![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I see the new section about it that was added; but wonder if this is in due weight. Unfortunately I see such sections on so many religion related articles and often wonder how come such an obscure (other than on Wikipedia) group has so prominent coverage everywhere (this is even true in templates). I will not remove it in case I am wrong, another editor can determine this. Thanks, —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Done
Bahá'u'lláh, the prophet of the Baha'i Faith, affirms the highest religious station for Abraham and generally for prophets mentioned among the other Abrahamic religions, [1] and has claimed a lineage of descent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. [2] [3] Comparisons are also made between the sacrifice of sons, [4] and journeys of Abraham and Bahá'u'lláh from east to the Holy Land. [5]
References
- ^ May, Dann J (December 1993). "Web Published". The Bahá'í Principle of Religious Unity and the Challenge of Radical Pluralism (Thesis). University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. p. 102. Archived from the original on 1998. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
{{ cite thesis}}
: Check date values in:|archive-date=
( help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)- ^ Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (1998). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. 126–8. ISBN 0-87743-264-3.
- ^ Flow, Christian B.; Nolan, Rachel B. (November 16, 2006). "Go Forth From Your Country". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
- ^ Taherzadeh, A. (1984). "The Death of The Purest Branch". The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3: `Akka, The Early Years 1868-77. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. 204–220. ISBN 0853981442.
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Zaid Lundberg (1 January 2004). "Bahá'í and the Holy Land: Religiogensis and Shoghi Effendi's The Faith of Bahá'u'lláh: A World View". In Moše Šārôn (ed.). Studies in Modern Religions, Religious Movements and the Bábí-Bahá'í Faiths. BRILL. p. 301. ISBN 90-04-13904-4.
Smkolins ( talk) 03:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This small selection of sources may be of use:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Smkolins ( talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
There has been a disproportionate amounts of vandalism done to Patriarch related Wikipedia articles. In past 10 edits, ( 16:10, 13 June 2017 - 18:57, 6 June 2017, five edits have been purely IP vandalism, four have been purely reverting vandalism, and as the math will tell you, that only leave one actual edit being made to the page. With that in mind, I checked the first page of logs, 8/20 edits were vandalism, wherein in two IPs made multiple unconstructive edits, so 2/6 IPs in question were destructive multiple times. I took it another step further, I reviewed the last 100 edits made to the page, my results were as follows:
This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. BedrockPerson ( talk) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The dates of Abraham's life indicate 335yrs yet the bible states 175yrs
Genesis 25:7 These are all the years of Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.
Is there something I scripture that I am not understanding, maybe age of Abram added to Abraham? Even then the ages would be well short of 335.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.152.164 ( talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017
Why is Sarah depicted as being Abraham's half-sister? There is nothing in Genesis that indicates that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.7.58 ( talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction paragraph states that, Abraham was the father of Judaism. Wouldn't it be better said he was the father of the Hebrews/Israel. Since only stating Judaism would be inaccurate because he had 7 other sons, and the term Judaism/Jewish wouldn't have even been in use for another 600 + years. 72.69.63.213 ( talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Josephus is not a modern scholar, so I do not see why his view would be relevant for 21st century academic consensus. A granddaughter of Abraham married the son of Zeus, makes perfect sense! Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Abraham in Dutch Folklore
In the Netherlands, Abraham is associated with reaching the age of 50. Dutchmen who turn fifty often have a life sized doll of Abraham placed on their lawn. It is a widespread belief that if one turns fifty, one is able to see Abraham. The Dutch practice is based on a New Testament tradition, St John’s Gospel (8:57), where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”
Sources
"where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus" Jesus himself was a Jew. Who are the other Jews in the text? Dimadick ( talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article intro currently says:
Please remove the words "his half-sister", as the book of Genisis doesn't say this in its own voice. 89.138.147.167 ( talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How can the article provide "resting place coordinates" without being even sure if the guy actually existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.10 ( talk) 22:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
81.111.192.146 ( talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)In Islam, Abraham holds an exalted position among the major prophets and he is referred to as "Ibrahim Khalilullah", meaning "Abraham the Friend of Allah".
The first sentence, "[Abraham] is the common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions" is wrong. Click the link in the sentence. In addition to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, there are other Abrahamic religions like Druze, Samaritanism, and B'hai, so to say "three" instead of "all" or some other phrasing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Fix it. 73.11.81.111 ( talk) 21:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The article questions whether Abraham actually existed as a historical figure citing his emergence within the realm of legend and religious dogma around the 7th Century BCE. Yet we were always taught in school back in the day that Genesis, where Abraham is introduced to the reader, along with the other first four books of the Bible, was written by Moses circa 1200 BCE. So it seems the legend or myth, if not the person, goes back much farther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.97 ( talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
we have a lot more evidence or what passes for evidence that many other figures and concepts this place treats as fact: could you please provide some examples?
rival paganaccounts over
firsthand ones written by christiansas both would be primary sources -- Wikipedia favors modern professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, what you dismiss as
leftwing professors. (At any rate, there would be no first-hand accounts of Abraham by Christians, so bringing that up is rather irrelevant). If your approach isn't compatible with modern academia, that's your problem. Trying to make this about politics is a cop-out. Frankly, I get the impression that you didn't bother checking the citations. If you did, you'd know that this article cites:
But fails to cite anything from Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists, who specifically addresses this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.238.98 ( talk) 12:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists"
Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data."
