here reveals his name for the first time, and the earlier occurrences from quite early in Genesis. What seems to be happening is that one particluar strand of the Torah narrative (the one written in the northern kingdom of Israel sometime after 722 BC) makes a great play of God's ervelation of his true name, Yahweh, while the strand that makes up most of the first part of Genesis, and which had its origin in Judah, has no such program. (The Judah text provided the statement that men began invoking the name of Yahweh soon after the expulsion from Eden, and the Israel text said that the Burning Bush revelation was the first use of the name). PiCo 05:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how scholars go off on entire tangents of Original research based only on their dim recollections ("somewhere around Genesis 4 or 5") of what the text says, without even bothering to look it up or check the facts, and thus produce brand new original theories never before published about the alleged (yet so far completely unattested) source documents they are so sure existed, in their determination to pull to pieces an abviously cohesive document into as many isolated fragments as they possibly can, based on the flimsiest and most forced of evidence.

The episode with the Burning Bush takes place in Exodus 3; here Moses asks to know the name of the Lord and is told "I am that I am" and "thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me to you." In Hebrew, "I am" is different from the tetragrammaton YHWH. In this chapter 3, as in the entire Torah, the names YHWH and Elohim are both used interchangeably, now one, now the other, at the author's preference, and from the Orthodox standpoint it is sheer folly to try to invent new doctrines like "Documentary hypothesis" in the mistaken assumption that atheist scholars make and try to force on others, that YHWH and Elohim are somehow not the same thing, but two different things.

It is later, in Chapter 6:3 (not the Burning Bush) where Elohim makes the statement to Moses: That to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, He was known by the Name of "EL-SHADDAI" rather than YHWH. There is no statement that God is revealing His Name "for the first time", indeed Genesis does state that the patriarch lineage called on the Name YHWH long before Abraham, that is from Enos (4:26). Other traditions hold that Serug (Abraham's great grandfather) was the one who turned to idol worship that became prevalent in his day, and that Abram marked something of a "renaissance" of worshipping the One Creator, who according to Ex. 6:3 he called "EL-SHADDAI". It is impossible, and the sheer folly of faithless scholars, to separate the different Names of God into different gods; beware of being led down this path. Exodus 6:2 is but one example of a verse that includes the Names YHWH and ELOHIM together on the same line clearly to refer to the same Entity: so, you self-proclaimed "experts" who so confidently think you know exactly how the books were written as if you had the supposed "source texts" right in front of you, answer me this: do you say Exodus 6:2 is a 'J' verse or an 'E' verse? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's P - see below. PiCo 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I wasn't intentionally making any reference to the Documentary Hypothesis or to any other theories of the origins of the names of God. I just seemed to remember a verse or verses in Exodus where Moses started calling God YHWH, and wanted to check that a mistake wasn't being made. Thanks. Robin S 19:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Robin, I know you weren't intending to start a discussion of the DH, but it seems to have happened anyway. And Codex is quite right, I was being lazy in my answer by not bothering to look up exact verses. The correct answer to your question is that at Exodus 6:3 God says to Moses, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as El Shaddai, and I was not known to them by my name, YHWH." This is a contradiction of the many times that characters in Genesis mention the name YHWH, beginning with Eve at Genesis 4:!, where she says of the birth of Cain, "I have created a man with YHWH." Genesis 4:26 makes clear that this was not an isolated case: "Then (i.e., after the expulsion from Eden and when men had begun to populate the Earth) it was begun to invoke the name of YHWH".

Others who read this thread might like some more details, so I'll explain: Codex believes that the Torah is a single, unified document; I believe it was originally four separate documents, which were edited together in antiquity into their present form. Codex's is the traditional belief supported by the rabbinic scholars of the Talmud and by Orthodox Judaism today; mine, the Documentary Hypothesis, is the view of many biblical scholars (not all). The DH is based on the idea that each of the four original texts had distinctive markers - distinctive linguistic features, distinctive thematic concerns, even distinctive twists of theology (although all, of course, were Jewish). One of those markers is the revelation of God's name. Two of the four texts, those known as E and P, appear to believe that God only revealed his name, YHWH, to Moses, at about the point that Moses' encounters with Pharoah begin. They therefore don't use the word YHWH in direct speech prior to the revelation to Moses, refering instead to El or Elohim. The point, apaprently, was to glorify Moses, the prophet to whom God made his final, complete revelation: the writers of both E and P are believed on other grounds to be have been priests descended from Moses. J, written by someone not descended from Moses, and not from the northern kingdom (where the priests of the house of Moses had their chief shrine, at Shechem), had no such agenda, and calls God Elohim or YHWH depending on context. (He uses YHWH, god's name, in narration, but characters sometimes use the word Elohim, simply God, in direct speech). There are over two thousand instances of the words YHWH, El and Elohim in the Torah, and the number of exceptions to this picture is three.

