Talk:Abraham/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"After a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[11] "

Knowing that main stream biblical scholars believe Abraham was not a real person, but a literary construct, makes many of the assertions in parts of this article a violation of Wikipedia:Don't lie to our readers.

Literary figures did not have bodies and no burial places.

Literary figures were never born, but imagined and crafted.

Literary figures fathered no real children.

Also, Wikipedia's contract for search promotion means only the first paragraph of this article is shown to readers of the search engine result.

According to WP:lede the main points of this article must be put into the first 3 sentences. Pushing the details of Abraham's failed histrocity into the 3rd lede paragraph violates WP:lede and censors this article to the global search engine market place who will only see the first 3 sentences.

We will keep a mention that Abraham is not a historic figure in the first 3 sentences as his failed historicy is main stream biblical scholarly research. Any attempt to remove this established opinion will be a failure of WP:Good Faith Alatari (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but "unhistoric" is not idiomatic English; I'll leave it to others to find a better way of putting it. And your section header "After a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[11] " is far from the killer blow you seem to think, in fact it's an absurd statement. What possible archaeological evidence could there be for an individual figure from that period, in a pre-literate society, probably mostly nomadic, at best a tribal leader, and so on? Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, the consensus of mainstream Bible scholars seems to be that Abraham is a mythological character.

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

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

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

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the conclusion, but "After a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Abraham.[11] " is a fatuous piece of non-evidence. It would be foolish to think that there would be any archaeological evidence to be found. What would that consist of? Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, citation: Grabbe, Lester L. (2007). Williamson, Hugh Godfrey Maturin; British Academy (eds.). Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. Proceedings of the British Academy. OUP/British Academy. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-19-726401-0. Retrieved 22 August 2021. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't see it, but I can't imagine that it contains anything that justifies that sentence. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask, how many people from his era (around 2000 BCE, give or take a hundred years) in ancient Canaan can be specifically identified from archeological sources? If the answer is something like "very few", how does the absence of archeological sources bear upon Abraham's historicity? I would expect that there were a lot more people living in that area at the time than those who can be archeologically verified. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  The archaeological evidence is indirect and doesn't involve identifying individuals. Excavations reveal social customs of particular times in middle eastern history and whether cities dominated, smaller settlements, or nomadism. Biblical archaeologists thought they had found a unique time period that matched the biblical descriptions of the age of the patriarchs. See Chapter 2 in Has Archaeology Buried the Bible? for a description of how this happened and why this archaeological approach didn't hold up. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • "a lot more people living in that area at the time than those who can be archeologically verified" Do you mean specific individuals, or are you suggesting that the area had a higher population than the one currently suggested by the sources? Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I mean specific individuals. I'm not questioning the population estimates based on archeology. If the archeologists estimate that a certain city or town had, say, between 500 and 1,000 people in 2000 BCE, that doesn't mean that they are claiming to know the names of most of those people. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Please remove "See also: Abraham in the Catholic liturgy" as that article was deleted. 130.208.182.103 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2021

Change "His story was probably composed in the early Persian period (late 6th century BCE) as a result of tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through their "father Abraham", and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition" to "His story was possibly first recorded in writing during the early Persian period, motivated by tensions between Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and traced their right to the land through Abraham, and the returning exiles who based their counterclaim on Moses and the Exodus tradition."

SOURCES: Pitard, Wayne T. (2001). "Before Israel". In Coogan, Michael D. (ed.). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-513937-2. Book of Isaiah 63:16 Book of Ezekiel 33:24.