In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick ( talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
This article expresses the atheist agenda of so many of the moderators of Wikipedia. Look at Ian Thomson's attack on Christians above - he doesn't even try to be covert! If the moderators of Wikipedia were truly devoid of prejudice and agenda, then they would word this article in a way to reflect the POSSIBILITY OT THE STORY OF ABRAHAM BEING A MYTH. 2601:580:104:3828:3590:7AA6:7E29:2DAB ( talk) 12:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not a possibility. It is a clear consensus that the Book of Genesis is a mythological resource and does not contain any useful historical information. Why would we hide this? :
the Articles Moses, Ishmael, David, Adam , Eve and Terah (the Father of Abraham) uses Infobox person, Saint or Monarchy, so why this article use the Infobox character ? ( Catechism Database) 6:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Because he is a fictional character, mentioned in a mythology book like the Book of Genesis? Dimadick ( talk) 18:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
so Why the Son of Abraham Ishmael and his father Terah are with the Infobox Person if Abraham is a character? ( Catechism Database) 5:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatechismDatabase ( talk • contribs)
Under the heading "Biblical account: origins and calling", the last sentence of the second paragraph states "Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran with his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and the substance and souls that they had acquired, and traveled to Shechem in Canaan." (emphasis added) What are these "substance and souls" that they supposedly acquired?! Bricology ( talk) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Abraham of the bible has different grandparents to ibrahim of the koran, Abrahams father is TERAH, and in the koran it is AZAR, ABRAHAM is the first JEW who had a covenant with GOD and the isrealistes, He had a covenant is one of circumcision of the flesh, This is not a Islamic covenant and should be noted as such no where in the koran is circumcision mentioned
It is misleading to place the lies of this islam into factual context on wikepedia..
Abraham was a jewish prophet and not islamic, the koran states that Mohammed is the first Muslim therefore this contradicts itself.,
WHY is islam claiming JEWISH prophets, when all prophets are JEWS and not Islamic ,the GOD of Islam is not YAHWEH and they deny JESUS Who is the word incarnated (GOD) all the names of the bible are taken by islam but new identities have been fabricated for them. this is done so Islam can deny Father and son and this should now be made evident to all people. The geneolgies of islamic prophets are not historical and non existent, even the virgin mary is of a fabricated father called irman, i think its tim ethe world makes a stand and stops these lies from being broadcasted and leading people astray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsedit66 ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"It is misleading to place the lies of this islam" And why are the lies of Judaism any better? He is a mythical figure, not a real person. Dimadick ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"they deny JESUS" So does most of the world. There have been multiple messiah claimants, and he is not all that notable. Dimadick ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The general view is that the Albright school has been defeated in its purpose to prove that the Bible has historicity by means of archaeology. So, Zhomron, since the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer the only game in town, things are not going better of the historicity of the patriarchs. If anything, they are going worse. Contemporary scholars see DH not as too radical, but as not daring enough. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Zhomron, I cut your addition to the article because the prose is terrible and the sourcing bad. Here's what you wrote:
However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative. The
Documentary hypothesis which enjoyed widespread acceptance in the field up until the late 20th century, postulates an origin of the patriarchal narrative within the
Jahwist and
Elohist sources which originated in the 10th and 9th century BCE respectively.{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=4}{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}} However, with the collapse of the theory's consensus, the widely proliferated revised hypothesis asserts the Elohist source was likely no more of an independent source from the Jahwist so much as it is largely a southernly supplement to its narratives, which when taken into account puts the core of the Torah, including the saga of Abraham, within the range of the 9th/10 century BCE, the following books being part of a progressive development which was codified, at earliest, with the
Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The earliest firsthand mention of Abraham is within the
Book of Micah, an 8th century BCE composition.
[1] As a result, while the historicity of his actions are still outside the bounds of reality, Abraham and his lore were still nonetheless present within Israelite society centuries before written accounts of his aegis were codified.
First the sourcing: only two sources used, and no indication of who they are - did you copy these templates from somewhere else? Anyway, when you use sfn format, you need to have the book details in the Bibliography section. And two sources aren't enough. As for the ENglish, take the first sentence: "However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative." A "school of midway biblical thinking"? "Parsing out a factual basis"? These are meaningless. This is why sources are needed. By all means try again, but use sources, and write meaningful English.
Achar Sva (
talk)
07:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Immediately following the text:
"The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history."
please insert the following: Although there is little in the Genesis account of Abraham that connects directly to known history, the internal chronology of the Bible places his existence around the year 2000 BC. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.156.178 ( talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User:Achar Sva, you are adding unsourced sentences to this article such as "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam." I have replaced such opinionated and inaccurate statements with sources published by academic presses authored by Old Testament scholars such as Christopher J. H. Wright and academics such as Guy P. Walters. You will need to gain consensus for adding such nonsense to this article rather than edit war. Also, since you have reverted twice, you will soon cross 3RR if you continue to edit war. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 21:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Anupam:, here is an outline of why your edits haven't been accepted:
1, sources:
2, content:
3, behaviour:
Your first edit was brave - it was, in fact, huge. You were then reverted, not surprisingly since this article has been stable for a long time and we need to keep the content at a high level. On being reverted you should have gone to Talk, and as a long-standing editor you were surely aware of that. Instead you steered this towards an edit war.