Codex and the traditionalists would retort that the DH scholars simply find instances of the word YHWH and then stick the label "J" on them, when in fact these are simply different names for God, just as you cuold refer to "George Bush" or to "the President". It's a good point; how can you know that the DH scholars aren't imposing a pattern where none really exists? The test of the DH is this: the "names of God" argument is only one of several markers; others include such things as specific terminology (the holy mountain, for example, is called Horeb in E, Sinai in P and J - and note how P agrees with E on the name of God, but with J on the name of the mountain); names of minor characters (Moses' father-in-law is Reuel in J, Jethro in E); attitude to sacred objects (P mentions the Tabernacle more than 200 times; E mentions it only 3 times; J and D never mention it at all); attitudes to Moses and Aaron (in E, written by priests from the clan of Moses, miracles are performed with Moses' staff; in P, written by priests of the clan of Aaron, who held the High Priest-ship in the kingdom of Judah, it's Aaron's staff - the rivalry between the Mushite and Aaronid priests lies behind a lot of their differences). And so on - there are many, many markers, some of them, like the name of God, ocuring many times, others, like the name of Moses' father-in-law, occuring rarely. But the eral point is that these amrkers are consistent: when scholars attempt to take the Torah apart on the basis of markers, putting passages with J markers together, passages with E markers together, and so on, they end up with four consistent, coherent narratives, and not some kind of gibberish. Sometimes the allocation of a passage isn't clear, but the areas of uncertainty are comparatively few.

As for the E and P revelations of YHWH's name, the P revelation (Exodus 6:2) is quite explicit - I quoted it above. The idea that the burning bush episode at Genesis 3 is also a first revelation is less obvious, but it works like this: Moses is herding Jethro's sheep on Mt Horeb (Gen.3:1). "Jethro" and "Horeb" are E markers. An angel of YHWH appears in a burning bush (Gen.3:2). "YHWH" is a J marker, as is the appearance of angels, so this is a change to a J passage. At Gen 3:4, Elohim calls to Moses from inside the bush - back to an E passage, and note that the angel of the J passage has now become God himself. The switches between E and J are frequent, and the passages from each brief, and there's still a great deal of dispute among scholars as to what comes from where (and I'm surprised Codex didn't use this passage to embarrass me with - it's one of the hardest to defend for the DH). But at 3:9 a long E passage begins, and its length, and the larger number of markers, means that it's easier to be sure that it really is E. Anyway, at 3:13 Moses asks God for his name so that he can tell it to the Israelites: clearly he didn't know it up to then. (Codex will say that Moses was brought up as an Egyptian, and therefore missed out on a good Jewish education - I don't find this convincing). God replies, "I am that I am...say to the children of Israel, "I Am" has sent you"...Say to the children of Israel, YHWH, your fathers' god, the god of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, has sent me...This is how I am to be remembered." The phrase "I am that I am" is itself a revelation of YHWH's name - the root of this phrase in Hebrew is also the root of YHWH. This is the first time in an E passage - and it is an E passage, because other E amrkers continue, and there are no J markers - that the name YHWH appears.

I think this reply is already getting too long, but the field of biblical scholarship is fascinating, and I hope this will be of interest to future readers. (Not to Codex, alas, who will simply be enraged). PiCo 04:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not enraged but dismayed at seeing this nonsense here asserted as fact where it does not belong. As I stated, from the Orthodox standpoint, there is no contradiction. The specifics are known because they were revealed to Moses at Sinai. In the days of Enos, the patriarchs began to call the Creator by His Name YHWH. The worship of YHWH was passed along from father to son, including Enoch, Noah, etc. But it was abandoned by Serug, Abraham's great grandafather, who turned to idol worship, according to the Ethiopian Bible, that was never redacted by the Sanhedrin. It also details how Abraham rejected idol worship and deduced the existence of the Creator, whom he knew as El Shaddai. That was the Name that Isaac and Jacob and their offspring knew Him as until you get to Moses, to whom the Name YHWH was again revealed. There is nothing in any Bible to contradict this, there is nothing that states Moses was the first to call the Name YHWH, there is nothing that states God had never revealed the Name YHWH before - that's you putting false words in the mouth of the account that aren't there for the sake of your hypothesis. All it states, correctly, is that God never revealed the name YHWH to Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, it doesn't state that He never had revealed that Name before Abraham, because He had. Please think very very carefully before attacking the Word of God. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 12:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Codex, I'm not attacking the word of God, and I don't want to make you or anyone doubt their faith. And most importantly, the documentary hypothesis is exactly that - a hypothesis; it does not assert facts, it proposes theories. PiCo 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

