Talk:Abraham/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Textual Criticism section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Major unilateral changes that may violate POV 

message: Many years ago [Ken Kitchen] 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 [Rim Sin] for which the form of contracts would be most correct c 1850 - 1750 BC. 
1:In the days of Amraphel king of [Shinar(eshnunah)], 
:Arioch king of Ellasar, [(el larsa)]
2:Chedorlaomer king of [Elam],
: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)
thread_title:  Dating Genesis 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: cleanup required

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tomb of Abraham photo 

message: the recent additions seem well-informed, it did, however, contain a lot of rhetorical smoke mis-representing its own content. It is undisputed that
#there was a "historical Genesis" debate in 19th century scholarship
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "historicity debate"

message: 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  or  tag per Wikipedia:Summary style. -- Avi 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 mLa-ba-an with one mI-a-a-qu-ub DUMU mIs-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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Latest entries: Out-of-scope? 

message: on what grounds do we translate ab as "leader"? dab (ᛏ) 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: that's well worth mentioning, of course (but doesn't make raham any more Hebrew) dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "leader"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mandaean issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abraham: Hindu connections 

message: 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)
replies: text: '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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title:  dbac's position not tenable 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the use of textual artifacts in an unbiased assessment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Islam section 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  please revise 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would say no - but see the talk archives  rossnixon 02:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is some discussion on "kinship patterns" about halfway down this page . I haven't studied it though. rossnixon 01:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Polygamist?

message: Noureddine 15:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abraham's Footprints In Arabia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Grigory Deepdelver 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Esau's wicked deeds 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This article contains spurious information 

message: 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/wiki/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 talk ♦ contribs 20:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Rationale behind 'why Abraham came to Makkah/Arabia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Grigory Deepdelver 18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  His age 

message: 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. rossnixon 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth?

message: 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, ) 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)
thread_title:  Latter-Day Saint Perspective