I could go on, but there's just too much. To be brief, you seem to me to be a committed Christian who is far more familiar with devotional literature than with scholarly sources, and you allow your prejudice (in the best possible sense) to lead you into using poor sources and writing at inordinate length. And no let's proceed to the RfC.
Achar Sva (
talk)
04:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if I'm the only one seeing signs of massive meat-puppetry here... :) Achar Sva ( talk) 20:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I know the article claims that there are no certain dates, but the Moses article lists dates, from Ussher and Jerome; and The Jewish Virtual Library site has a date for Moses too. It also has dates for Abraham. Do Usser and Jerome? (Under the Chronology post here, someone said Abraham existed around 2000 BC, but that's vague, and doesn't quote the source. I didn't quickly find the complete Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible online for free.) If someone has sources, it would be nice to list somebody's guesses or calculations. Here's the one I found, looking quickly: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/abraham Misty MH ( talk) 07:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I object to this article's portrayal of the historicity of Abraham and do not consent to it, much less would choose it. I'm sure most believers would feel the same way. And by this I don't mean "true-believers". This is, I understand, a disparaging term prejudicially imposed upon such believers by some auditing this web page. 2600:1700:C690:3640:D15F:C90:D1C3:7D60 ( talk) 04:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Jesus died for my sinsis just a subjective belief, not an objective truth. In general, Christian theology, Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindu theology, Buddhist theology, and so on, are subjective beliefs.
No one but the Jews believe that Abraham founded Judaism. Christians claim that he is a Christian patriarch, while Muslims claim that he is a Muslim prophet, It would be great to say that he is considered a patriarch in Christianity and Judaism, and that he is considered a prophet in Islam, as further he is the ancestor of both the founder of Islam, the founder of Christianity and the other Israelites. Hth-Oguz Han ( talk) 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Ancestor of Jesus and Muhammadisn't an objective historical fact. See WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Abraham’s mother’s mame is Amtelai bas Karnevo, Not Amhala. Please correct it 2A02:ED0:432F:FC00:A1F0:1015:7EEE:DEE6 ( talk) 04:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The current status of the section on the historicity of Abraham and his contemporaries seems pretty one-sided. It concludes, “By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.”
But even in academia, there’s not a consensus on that, and there’s a compelling point to be made for the other side. I’m not here to debate the historicity as such. I’m pointing out that I think we should change this section to not make it look like the book is closed on the subject when it’s not, since there are other perspectives which should be referenced. I suspect a gut reaction may be to claim I have a religious fundamentalist bias, but let’s also consider that the firm a priori belief in the inveracity of these events can equally constitute a bias. Setting biases aside, we should be objective and make sure to reflect the multiple academically credible views currently out there.
Kenneth Kitchens argues that some of the more recent biblical minimalism completely ignores entire swaths of cultural evidence from Egypt and the Ancient Near East. I propose an edit to this section that reflects some of the academic work that argues for the plausibility of historicity, not in place of what’s currently there, but as an additional legitimate point of view. To this point, consider:
- Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Genesis 12-50 in the Near Eastern World”. P. 67-92 (in “He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50,” edited by R. Hess, P.E. Satterthwaite, and G.J. Wenham - Kitchen, Kenneth A. “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” - Hoffmeier, James Karl. “The Archaeology of the Bible” especially p. 84-90.
If there’s not any cogent argument that substantially rejects adding a line or two about this scholarship, I’ll go ahead and make the edit soon. But I want to confer here first. What are the community’s thoughts? I am open to discussion, but aware of the religious context, I particularly invite reasonable and respectful contributions. Severinus Boethius ( talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists" Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data." In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick ( talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb ( talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
deny people ... their human rights—who do you think I am, Saddam Hussein? Get a life. See WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH: you don't have a constitutional right to push your POV in our articles. This is not Facebook, it isn't Twitter. WP:NOTFORUM. Only WP:PAG-compliant edits are allowed, this is an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning, not an internet forum for free speech. You have no right to tell us what to write, same as you have no right to impose your POV unto Britannica and Larousse. You have no constitutional right to impose upon Oxford University Press what they should publish and what they shouldn't publish, same applies here. This website kowtows to what OUP publish, not to what you publish. So, if you are asking us if you have here the right to WP:SOAPBOX for fundamentalist religion: no, you don't. According to WP:DEM we don't assert theses just because millions believe them to be true.