Reasoning: The sentence as written contradicts information later in the article and is written as if the theory is that the story was invented wholesale in the 6th century BC to justify land claims. The theory, as sections of the article later state, is that the story of Abraham had existed long before; his name is referenced in both the books of Isaiah and Ezekiel (as the Wiki already states) and parts of the former were indisputably written in the 8th century BC or earlier. Thus change is proposed to clarify that the story was possibly first written down in the 6th century BC spurred by land arguments, not that it was created wholesale to justify land arguments. Other change was made to avoid what was arguably the small grammatical error of not following parallelism. Awillis146 (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP:VNT. An exact quotation from the given source would ideally be necessary for the dating (alternative question: is it available online? if so, give me the page number and I can check myself). For the rest; however, as far as I see, "composed" does not imply that something is fictional: the meaning intended here is probably the first one listed here under "British English", i.e. "1. to put together or make up by combining; put in proper order"; which makes perfect sense. or even the simpler "3. to produce or create (a musical or literary work)" - this is undoubtedly a "literary work"; so the wording change is not necessary. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

To answer the charge, the mythical figure of Abraham (the myth itself) is older than 6th century BCE; however the mythical family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn't. The story of this family is a fusion (conflation) of three different mythical patriarchs, united into one mythological family in order to assert the purported common ethnicity of Israelites and Judahites, as a way of mobilizing the population towards a certain political goal. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox character

According to WP:RNPOV, infobox character has to be used. Did you even bother to read the historicity section? In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water.

As another Wikipedian once told, the Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim to historicity than Abraham.

Do you think that offends your religion? Well, you just got offended by THE REALITY. The empirical, objective reality just gave the lie to your dogma.

Wikipedia sides with the reality-based community, not with religious dogma. Don't lecture me about billions of Christians and Muslims, since Wikipedia never sides with prejudice and ignorance.

We unabashedly choose for the consensus view of top 100 full professors over the consensus view of 4 billion ignoramuses.

And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that "mainstream scholarship" has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is certainly not the venue for ventilating the POV of bigoted ignoramuses. Bigots all over the world should consider Wikipedia as their enemy. We are at war with bigotry and ignorance.

We seek to be polite towards everybody. But this is not a friendly website for the superstitious, illogical, unreasonable and WP:FRINGE.

WP:RNPOV is site-wide policy, and whoever removes the word character from {{Infobox character}} is awarely acting against website policy.

Even if I were an editor against 100 editors, agreement among 100 editors does not allow them to intentionally violate website policy. Consciously acting against policy will be reported to WP:ANI.

And if you're asking me why I call all these people ignoramuses, the answer is simple: they have never published a peer-reviewed paper about the historicity of Abraham. So they have never published a competent opinion upon this issue. Therefore, their views don't count as WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Mine doesn't, either—I'm not a scholar.

In the mainstream academia the historicity of Abraham is dead in the water is a fact, not an opinion. One has to be severely drunken to deny that it is a fact. Those who have not been insulated from academic learning have no rational reason to deny that it is a fact, and the opinion of those who have been insulated does not matter.

If we allow the religious fundamentalists to get the upper hand upon this website, the project of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia based upon mainstream academic learning is as good as dead and buried.

So, yeah, this {{infobox character}} edit war is about who gets the upper hand: either biblical literalism or mainstream Bible scholarship. It is a matter of principle and it has huge consequences for editing Wikipedia, therefore I am not at all prepared to compromise with biblical literalists.