it's not "just" a theory, it elegantly explainsööuuhh :p dab (𒁳) 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is dangerous territory. I just wanted a clarification, which I now have. Thankyou, both of you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin S (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

OK to cut this whole argument short- The name of God is.... ALLAH! Thats all you need worry about! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

There are repeated references to four gods in the story of Abraham, el shaddai, yahwah, el roi, and moloch. has the meaning lord, power, authority, deity, law of nature, the law. El is eguivalent to al, iah, allah, lah in the ssense of a reverence for power and authority whether or not divine. One example is found in Exodus where the power of the law is carved in stone, placed in an ark and housed in a sanctuary in the manner which the Egyptians use in the worship of their gods.

el shaddai is the lord of the land, shamsi adad of Mari.

yahwah is the power of the air, the storm god found in the form of a cloud in Exodus, the Afroasiatic Egyptian equivalent of Indo European Hittite Yam, and semitic .

el roi is the law of the well, a reference to water rights being revered as legally defining a border or boundry of a land or territory in desert lands.

moloch is the power of the fire and being passed through the fire as granting ownership of a land or territory through sacrifice.

Taken all together these are the gods whose blessings and curses bind the contract of covenant giving Abraham title to his land in Canaan.Rktect 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam section

What the?! Who wrote all that? That is not NPOV at all, and it looks like it was copied off a website. On top of that it doesn't even conform to standardized spelling. Should that even be there? Because it's been there for awhile. Zazaban 20:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and deleted it. If anyone objects you can voice your opinion, but I really don't think that conformed to neutrality standards.

(i am not the guy that wrote this post)

Man, just let people be people you Islam freak. Why don't you just go and offend some Buddhist monk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.82.37.75 (talk) 05:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Abraham also seen by not-christians, not-jews and not muslims as a realy existed person

Why is "In 2007 refered British Prime Minister Tony Blair to "Abrahamic heritance" without any questioning that a leader of a secular nation has to keep his personal religion at home. " geedit ?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

My reasoning behind removing it is twofold. First it makes no sense, there is no clear indication of what Tony Blain said or how it is relevant. Second there is a comment regarding what Tony Blair should do with his personal beliefs. This may be a valid debate to have, but what does anyone's opinion on the matter have to do with Abraham? Since the statement reads unclear, I could be wrong about the intent of the person who wrote it and my second reason could be incorrect.

So I have writen has a politician to keep his religion "at home". Futher is "also believed by person with a other religion totally wrong. Also people who believe nothing believe that Abraham has really existed, what is, in my opinion, ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Limboot (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Hello again, I'm sorry but the statement still makes no sense. I read the part that Tony Blair had to say about Abraham, but it has no relevance what so ever to the topic of Abraham or the sub topic of Abraham as seen by other non 'Abrahamic' religions. Also what does Tony Blair's personal beliefs have to do with Abraham or with the views of 'non-abrahamic' belief systems? The paragraph in the reference also doesn't at all state whether Tony Blair holds any belief in Abraham as a historic character. All it states is that he sees Britain as a place containing large groups that do.

"Believed by systems" is in all fronts wrong. Because there is no "non abrahamic" system. And I dont agree about your removel of the fact that Tony Blair takes his believe in a fictive bible figure into (inter)national policy. 18:15 GMT

The reference does not state whether Tony Blair actually holds any type of Abrahamic belief. Do I understand your view correctly that you feel that Tony Blair is making a personal religious belief system statement and attempting to apply it to British government? Also do you further believe that he should keep such beliefs to himself?