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
I don't know if I believe this myself, but it is anyway what modern Bible scholars say.At the end of the day, teaching is a job, so he has to teach what mainstream Bible scholars say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
15:23 but what about Moses himself surely 15:27 there must be some evidence for this 15:29 most famous Old Testament hero perhaps 15:32 the most famous of all Old Testament 15:34 figures even if there's no evidence of 15:37 the exodus they must surely be some 15:39 record of a leader as important as him 15:43 the name Moses is a name which is very 15:47 popular from early periods right down 15:51 into late periods so it's a fairly 15:54 common Egyptian name that's that's all 15:57 that we can say there is no text in 16:00 which we can identify this Moses or that 16:04 Moses as the Moses the question of the 16:08 historicity of Moses is the same as the 16:11 question of the historicity of Abraham 16:12 that is to say maybe there was a figure 16:16 maybe there was a leader I am NOT here 16:20 to 16:22 undermined historicity of Moses I think 16:25 that it is possible but I would say it's 16:27 beyond recovery John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein at Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) on YouTube
The problem is that there is an obvious bias from the minority groups (mainly atheists which are the angriest and most miserable minority) when it comes to the Bible that everyone here recognizes. Firstly you have to realize that every time someone tries to use terms such as "consensus" for something against the Bible, they are always referring to an extremely small circle of english-speaking radical atheists that are inactive or retired long ago and normal people have never heard of them. In reality, all of the scientists in the world combined are less than 0,1% of the population and the majority of scientists are Christians, Muslims and Hindus, when it comes to archaeology and scholarship attempts to discredit the Bible specific, the group they refer to is so tiny and insignificant that has no effect over the world at all, the specific "consensus" of archaeology that some try to use against the Bible is essentialy a tiny group of english-speaking westerners that retired long ago and has no authority over normal people, all the normal around the world know take all of the Patriarch history for granted.
Secondly, it is a well known fact that wikipedia is by far the most leftist biased website on the entirety of the internet and pretty much everyone knows this, it is not a matter of debate, even the idea of trying to get any sort of reliable information from wikipedia is ridiculous for any subject at all.
Thirdly 99% of all of history is compeltely invisible from the map, in fact if you go to any of the World War areas today it is impossible to find anything sort of that verifies a battle or war, so asking for archaeological evidence for events that happened thousands of years ago is simply ludricous, especially since entire kingdoms disappear from the map within decades. And it is really ironic to reject the documented history while at the same time believing in silly things such as that monkeys became humans and life came from a rock which no historian ever recorded.
Fourthly, Abraham is not a royal person, so even to expect archaeological evidence for him is beyond ridiculous, in fact, if we tried that with any other non-royal person and the majority of the royal people we would have to erase all of ancient and modern history because nothing would ever be able to pass the test, it is a completely irrational double standard that is stuck in the outdated biases of 19th century. And we already have more than enough archaeology for the patriarchs as everything recorded in the Bible for their time matches the culture perfectly and we also have physical material such as the two large buildings with the cave tombs of the patriarchs and the matriarchs.
The truth is that the Biblical documents are by far the most attested historical documents of all time with the largest amount of material and eyewitness testimonies, and to deny those one has to deny all of history because nothing else even comes remotely close to that, it is impossible to escape from this absurdity which comes mainly from psychological issues (the reason why atheists are such a small minority of white male suicidal neckbeards is because it is a mental illness and unnatural, virtually every journal of psychology agrees with this). Every time you see someone with victim mentality using terms such as "the concensus" or "widely accepted" when it comes to science or scholarship or archaeology you can already guarantee it is a useless appeal to specific old circles of very few people that nobody has ever heard of. The real world out there knows that Abraham is a historical person and nothing can ever change that. Kirikagure ( talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The real world out thereis part-taking in mainstream higher education. People who have enjoyed higher education have other concerns than the people who have not seen the light of science. There is nothing anti-Christian in that: many believing Christians have seen the light of science. It is not a contradiction. I myself believe in God.
I would argue that Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham. Her story does not include meetings with deities, supernatural events, or arbitrary destructions of innocent cities ( Sodom and Gomorrah) by genocidal deities. Dimadick ( talk) 06:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a lot more POV claims, in the article, including writing "Cave of Machpelah" in the resting place, "Founder of Judaism" in the recognition reason, and only having the Biblical account section, I try to deal with it, and now I am being discussed. Hth-Oguz Han ( talk) 10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
I see the new section about it that was added; but wonder if this is in due weight. Unfortunately I see such sections on so many religion related articles and often wonder how come such an obscure (other than on Wikipedia) group has so prominent coverage everywhere (this is even true in templates). I will not remove it in case I am wrong, another editor can determine this. Thanks, —░] PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ? ERROR░ 18:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Done
Bahá'u'lláh, the prophet of the Baha'i Faith, affirms the highest religious station for Abraham and generally for prophets mentioned among the other Abrahamic religions, [1] and has claimed a lineage of descent from Abraham through Keturah and Sarah. [2] [3] Comparisons are also made between the sacrifice of sons, [4] and journeys of Abraham and Bahá'u'lláh from east to the Holy Land. [5]
References
- ^ May, Dann J (December 1993). "Web Published". The Bahá'í Principle of Religious Unity and the Challenge of Radical Pluralism (Thesis). University of North Texas, Denton, Texas. p. 102. Archived from the original on 1998. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
{{ cite thesis}}
: Check date values in:|archive-date=
( help); Cite has empty unknown parameter:|1=
( help)- ^ Hatcher, W.S.; Martin, J.D. (1998). The Bahá'í Faith: The Emerging Global Religion. Wilmette, IL: Bahá'í Publishing Trust. pp. 126–8. ISBN 0-87743-264-3.