I won't appease them, since that equates with selling Wikipedia to the most vocal pressure group. I am willing to accommodate people who have different opinions than mine, but I won't let biblical literalists take over Wikipedia. What should they do? Same as I don't edit abortion, they should avoid articles they feel strongly about. I disagree with the POV of that article and I know full well that, wikipedically speaking, I'm on the losing side in respect to that article, so I won't touch it. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So I came here after noticing that a user by the name of @Achar Sva: was involved in a number of combative articles usually involving Christian (specifically Catholic) religion. Mr. @Tgeorgescu: and Achar Sva are apparently very close collaborators... The point is, after seeing this comment by TGeorge, I give up. If there is anyone that thinks that what is going on here is "neutrality" or being "close to sources", they need a healthy dose of reality. I hope that edits here will be successful and collegial, but as far as I am concerned, this is a waste of time currently. 70.24.84.148 (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The fact that I have respect for his WP:COMPETENCE does not mean that I would be close to him. If you can make the case that the historicity of Abraham still has a chance at WP:CHOPSY, do it. Otherwise, don't whine that we follow CHOPSY. Neutrality isn't WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia has always been biased for the mainstream academia, if you think you can undo that, no, you cannot. This is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, i.e. a hard-core scientific and scholarly encyclopedia like Britannica and Larousse. If your POV has the chance of a snowball in hell of entering Larousse, then don't push it here. What we won't do is give equal validity to fundamentalist biblical literalism and CHOPSY WP:SCHOLARSHIP. While we recognize that the Pope is the boss of the Cahtolic Church, we don't WP:MNA that the Pope is always right (e.g. about the history of Christianity or about Bible scholarship). In the end, this is a secular encyclopedia (secular, not atheistic). See [1]. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• The character infobox is appropriate although "Born" and "Death" don't seem to be showing up for some reason. I would also suggest that the lead be written in a way that describes Abraham as a fictional character (something like this) rather than the literal patriarch of various religions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, if one needs a WP:RS: Grabbe, Lester L. (2007-10-25). "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel". Understanding the History of Ancient Israel. British Academy. pp. 57–58. doi:10.5871/bacad/9780197264010.003.0005. ISBN 978-0-19-726401-0. 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.

What we won't do is affirm that Jewish/Christian/Muslim fundamentalism trumps mainstream academia, nor will we affirm that Jewish/Christian/Muslim fundamentalism trumps all other faiths and religions, including Jewish/Christian/Muslim non-fundamentalist believers (whatever the later might believe about Abraham, it isn't simply because the Bible/Koran says so).

And, to really answer the IP: this is about knowing what you can and what your limits (constraints) are; it is also about knowing what the system of Wikipedia can and what its limits (constraints) are. Wikipedia is a social system, it has norms and values, therefore you cannot assume that everything goes, not even if it goes with my own church, it should also go with Wikipedia. WP:PAG is WP:NOTANARCHY. What the IP wants is not allowed, and I do not mean not allowed by me and Achar Sva, but not allowed by the system, not allowed by Wikipedia. Why? Because our choice (our meaning the Wikipedia Community) is clear: we unabashedly choose for the mainstream academia over theological orthodoxy. Policies and guidelines are simply the means by which we implement and enforce such choice.

The IP has a means to prove they are right: provide recent WP:RS from Harvard University Press, Yale University Press or Oxford University Press explicitly stating that the academic mainstream agrees to a substantial extent that Abraham has historicity. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The article currently cites multiple published sources, you cite none. We don't base articles on random assertions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

If the IP could provide the requested sources, fine and good. If not, so long, farewell, auf Wiedersehen, goodbye.

FYI, this source applauds Grabbe for siding with neither maximalists, nor minimalists: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23970868

The real problem of the IP is: we have collectively decided that mainstream academia always trumps theological orthodoxy, but the IP cannot provide Wikipedia with a better/neater choice than ours. All other choices lead to even more trouble for Wikipedia, as a global (worldwide) and not religiously affiliated encyclopedia. So, if the Pope says that Abraham has really existed, sorry, Wikipedia is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. Nor with the Protestants. Nor with the Eastern Orthodox. Nor with the Sunni. Nor with the Shia. Nor with the Hindus. Nor with the Buddhists. Nor with atheism. And so on.

So, of course, Wikipedia can never WP:ASSERT that Lamanites were real people. Doing so would be a mockery of everything Wikipedia stands for. Same applies to Abraham being a real person.

IZAK, with respect, on Wikipedia we follow the modern historiography to discuss the history of something. Scholarly consensus would be the determining factor here, per due weight. El_C 20:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If the IP thinks that modern historiography considers Abraham to have been a real person, they should provide evidence to that extent. But WP:FRINGE sources will be discarded by default, i.e. those from the Bible-is-infallible-academia. Modern historiography meaning historiography written in the 21st century.