Isaac and the paternity of Abraham

The paternity of Abraham for Isaac is not sure. (Cf.Isaac paradox). Isaacsonornot 20:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC) .

please revise

The paragraph "Chedorlaomer and Melchisedek" has a LOT of commas. fix it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.131.93.47 (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

mergefrom <= Seed of Abraham

My thinking is that the content of the Seed of Abraham article would best be either placed in the Abraham article. As currently written, the article is something of a phrase index for the concept as it appears in one version of the Bible. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus of The AfD debate, I think, was to merge the material from Seed of Abraham to Abraham, and then redirect search queries for Seed of Abraham to Abraham. Here is the material from the former Seed of Abraham article, which now redirects here to Abraham, with the recommendation to merge the material into the article when convenient, and in an appropriate manner: (See also Archived version) --T-dot ( /contribs ) 15:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus referred to one woman as "a daughter of Abraham" Luke 13:16. Elsewhere in the New Testament there are references to "children of Abraham" (Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, John 8:39), "seed of Abraham" (John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29) and "sons of Abraham" {John 8:33; Romans 9:7, Romans 11:1; Galatians 3:29).

POV?

This article seems to speak of Abe as a historical figure, as well as God, and as actually existing infallably. I find this offensive both as an atheist and as someone who regards Wiki as a neutral base. Shouldn't there be "according to scripture" or such before such passages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NLUT (talk • contribs).

Very good point, and deepest apologies. The first paragraph in the intro specifically states that Abraham is a figure appearing in Jewish, Islamic, and Christian texts. I added an "according to scripture" in the second paragraph as a boilerplate / test for consensus "approval". Please feel free to do similar edits as you wish, especially if you find various passages particularly offensive and non-neutral. I do not necessarily believe we need to preface every sentence with "according to scripture"; but perhaps once per section, or significant paragraph or group, where it is not clear that the following information is extracted from the historical/religious texts. Thanks for the heads-up. --T-dot ( /contribs ) 13:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hate to use the word "offended," because it makes me seem like a sensitive prick. I'm not offended by it so much as its lack of respect for Misplaced Pages's neutrality.

Given that the Pentateuch is known as the book of the law, and that the name of Abrahams sister/wife Ŝarai is cognate with Ŝarai law and that the handmaiden's name Hagar is cognate with the Koran in semitic languages and with htp or hotep meaning law in afroasiatic Egyptian and that in the next chapter we have the establishment of the ten commandments, might not we be excused for seeing the book of Abraham as discussing the precedents of the Torah in terms of an inheritence of sharia law tempered by Egyptian law giving rise to both the law of Israel and Ishmael? Rktect 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Mythology?

Addition to that wikiproject is somewhat controversial, especially to the billions of people (Christians, Muslims, Bahai, and Jews) who believe he actually existed. -- Avi 13:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that he's a figure in mythology.

Intro

I have two problems with the intro:

• It claims that Abraham is regarded as the founding patriarch the Nabataean people. The article says nothing about this and it is incorrect as far as I know.
• It says (twice, more or less) that Abraham is the forefather of the Jews, but it fails to mention that he was also the forefather of the Arabs and Edomites.

I'll change the intro if there is no objection.--128.139.104.44 09:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't the forefather of the Arabs. The Ishmaelites were absorbed into the existing Arabians. 01:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article says "Ishmael, his firstborn son, is considered the Father of the Arabs". This is the religious tradition both in Judaism and in Islam. I see no reference to your claim anywhere.--128.139.104.44 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the forefather of the Edomites be Edom (Esau's alternate name), as the Edom article claims? Rpresser 17:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I deleted my comment from this place to put it here below under my name. Noureddine (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Polygamist?

Is it accurate to describe him as a "Biblical polygamist"? He did have a number of concubines, notably Hagar, but he only had one wife. PatGallacher 20:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say no - but see the talk archives 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On this topic, what's "kinship pattern" mean in this sentence?: "Consistent with the kinship pattern revealed in Genesis 4 and 5, Abraham married one wife, Sarah." I think someone might have misunderstood the meaning of the phrase - kinship doesn't refer to the number of wives you have, but to who they are.PiCo 03:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is some discussion on "kinship patterns" about halfway down this page . I haven't studied it though. 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's something in the "Significance" subsection about Isaac being surrounded by related clans who intermarried, but I don't think it's relevant to this sentence. What puzzles me about this is why the writer mentioned Gen. 4 and 5 as being consistent with Abraham marrying one wife - those chapters are about the descendants of Cain and Seth: most of them have no mention of any wife at all, but Lamech at least is credited with two wives, not one (that's Cain's Lamech, not Noah's father). Anyway, I think the author (a) meant marriage pattern, not kinship pattern, and (b) got it wrong anyway, as Lamech has two wives and the rest aren't mentioned. By the way, the summary of Abraham's life seems awfully long - can't it be shortened a bit?PiCo 07:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The question seems to want to split hairs; he fathered children from different women while maintaining a condoned relationship with more than one woman during the period. If not a polygamist, then he was an adulterer. Does not the Bible clearly say that Hagar was given to him as a wife?