- ^ Flow, Christian B.; Nolan, Rachel B. (November 16, 2006). "Go Forth From Your Country". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved June 3, 2017.
- ^ Taherzadeh, A. (1984). "The Death of The Purest Branch". The Revelation of Bahá'u'lláh, Volume 3: `Akka, The Early Years 1868-77. Oxford, UK: George Ronald. pp. 204–220. ISBN 0853981442.
{{ cite book}}
: External link in( help); Unknown parameter
|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) ( help)- ^ Zaid Lundberg (1 January 2004). "Bahá'í and the Holy Land: Religiogensis and Shoghi Effendi's The Faith of Bahá'u'lláh: A World View". In Moše Šārôn (ed.). Studies in Modern Religions, Religious Movements and the Bábí-Bahá'í Faiths. BRILL. p. 301. ISBN 90-04-13904-4.
Smkolins ( talk) 03:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
This small selection of sources may be of use:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Smkolins ( talk) 15:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
There has been a disproportionate amounts of vandalism done to Patriarch related Wikipedia articles. In past 10 edits, ( 16:10, 13 June 2017 - 18:57, 6 June 2017, five edits have been purely IP vandalism, four have been purely reverting vandalism, and as the math will tell you, that only leave one actual edit being made to the page. With that in mind, I checked the first page of logs, 8/20 edits were vandalism, wherein in two IPs made multiple unconstructive edits, so 2/6 IPs in question were destructive multiple times. I took it another step further, I reviewed the last 100 edits made to the page, my results were as follows:
This needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. BedrockPerson ( talk) 16:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The dates of Abraham's life indicate 335yrs yet the bible states 175yrs
Genesis 25:7 These are all the years of Abraham's life that he lived, one hundred and seventy-five years.
Is there something I scripture that I am not understanding, maybe age of Abram added to Abraham? Even then the ages would be well short of 335.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.152.164 ( talk) 11:10, 1 October 2017
Why is Sarah depicted as being Abraham's half-sister? There is nothing in Genesis that indicates that this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.186.7.58 ( talk) 01:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the introduction paragraph states that, Abraham was the father of Judaism. Wouldn't it be better said he was the father of the Hebrews/Israel. Since only stating Judaism would be inaccurate because he had 7 other sons, and the term Judaism/Jewish wouldn't have even been in use for another 600 + years. 72.69.63.213 ( talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Josephus is not a modern scholar, so I do not see why his view would be relevant for 21st century academic consensus. A granddaughter of Abraham married the son of Zeus, makes perfect sense! Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Abraham in Dutch Folklore
In the Netherlands, Abraham is associated with reaching the age of 50. Dutchmen who turn fifty often have a life sized doll of Abraham placed on their lawn. It is a widespread belief that if one turns fifty, one is able to see Abraham. The Dutch practice is based on a New Testament tradition, St John’s Gospel (8:57), where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus: “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”
Sources
"where the Jews ask our Lord Jesus" Jesus himself was a Jew. Who are the other Jews in the text? Dimadick ( talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article intro currently says:
Please remove the words "his half-sister", as the book of Genisis doesn't say this in its own voice. 89.138.147.167 ( talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
How can the article provide "resting place coordinates" without being even sure if the guy actually existed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.23.10 ( talk) 22:37, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
81.111.192.146 ( talk) 13:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)In Islam, Abraham holds an exalted position among the major prophets and he is referred to as "Ibrahim Khalilullah", meaning "Abraham the Friend of Allah".
The first sentence, "[Abraham] is the common patriarch of the three Abrahamic religions" is wrong. Click the link in the sentence. In addition to Islam, Christianity and Judaism, there are other Abrahamic religions like Druze, Samaritanism, and B'hai, so to say "three" instead of "all" or some other phrasing is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Fix it. 73.11.81.111 ( talk) 21:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The article questions whether Abraham actually existed as a historical figure citing his emergence within the realm of legend and religious dogma around the 7th Century BCE. Yet we were always taught in school back in the day that Genesis, where Abraham is introduced to the reader, along with the other first four books of the Bible, was written by Moses circa 1200 BCE. So it seems the legend or myth, if not the person, goes back much farther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.233.97 ( talk) 16:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
we have a lot more evidence or what passes for evidence that many other figures and concepts this place treats as fact: could you please provide some examples?
rival paganaccounts over
firsthand ones written by christiansas both would be primary sources -- Wikipedia favors modern professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, what you dismiss as
leftwing professors. (At any rate, there would be no first-hand accounts of Abraham by Christians, so bringing that up is rather irrelevant). If your approach isn't compatible with modern academia, that's your problem. Trying to make this about politics is a cop-out. Frankly, I get the impression that you didn't bother checking the citations. If you did, you'd know that this article cites:
But fails to cite anything from Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists, who specifically addresses this issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.238.98 ( talk) 12:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists"
Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data."