We don't discuss here which is the "true religion". We discuss whether mainstream historians anno 2021 AD generally agree that Abraham has really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The change to "infobox character" just doesn't work for the information that the infobox contains. Much information does not show up, the layout suffers and the quality suffers. I have restored it as it was, and it seems to me it should not be changed without a proper consensus which clarifies how it actually makes the article better', not how some other infobox is technically or scientifically the "correct" one. ––St.nerol (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@St.nerol: You're violating site-wide policy.

born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE—what is this? ROFLMAO! Why put this WP:CB chronology in the article?

Did some historical person live more than 150 years when the life expectancy at birth was some 30 to 40 26 years? tgeorgescu (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I see that you are concerned about the historicity and mythological characteristics of the narrative, which is clearly discussed in the lede and body. But changing to an infobox that cannot handle the actual content does not seem like an improvement. And secondly, whatever the patriarchs are, they are arguably not modern-sense fictional characters in a fictional universe; so a banner saying "In-universe information" seems rather un-encyclopedic in this context. I find that the same change has been made recently to several other biblical characters. I strongly disagree about these changes. How can we resolve the conflict; should we start an RfC? ––St.nerol (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@St.nerol: Hardly, since no RfC could trump site-wide policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This is ill-conceived. Please, do not imperiously refer to Christians and Muslims as "4 billion ignoramuses". In addition to being arrogant, you will cause Wikipedia to get a fatwa sooner or later. I wikilinked it, in case there is any confusion. Read the BLP of Salman Rushdie if you need a refresher. I advise against similarly denigrating the beliefs of billions and millions of Hindus and Jews, respectively, regarding the use of an infobox for cartoon characters to refer to the deities/deity and prominent figures of their belief systems. I am one of those Jews. I am merely a Wikipedia editor, but there are many of similar opinion about the validity of faith, be they Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or anything else that isn't Scientology. I am NOT an ignoramus. Again, I implore you (collectively) to have some respect, and cease this campaign.--FeralOink (talk) 11:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Be careful. Since you are threatening Wikipedia with a fatwa, I think WP:LEGAL applies.

Tgeorgescu explained the choice of the word, and you did not listen. "Ignoramus" just means not knowing some specific thing, and everybody who does not know Abie is ahistorical qualifies. We are all ignoramuses in most fields. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, if such fatwah would be issued, it won't be because of my edits, but because Wikipedia is a religiously neutral encyclopedia. So are Britannica and Larousse, and I have never heard of a fatwah against them. Singling me out for the secular character of Wikipedia is inane. She seems to think that I were powerful enough to impose by myself the rule of secularism unto Wikipedia. Wikipedia's secularism was accomplished fact before I made my first ten edits. That's not a bug, it's a feature; just don't blame me for the design features of Wikipedia. That is, we do not needlessly offend religions, but the secular character of Wikipedia has to be respected. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am NOT threatening Wikipedia with a fatwa! DO NOT MAKE SUCH FALSE ALLEGATIONS! I am not an Islamic clergyman authorized to do such a thing, nor did I ever say I was! Secondly, I know the meaning of the word ignoramus. At the top of this article, it warns about making personal attacks on other editors. That is what you, Hob Gadling, are doing here, and in the following section which I shall identify next, where you tell me I "should be ashamed of myself". This is insulting, imperious, and not good-faith editing. Secondly, tgeorgescu, do not describe me as "inane". That is insulting. Both of you need to refer to the warnings posted at the top of this talk page about being civil and not making personal attacks on other editors.--FeralOink (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Then let me rephrase it: it is extremely foolish to think that I am the person who is responsible for the secularism of Wikipedia. I'm not that powerful. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I never said that I thought you were responsible for secularizing Wikipedia!!! Stop being evasive and taunting me. I didn't ever ask for a response from you or from Hob to begin with! --FeralOink (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@FeralOink: I said, WP:LEGAL applies, and I mean this: For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention.