The term "married" is a relative term throughout history; generally it was a committed relationship between two consenting adults (I use the term adult here loosely given the early age of marriage throughout history). The concept of married and its standard was quite broad. It was often more an acknowledgement by others that a relationship existed. I am speaking in broad terms here; please hold off the on counter argument that formal marriages have existed for a long period in varios societies. The point is that it was not near as strict as we view it today. --Storm Rider 07:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Abraham's Footprints In Arabia

Noureddine 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)To my opinion, the door is open to speculations to add to the existing controversies. Abraham is not God and he is still a myterious figure; the proof? The mega opinions that were written around his name and legend. The more we write about him the more proof there is something missing. Admit it: there is something missing and this missing link is about the reading of the old scriptures. How many bibles keep stating that Hebrew is unclear? Ask the Archaeologists who keep digging in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East: their conclusions are mere tentatives not confirmations. Faith is another chapter and nobody has the right to touch it. What the writings are all about is the historical figure, and we try to get some help from the Holy Books from time to time and yet we can merely hear some agreements. Inetrest of the local communities in the Middle East is letting regional conflicts feed the controversy. Every community is trying to discredit the other and the idea of a common father still hover above their heads. No one in the Middle East is prepared to concede to the other community's beliefs even if they feel that something is missing or wrong. If Abraham was the father of all "Arabs" why don't we study Arabia. And the Arabian version of the story? Why do we have to go to Iraq and Palestine to seek his footprints while Arabia offers us irrefutable clues about the persons and the places they were roaming on? It is really irritating when you find an American astronomer giving interpretation to star names as he pleases while these star names are purely ARABIC and they have a meaning like Al-Dabaran, Al-Nitaq, BetelGowse (Beetlejuice). And the French archaeologists who discovered the Sumerian cities of UR and URUK, did they bother linking the name of URUK to the actual IRAQ? Look for the origin of the name Iraq. Take the name of the actual Lebanon: did the people who established the Modern Hebrew in the 19th century bother asking the local people of LUBNAN how they pronounce the name of their country? Of course not and we are still following people like Edward Robinson who gave names to the hundreds of townships in Palestine, with 95% speculation about what "must these names be". Please forgive me I do not mean to shed doubts on the Moslem or Jewish beliefs but when it comes to establish a map, we have to know the names of places and townships by hundreds, by heart, in Lebanon and palestine and even in Syria. In other words, what has not been found in Palestine is actually in Lebanon where it should not be, according to the Book.

On the other hand the questions about the name are innumerable, who was Abraham or who were the Abraham figures, is it advisable to consider the figure singular? How about the transmission of a story (legend) through the ages? has the story been altered, modified, stylized, during the telling from one generation to another? How can we be sure that the Abraham who was born in the 19th century BC is the same as the one who lived in the Mecca Area? How can we be sure that Abramu is the same as Abraham or Ephrem or Ephraim or even Ibrahim of the Arabs? So how many faces are there behind the mask? The name itself "Ibrahim" suggests a God name because of the "I" prefix, which means the "God of...". This rimes with Itzhac, Itzrael, Ismael, etc... a current verbal tradition in Arabia. The name Itzhac itself generated the verb "Tzaha-Dhaha" which means "sacrify" in Arabic. Tradition when "told" from one generation to another, creates a new "term" in a living language, where an event generates a verb. The most important holiday in Arabia is the pilgrimage to Mecca, centuries before Islam. In this pilgrimage, the sacrifice "story" is repeated on the "mount of mercy", which in Arabic is literally "Har-Ra'fat" or simply Arafat. In the Hebrew tradition this mount is called Moriah, which recalls the name of "Marwah" in the Mecca area. The big Sacrifice holiday is then the Ad-ha holiday. This is the holiday that repeats the Sacrifice by Abraham to his son Itzhac. Therefore, Arabs who may think (without proof) that it was Ismael who was offered as scrifice, the name of that big holiday "Atz-ha" proves that it was Itzhac who was sacrificed. The name Tzah-ha (Dah-ha) in Arabic also means "Sacrify at Dawn". The term Dawn is also derived from the "Sacrifice Tradition". The sheep sacrifice in the Hajj Islamic tradition also must happen before sunrise which means at Dawn.