In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick ( talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
This article expresses the atheist agenda of so many of the moderators of Wikipedia. Look at Ian Thomson's attack on Christians above - he doesn't even try to be covert! If the moderators of Wikipedia were truly devoid of prejudice and agenda, then they would word this article in a way to reflect the POSSIBILITY OT THE STORY OF ABRAHAM BEING A MYTH. 2601:580:104:3828:3590:7AA6:7E29:2DAB ( talk) 12:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not a possibility. It is a clear consensus that the Book of Genesis is a mythological resource and does not contain any useful historical information. Why would we hide this? :
the Articles Moses, Ishmael, David, Adam , Eve and Terah (the Father of Abraham) uses Infobox person, Saint or Monarchy, so why this article use the Infobox character ? ( Catechism Database) 6:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Because he is a fictional character, mentioned in a mythology book like the Book of Genesis? Dimadick ( talk) 18:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
so Why the Son of Abraham Ishmael and his father Terah are with the Infobox Person if Abraham is a character? ( Catechism Database) 5:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatechismDatabase ( talk • contribs)
Under the heading "Biblical account: origins and calling", the last sentence of the second paragraph states "Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran with his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and the substance and souls that they had acquired, and traveled to Shechem in Canaan." (emphasis added) What are these "substance and souls" that they supposedly acquired?! Bricology ( talk) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Abraham of the bible has different grandparents to ibrahim of the koran, Abrahams father is TERAH, and in the koran it is AZAR, ABRAHAM is the first JEW who had a covenant with GOD and the isrealistes, He had a covenant is one of circumcision of the flesh, This is not a Islamic covenant and should be noted as such no where in the koran is circumcision mentioned
It is misleading to place the lies of this islam into factual context on wikepedia..
Abraham was a jewish prophet and not islamic, the koran states that Mohammed is the first Muslim therefore this contradicts itself.,
WHY is islam claiming JEWISH prophets, when all prophets are JEWS and not Islamic ,the GOD of Islam is not YAHWEH and they deny JESUS Who is the word incarnated (GOD) all the names of the bible are taken by islam but new identities have been fabricated for them. this is done so Islam can deny Father and son and this should now be made evident to all people. The geneolgies of islamic prophets are not historical and non existent, even the virgin mary is of a fabricated father called irman, i think its tim ethe world makes a stand and stops these lies from being broadcasted and leading people astray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsedit66 ( talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"It is misleading to place the lies of this islam" And why are the lies of Judaism any better? He is a mythical figure, not a real person. Dimadick ( talk) 17:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"they deny JESUS" So does most of the world. There have been multiple messiah claimants, and he is not all that notable. Dimadick ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
The general view is that the Albright school has been defeated in its purpose to prove that the Bible has historicity by means of archaeology. So, Zhomron, since the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer the only game in town, things are not going better of the historicity of the patriarchs. If anything, they are going worse. Contemporary scholars see DH not as too radical, but as not daring enough. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 23:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Zhomron, I cut your addition to the article because the prose is terrible and the sourcing bad. Here's what you wrote:
However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative. The
Documentary hypothesis which enjoyed widespread acceptance in the field up until the late 20th century, postulates an origin of the patriarchal narrative within the
Jahwist and
Elohist sources which originated in the 10th and 9th century BCE respectively.{sfn|Viviano|1999|p=4}{sfn|Gmirkin|2006|p=4}} However, with the collapse of the theory's consensus, the widely proliferated revised hypothesis asserts the Elohist source was likely no more of an independent source from the Jahwist so much as it is largely a southernly supplement to its narratives, which when taken into account puts the core of the Torah, including the saga of Abraham, within the range of the 9th/10 century BCE, the following books being part of a progressive development which was codified, at earliest, with the
Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE. The earliest firsthand mention of Abraham is within the
Book of Micah, an 8th century BCE composition.
[1] As a result, while the historicity of his actions are still outside the bounds of reality, Abraham and his lore were still nonetheless present within Israelite society centuries before written accounts of his aegis were codified.
First the sourcing: only two sources used, and no indication of who they are - did you copy these templates from somewhere else? Anyway, when you use sfn format, you need to have the book details in the Bibliography section. And two sources aren't enough. As for the ENglish, take the first sentence: "However, in part due to Albright's school of midway biblical thinking, the 21st century saw renewed attempts at parsing out a factual basis for the patriarchal narrative." A "school of midway biblical thinking"? "Parsing out a factual basis"? These are meaningless. This is why sources are needed. By all means try again, but use sources, and write meaningful English.
Achar Sva (
talk)
07:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Immediately following the text:
"The Abraham story cannot be definitively related to any specific time, and it is widely agreed that the patriarchal age, along with the exodus and the period of the judges, is a late literary construct that does not relate to any period in actual history."
please insert the following: Although there is little in the Genesis account of Abraham that connects directly to known history, the internal chronology of the Bible places his existence around the year 2000 BC. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.156.178 ( talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
References
Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK ( talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
User:Achar Sva, you are adding unsourced sentences to this article such as "Abraham does not loom so large in Christianity as he does in Judaism and Islam." I have replaced such opinionated and inaccurate statements with sources published by academic presses authored by Old Testament scholars such as Christopher J. H. Wright and academics such as Guy P. Walters. You will need to gain consensus for adding such nonsense to this article rather than edit war. Also, since you have reverted twice, you will soon cross 3RR if you continue to edit war. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 21:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@
Anupam:, here is an outline of why your edits haven't been accepted:
1, sources:
2, content:
3, behaviour:
Your first edit was brave - it was, in fact, huge. You were then reverted, not surprisingly since this article has been stable for a long time and we need to keep the content at a high level. On being reverted you should have gone to Talk, and as a long-standing editor you were surely aware of that. Instead you steered this towards an edit war.