So, stop the fainting-couch over-acting. In the future just do what WP:LEGAL says: To avoid misunderstandings, use less charged wording.

Okay, time for Adminstrator's Noticeboard Incidents. WP:LEGAL and threat to sue? What!? Who is suing whom? "Fainting couch over acting"?! What is wrong with you? Stop criticizing me. This is Wikipedia. You are threatening me and using gender-associated terms to ridicule me. A fainting couch?! Why can't you just allow me to comment rather than continue your attacks, day after day? Why am I asking you this? Time for ANI!--FeralOink (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: everybody who does not know Abie is ahistorical qualifies. That was the operational part of what I said: "Ignoramus" cannot be an "insult" if it is obviously true. You seem to read only half of what other people write, then make a lot of unnecessary drama about it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by this: "everybody who does not know Abie is ahistorical qualifies"?--FeralOink (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I would like to, but in doing so, I would run the risk of saying something you already know, and when people tell you something you already know, you interpret that as a claim that you did not know it, and as a personal attack: I know the meaning of the word ignoramus. At the top of this article, it warns about making personal attacks on other editors.. So, I would prefer not to interact with you any further. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on biblical summary

The article's summary of the bible story states that the land was originally 'given' to Canaan, presumably by God. This is not in the bible. Throughout the text, land was only 'given' to Abraham, and later his offspring, Isaac, Jacob, Israel, Moses, Joshua, and children of Israel. Further God does not tell Abraham to 'settle' the land of Canaan, rather, to 'go for himself to a place that God will show him'. Abraham then, presumably for himself as directed, goes towards Canaan, where his father originally set out for but settled mid way. Indeed, shortly after arriving, there is a famine in Canaan and Abram continues to Egypt. Had God specifically commanded Abraham to settle Canaan, he would surely have stayed despite the famine. Recommend text should read:

Abraham, originally Abram, is called by God to leave the house of his father, Terah, and go to the land that God will show him. Upon reaching Canaan, God promises the land of Canaan to him and his progeny. Ibn Rav (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the part about "given to Canaan". I think saying that God told him to settle in Canaan is fine for a lead summary; the details of the journey are explained in the first section. (Note that to "settle" a country means to colonize it, but to "settle in" a country can just mean to build a house there.) Dan from A.P. (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Your edit summary here says "as per source" – I assume that means the source cited at the end of the paragraph (Ska 2009, pp. 26–31)? I don't see anything in the cited page range that would justify the phrasing "the land originally given to Canaan". Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The biblical story is that after the flood God allocated the lands of the Earth to the descendants of Ham, Shem and Japheth, representing Africa, Asia and Europe. Canaan, one of the sons of Ham, is allocated a land, which is the land of Canaan, meaning that the land takes its name from the Canaan, rather than vice versa. In the Curse of Ham, Canaan offends against the patriarch Noah, the progenitor of all the nations, and is cursed - the curse takes the form of his reduction to the status of a slave (not servant) to the children of Shem. Abraham is the eldest son (in the sense of later descendant) of Shem, and therefore the land of Canaan is his, with the descendants of Canaan as his slaves. (The descendants of Japheth are also to be rulers over Canaan - this is a reference to the Greek kingdoms of the Hellenistic age, which is when this story was written). So, it's the land originally given to Canaan, and later transferred to Abraham.Achar Sva (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't say that God allocated any specific plots of land to Noah's descendants. Gen 10 gives the boundaries of the land settled by the Canaanites, but it doesn't say that this land was given to them, it's more implied that they just decided to live there. I know Christians and modern-day Jews would say that everything happens according to God's plan and so forth, but there's no sign in the Genesis narrative that God wanted the Canaanites to live in a particular place. The gift of the land to Abraham is very explicit: "For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever" (Gen 13:15). There's no comparable pronouncement to Canaan, far from it. Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