Let us analyse the pilgrimage holiday in Mecca. This pilgrimage has a unique name: Hajj. Arabs have never questioned the etymology of this term. Is it a noun, a verb or a gerund? The name derived from this event in Arabic is simply "hajjeej" which means the dense crowd. It is also pronounced "Ajeej" with "'Ayn". Some tribes in the Hijaz region in Arabia still pronounce the "'ayn" consonant as "Ha" (as in Hayat) and also the "J" as "Ye". Therefore the term Hajj can lead us to the term "'Aii". People who never lived with the local tribes in Hijaz may never belive it but Moslems who recall the hadith about the Calif who corrected a Koran reader committing the same permutation, these Moslems easily admit the above pronunciation glitch. Furthermore, in the Mecca area, the Misfilah quarter is a hilly area that reminds us the Macvilah caverns of the Torah. in addition, Abraham, after he buried his wife Sarah, headed south towards the road of Shor: Jabal Thawr is a few miles south of Mecca. If the prophet Muhammad honored a place called the Namra Shrine, it is because the name recalls an ancient honorable figure mentioned in the Torah: Mambra. If all these facts are gathered in one single area, they are worth being considered for investigation. I personally do not believe the Moslem tradition saying that Abraham was buried in Palestine, unless we consider the eternal Arabian migrations from south to north. Abraham in this case must have been a local cult somewhere in Hijaz and the tribes who fled the drought in Arabia seeking new fertile grounds, brought their deities names with them to the new places in Palestine and Lubnan. To my opinion, if we do not analyse the oral tradition and the geographical distribution of regions and twonships with their names, we fall into mere mythology and futile speculation.

The Kaaba in the Arabian tradition is called: the Old House of God. In Arabic it is literally Bethel or Beit El. According to the Koran, it was the "first house ever built for human worship", a version that coincides with the overall story of Abraham in Arabia. Should the name Abraham persist through the ages, it is because the House of Abraham must have been the "Followers of Abraham" who carried the name of their togetherness under the Abraham slogan. This tribe still exists in Arabia as the tribe of Ibrahim. I personally find it odd the name of Ephraim as a distinct name from Abraham. The explanation to this distinction is that Ephraim is the Arabian pronunciation of Abraham and it should be read: Ibrahim. The investigation is worth being seriously carried out until a complete history of Arabia is finally written. Noureddine (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Esau's wicked deeds

Jewish legend says that he was meant to live to 180 years, but God purposely took his life because he felt that Abraham did not need to go through the pain of seeing Esau's wicked deeds.

What wicked deeds are that? I don't find them in the wikipedia article on Esau. At least in the German version. .. and I had short look at the English one. JanCK 22:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well...he foolishly sold his birthright to Jacob. This led to years of enmity between Jacob and Esau, and their descendants (the nations of Israel and Edom). Arch O. La 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article contains spurious information

Abraham was neither a Babylonian, Sumerian, Akkadian, etc. His area of origin is repeatedly named in the Bible as "Aram Naharaim" (Upper Mesopotamia). the Bible never indicates he was in Arabia, and the evidence points against him being from Southern Mesopotamia (named Shinar in the Bible). The rest is recent tradition, played up by those attempting to co-opt his legacy. The so-called "Ur" (Tell Muqayyar) in southern Iraq was in fact the Sumerian city of Urim (Urimma, Urimmu), later named in Akkadian Uri (Uriwa), not Ur and not "Ur Kasdim". There is no evidence that the term 'Kasdim' was inserted at a much later stage, which is a claim made by modern scholars. At least one of the references to the 'Kasdim' is from the more ancient "J" source anyway, which preceded the conquest of Babylon by the Chaldeans (who are depicted in the Bible as ruthless horsemen from outside Babylonia, not as cultured Babylonian city dwellers or itinerant camel riders from the desert vicinity). Had the term been added after the invasion of Babylon by the Chaldeans, the Hebrew scribes would have simply used the name "Kaldi", which is the name ascribed to them in Akkadian. The only clue as to the origin of name of the city "Ur Kasdim" given in the 5 books of the Torah itself is the name of Abraham's relative "Kesed" (Kasdim would mean 'those of Kesed'), the son of his brother Nahor, who was from the "City of Nahor", which is Haran or a suburb of Haran. Note in Genesis 12 that only AFTER Abraham arrives in Haran does he receive the call from God to leave his country, his nativity, and his father's house to "go to a land that I will show you". Repeated evidence in Genesis points to Ur being in the vicinity of Haran, not south of Babylon. Furthermore, the names of Abraham's forebears point to locations in Upper Mesopotamia, and so do the cultural themes of the patriarchs themselves. When Leonard Wooley, the famed British archelogist, unearthed the great Sumerian metropolis, he gave great importance to it in the West by associating it with the Bible and dubbing it "Ur of the Chaldees" without a single factual piece of evidence. Sadly, so many reputable people have jumped onto that bandwagon that few since then have seemed to be able to budge from that increasingly untenable position. --JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