I could go on, but there's just too much. To be brief, you seem to me to be a committed Christian who is far more familiar with devotional literature than with scholarly sources, and you allow your prejudice (in the best possible sense) to lead you into using poor sources and writing at inordinate length. And no let's proceed to the RfC.
Achar Sva (
talk)
04:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if I'm the only one seeing signs of massive meat-puppetry here... :) Achar Sva ( talk) 20:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I know the article claims that there are no certain dates, but the Moses article lists dates, from Ussher and Jerome; and The Jewish Virtual Library site has a date for Moses too. It also has dates for Abraham. Do Usser and Jerome? (Under the Chronology post here, someone said Abraham existed around 2000 BC, but that's vague, and doesn't quote the source. I didn't quickly find the complete Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible online for free.) If someone has sources, it would be nice to list somebody's guesses or calculations. Here's the one I found, looking quickly: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/abraham Misty MH ( talk) 07:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
For the record, I object to this article's portrayal of the historicity of Abraham and do not consent to it, much less would choose it. I'm sure most believers would feel the same way. And by this I don't mean "true-believers". This is, I understand, a disparaging term prejudicially imposed upon such believers by some auditing this web page. 2600:1700:C690:3640:D15F:C90:D1C3:7D60 ( talk) 04:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Jesus died for my sinsis just a subjective belief, not an objective truth. In general, Christian theology, Jewish theology, Muslim theology, Hindu theology, Buddhist theology, and so on, are subjective beliefs.
No one but the Jews believe that Abraham founded Judaism. Christians claim that he is a Christian patriarch, while Muslims claim that he is a Muslim prophet, It would be great to say that he is considered a patriarch in Christianity and Judaism, and that he is considered a prophet in Islam, as further he is the ancestor of both the founder of Islam, the founder of Christianity and the other Israelites. Hth-Oguz Han ( talk) 18:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Ancestor of Jesus and Muhammadisn't an objective historical fact. See WP:RNPOV. tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Abraham has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Abraham’s mother’s mame is Amtelai bas Karnevo, Not Amhala. Please correct it 2A02:ED0:432F:FC00:A1F0:1015:7EEE:DEE6 ( talk) 04:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
The current status of the section on the historicity of Abraham and his contemporaries seems pretty one-sided. It concludes, “By the beginning of the 21st century, archaeologists had given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac or Jacob credible historical figures.”
But even in academia, there’s not a consensus on that, and there’s a compelling point to be made for the other side. I’m not here to debate the historicity as such. I’m pointing out that I think we should change this section to not make it look like the book is closed on the subject when it’s not, since there are other perspectives which should be referenced. I suspect a gut reaction may be to claim I have a religious fundamentalist bias, but let’s also consider that the firm a priori belief in the inveracity of these events can equally constitute a bias. Setting biases aside, we should be objective and make sure to reflect the multiple academically credible views currently out there.
Kenneth Kitchens argues that some of the more recent biblical minimalism completely ignores entire swaths of cultural evidence from Egypt and the Ancient Near East. I propose an edit to this section that reflects some of the academic work that argues for the plausibility of historicity, not in place of what’s currently there, but as an additional legitimate point of view. To this point, consider:
- Kitchen, Kenneth A. “Genesis 12-50 in the Near Eastern World”. P. 67-92 (in “He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12-50,” edited by R. Hess, P.E. Satterthwaite, and G.J. Wenham - Kitchen, Kenneth A. “On the Reliability of the Old Testament” - Hoffmeier, James Karl. “The Archaeology of the Bible” especially p. 84-90.
If there’s not any cogent argument that substantially rejects adding a line or two about this scholarship, I’ll go ahead and make the edit soon. But I want to confer here first. What are the community’s thoughts? I am open to discussion, but aware of the religious context, I particularly invite reasonable and respectful contributions. Severinus Boethius ( talk) 15:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
"Kenneth Kitchen, one of our greatest current Archaeologists" Kenneth Kitchen is not remotely reliable when it comes to Biblical history. The man has a serious bias: "Kitchen is an evangelical Christian, and has published frequently defending the historicity of the Old Testament. He is an outspoken critic of the documentary hypothesis, publishing various articles and books upholding his viewpoint, arguing from several kinds of evidence for his views showing that the depictions in the Bible of various historical eras and societies are consistent with historical data." In other words, Wikipedia:Fringe theories applies. In general evangelical pseudo-scholars should be distinguished from reliable, secular sources. Dimadick ( talk) 13:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
I think Kitchen comes up so often in these sorts of discussions because he's a serious, credible scholar on Egypt but super-maximalist on ancient Israel and the Bible. It's like a trained rocket scientist opposing evolution -- the rhetorical gambit used is to transfer credibility from one field onto another one. That and his avoidance of full-blown Young-Earth-Creationism can create an impression that his works on the Bible are somehow mainstream. Alephb ( talk) 19:24, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.
In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb ( talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
deny people ... their human rights—who do you think I am, Saddam Hussein? Get a life. See WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH: you don't have a constitutional right to push your POV in our articles. This is not Facebook, it isn't Twitter. WP:NOTFORUM. Only WP:PAG-compliant edits are allowed, this is an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning, not an internet forum for free speech. You have no right to tell us what to write, same as you have no right to impose your POV unto Britannica and Larousse. You have no constitutional right to impose upon Oxford University Press what they should publish and what they shouldn't publish, same applies here. This website kowtows to what OUP publish, not to what you publish. So, if you are asking us if you have here the right to WP:SOAPBOX for fundamentalist religion: no, you don't. According to WP:DEM we don't assert theses just because millions believe them to be true.
Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;
— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)
I don't know if I believe this myself, but it is anyway what modern Bible scholars say.At the end of the day, teaching is a job, so he has to teach what mainstream Bible scholars say. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
15:23 but what about Moses himself surely 15:27 there must be some evidence for this 15:29 most famous Old Testament hero perhaps 15:32 the most famous of all Old Testament 15:34 figures even if there's no evidence of 15:37 the exodus they must surely be some 15:39 record of a leader as important as him 15:43 the name Moses is a name which is very 15:47 popular from early periods right down 15:51 into late periods so it's a fairly 15:54 common Egyptian name that's that's all 15:57 that we can say there is no text in 16:00 which we can identify this Moses or that 16:04 Moses as the Moses the question of the 16:08 historicity of Moses is the same as the 16:11 question of the historicity of Abraham 16:12 that is to say maybe there was a figure 16:16 maybe there was a leader I am NOT here 16:20 to 16:22 undermined historicity of Moses I think 16:25 that it is possible but I would say it's 16:27 beyond recovery John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein at Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) on YouTube
The problem is that there is an obvious bias from the minority groups (mainly atheists which are the angriest and most miserable minority) when it comes to the Bible that everyone here recognizes. Firstly you have to realize that every time someone tries to use terms such as "consensus" for something against the Bible, they are always referring to an extremely small circle of english-speaking radical atheists that are inactive or retired long ago and normal people have never heard of them. In reality, all of the scientists in the world combined are less than 0,1% of the population and the majority of scientists are Christians, Muslims and Hindus, when it comes to archaeology and scholarship attempts to discredit the Bible specific, the group they refer to is so tiny and insignificant that has no effect over the world at all, the specific "consensus" of archaeology that some try to use against the Bible is essentialy a tiny group of english-speaking westerners that retired long ago and has no authority over normal people, all the normal around the world know take all of the Patriarch history for granted.
Secondly, it is a well known fact that wikipedia is by far the most leftist biased website on the entirety of the internet and pretty much everyone knows this, it is not a matter of debate, even the idea of trying to get any sort of reliable information from wikipedia is ridiculous for any subject at all.
Thirdly 99% of all of history is compeltely invisible from the map, in fact if you go to any of the World War areas today it is impossible to find anything sort of that verifies a battle or war, so asking for archaeological evidence for events that happened thousands of years ago is simply ludricous, especially since entire kingdoms disappear from the map within decades. And it is really ironic to reject the documented history while at the same time believing in silly things such as that monkeys became humans and life came from a rock which no historian ever recorded.
Fourthly, Abraham is not a royal person, so even to expect archaeological evidence for him is beyond ridiculous, in fact, if we tried that with any other non-royal person and the majority of the royal people we would have to erase all of ancient and modern history because nothing would ever be able to pass the test, it is a completely irrational double standard that is stuck in the outdated biases of 19th century. And we already have more than enough archaeology for the patriarchs as everything recorded in the Bible for their time matches the culture perfectly and we also have physical material such as the two large buildings with the cave tombs of the patriarchs and the matriarchs.
The truth is that the Biblical documents are by far the most attested historical documents of all time with the largest amount of material and eyewitness testimonies, and to deny those one has to deny all of history because nothing else even comes remotely close to that, it is impossible to escape from this absurdity which comes mainly from psychological issues (the reason why atheists are such a small minority of white male suicidal neckbeards is because it is a mental illness and unnatural, virtually every journal of psychology agrees with this). Every time you see someone with victim mentality using terms such as "the concensus" or "widely accepted" when it comes to science or scholarship or archaeology you can already guarantee it is a useless appeal to specific old circles of very few people that nobody has ever heard of. The real world out there knows that Abraham is a historical person and nothing can ever change that. Kirikagure ( talk) 17:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The real world out thereis part-taking in mainstream higher education. People who have enjoyed higher education have other concerns than the people who have not seen the light of science. There is nothing anti-Christian in that: many believing Christians have seen the light of science. It is not a contradiction. I myself believe in God.
I would argue that Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham. Her story does not include meetings with deities, supernatural events, or arbitrary destructions of innocent cities ( Sodom and Gomorrah) by genocidal deities. Dimadick ( talk) 06:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a lot more POV claims, in the article, including writing "Cave of Machpelah" in the resting place, "Founder of Judaism" in the recognition reason, and only having the Biblical account section, I try to deal with it, and now I am being discussed. Hth-Oguz Han ( talk) 10:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)