== JD: The information is not "Spurious" as you say. The information is current conviction in Arabia and it is a matter of time that it is taught in universities. Your article deals with the birthplace and the original country of Abraham, not with his subsequent life and destination. In this regard there would not be any contradiction with the Arabian stories. First of all the climatic changes: four thousand years ago the land south of "Shin'ar" was not a desolate land for camel riders like you say. Nejd still witnesses a country of fertile soil and a clement weather with rich vegetation and production. This is in addition to the fact that Nejd was on the line of the water points for the caravans coming from Yemen, carrying Frankincense to Mesopotamia. Nejd is more eligible to be the target of Sargon II than Palestine, it is closer to Babylon. Shalmanassar III would have followed the caravan road of water points to reach Juddah. There is no Juddah in Palestine.

Nonetheless, the names of places like Hagar, Thadiq, Arad, Hardh, Hayir-U-Thulaym in addition to the etymology of Al-Riyadh, do point out to Abrahamic footsteps and country. That does not contradict the Biblical stories at all because it is plausible to conceive Abraham migrating from the land of his fathers to a land "of prosperity and production" along the Caravan Road. The continuation of his migration toward Mecca is another story with more clues and landmarks like: Mambrah, Machvilah, Shor, Bethel, and the Itzhac tradition of Sacrifice, all these are clues to complete what the Torah has not clarified in "Old Hebrew". The name of Mecca itself comes from the grand Rabbi of Bethel at that time: Micah and his idols.

As to the identity of Abraham, considering Arabia as his homeland does not make him an Arab. Before Abraham there was neither Israelites nor Arabs and the Language of Arabia is unknown. Therefore, Abraham could well be Arabian without being an Arab. At his time there was something that today’s historians call: Aramaic. We have to understand that it is inconceivable that the Modern Arabic be spoken at the time of Abraham, because languages evolve through the ages and the regions. If the language is a criterion for identity, we can say that Abraham's identity is no longer alive today, it has dissolved and changed with time and with the mixing of populations in Arabia.

It is important in this regard to understand that the Israelites used to live in Arabia in the frame of the above description. Their intense life used to eclipse the presence of the "other" people of Arabia who did not have a "tradition" like the Israelites did, especially with the writing skills. These other people of Arabia had an oral tradition rather that a written one. The Israelites with the declining production due to the drying weather conditions, started to leave Arabia gradually, inflicted with invasions from Mesopotamia thus leaving Arabia to their Arab brethren to take over, enjoying the Biblical stories and tradition. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC) ==

Islamic Rationale behind 'why Abraham came to Makkah/Arabia

It was written, under the Islamic View of Abraham, 'There is no Islamic rationale for why Abraham would have traversed more than 900 miles (1,400 km) of barren desert to Mecca, nor why he didn't stay there once he had arrived.'

I had edited that, to actually provide the Islamic rationale and tradition... with a reference! Yet someone (this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Prester_John) is making the article revert back to its old form and judging by his UserPage, after a quick 10-second skim, he's doing it elsewhere on other pages related to the the three Abrahamic faiths. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, people. Do you not have any integrity?

Not sure why User:Prester_John reverted - your edit looks ok to me. --NeilN 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The question about the 900 miles explains itself: if this is too much distance, then the fact may have never had happened. Or maybe because Abraham was native to Arabia. There is possibility in this regard since the biblical interpretations about Ur, Kassidim, Haran, are still in the need for proofs of location. Sometimes the evidence borrows the actual remains of names and sometimes it discredit them or goes to pejorative symbolism. Terms like: perhaps, must be, for sure, shed nothing but doubt and speculation. The pronunciation gap between the Modern Hebrew and the local Arabian dialects remains a barrier separating the Biblical scholars from recognizing the value of Arabia in the interpretation of the Old Hebrew. Finally would you consider the evolution of language through the ages? And the changing weather conditions passing from Arabia Felix to the (today) desolate landscape. maybe at the time of Abraham the landscape was not desertic as it is today. The Arabian topography proves such a climatic change with the innumerable dry salt lakes in the Nejd region but also the remains of ancient fertile agricultural soil. The limestone river bed in the Diriya north of Riyadh is a scene of hard limestone rocks that were eroded and rounded by old torrential rains. Respectfully I propose these ideas that I consider worth being investigated. Noureddine (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I humbly admit that I misunderstood the above comment about the Islamic rationale. I have read the discussions about Aram Nahraim in the frame of the countless efforts to determine the birthplace of Abraham. If today I am proposing a migration from Nejd to Hijaz it is because I discovered a concrete evidence on the ground as a solution to the suffering of all those who keep digging in the Old Hebrew stories about him, speculating about the meaning and the location of Ur Kassidim and therefore writing a parallel history to what is there in front of them in Arabia. Please refer to my contribution about Hagar-Bible in this regard. To my opinion, it is not because Mesopotamia has two rivers or because Strabo said it that Nahraim should be located in "Assyria" (Forgive my inaccuracy). Strabo is a late historian and his talk about Abraham could be doubted like any other historian. However, there could be some truth about locating the birthplace of Abraham in "Northern Arabia" because it is somehow close to Nejd in Arabia. Therefore, the "rationale" of migration could be justified, not only for the distance between Nejd and Hijaz but also for the distance further north of Nejd till Mesopotamia. I am thinking of a location north of Riyadh called: Thadiq (remember Melki Sedek) and also Malham, Sadouss, Hardh, Arad, Khuraiss, Thulaym and finally Kasseem and Dammam. These names have no etymology in Arabic and I propose Old Arabic as an explanation, which is the language that was frozen in the Scrolls. This is the alternative history that I am proposing which to my opinion makes more sense than the innumerable speculations about Abraham. The caravan road (otherwise called the Frankincense Road) from Yemen to Babylon is also another fact that could reinforce my proposal, in addition to the changing weather conditions through the ages. Respectfully, Noureddine (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

His age

All of the sections that talk about events that took place when he was in his 120s, or about him living until 175 should probably go through a bit of a re-write. At the risk of offending some religious people, a man who lived four thousand years ago probably did not live longer than 90 years at most, given the maximum lifespans we see everywhere else in history and today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

well, it is, after all, a fictional character we're talking about here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.235.142 (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that he was most likely based on a real person. Don't we have to sort out the stuff that has a historical bases from the mythology of the man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.45.183 (talk) 00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, let me ask you this: what is your source? I know how long he lived in the Tanach/Old Testament. I don't know how long he lived, according to the Qu'ran. AFAIK, there are no secular sources; which isn't surprising since he lived so long ago. That's not to say that he didn't exist; but he was obviously more important to the Abrahamic religions. Arch O. La 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Date of birth?

Are there any known documents that state the date when abraham was born? Also, are ther any documents telling when he became a monotheist?

The Bible. 2000BC. Traditional Jews have a calendar error which makes it around 1700BC. There is nothing that says when he became a monotheist. 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest Angelo Rappoport's "Ancient Israel Myth and Legends" as a reference to other material regarding Abraham; 1987, Bonanza Books, ISBN: 0-517-63219-5 DWmFrancis (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Latter-Day Saint Perspective

Greetings all - I have taken the liberty to rewrite the section on the Latter-Day Saint view of Abraham in an effort to make it more about Abraham than the LDS Book of Abraham and the controversy associated with it. (Hopefully I haven't stepped on too many toes.) The Latter-Day Saints have added some significant material to studies on Abraham, the most recent being Tvedtnes, Hauglid and Gee's 500+ page "Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham", which casts a very broad net. (FARMS, 2001, ISBN 0-934893-59-4) Whether or not Abraham was a historic figure, the legend is fascinating and even more comprehensive in influence than Christianity. DWmFrancis (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Tony Blair: "The abrahamic heritace we share in common