Change Sarah being half-sister to niece, for Sarah was Abraham’s niece, not his half-sister. 2607:FB91:5593:5267:B5E8:25BA:8569:A509 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's at least disputed. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Since it is disputed, I question whether it ought to mentioned in the lead at all. It's the mainstream Jewish opinion that Sarah was Abraham's niece, while in Islam they're either cousins or unrelated (source), so calling her his half-sister in the lead is giving undue weight to the Christian POV. It's really an irrelevant detail in the context anyway: "Isaac, Abraham's son by his half-sister Sarah..." Why not just, "his wife"? Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Edited 10:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dan from A.P.. Given that the particulars of their genealogical relationship are disputed, it would be best to refer to Sarah as "his wife".--FeralOink (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

A plain read of Gen. 20:12 implies she is his half-sister. Rabbi Yitzchak says (b. Sanhedrin 69b, b. Megillah 14a) that she is to be conflated with Iscah the daughter of Haran and is therefore his niece, which has been accepted by many Jewish commentators. It's not impossible textually that she has another relationship with him; bat-avi "daughter of my father" just means "relative" in some other places in the Bible. GordonGlottal (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. casualdejekyll 15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC on infobox type

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus against infobox character, even Tgeorgescu who made the change recognizes this. It's true that consensus in a local RfC wouldn't trump site-wide policy but I don't see evidence that there is such a site-wide policy dictating otherwise. There isn't a clear consensus as to what infobox should be used in this case, but that wasn't really the question asked, and a number of participants didn't really care what the infobox is called, as much as how it presents to readers. Looks like a new infobox for biblical/mythical/legendary characters that has all relevant fields and doesn't have any "in-universe information" banners could get some support if one is created, though of course we won't know for sure until it is created. The current generic infobox seems like it will do until then. --GRuban (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

---

The infobox type has recently been changed to "Infobox character", with Tgeorgescu reasoning that this is the right infobox to use for fictional characters, such as biblical patriarchs. The effect of the change is that some fields are hidden from view, a change in layout and that a banner saying "In-universe information" appears. The undersigned argues that the infobox should be chosen pragmatically, that the hidden fields are relevant and that the "in-universe information"-banner is slightly jarring outside the context of modern fiction.

A similar change has recently been made for other biblical characters: here, here, here, here, here and here. St.nerol (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Hint: It was already reported to WP:FTN. Local RfC cannot trump site-wide policy. That means, you're welcome to discuss the issue, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:RNPOV. You're welcome to discuss if preposterous stuff like born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE in an age wherein life expectancy at birth was 26 years complies with WP:NPOV, but you're not welcome to dodge the application of WP:NPOV. And you're welcome to discuss why Abraham gets dated to the 22nd-20th century BCE, as William F. Albright stated, instead of the dating advanced by Benjamin Mazar (11th century BCE). Besides WP:RS/AC has been fulfilled that Abraham cannot be considered historical. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment for the closer A consensus begins to take shape that infobox character and infobox person are both inappropriate. So, maybe I was wrong changing infobox into infobox character, but infobox person should not be used either for such articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose "infobox character" since the "in universe" text implies the account is fictional and is thus a violation of WP:NPOV. We should not be taking a position one way or the other. (And indeed as the OP mentions, the template is really designed for modern fiction.) I wonder if we could create a separate template, like Template:infobox biblical character? StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Further on this, I note that the Agastya article uses Template:Infobox religious biography. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I have reverted the other changes mentioned in the OP - as far as I can tell, they are all recent changes that would need consensus. StAnselm (talk) 04:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  If you think that WP:RS/AC isn't crystal-clear that Abraham did not exist, provide WP:RS for your claim. Otherwise, I tell you the same: you're violating WP:RNPOV.

  To answer your claim: our article does take the side that Abraham did not exist. If you think otherwise, the article should be rewritten and the WP:BURDEN for it is upon you.

  @StAnselm: Honest question: did you even read Abraham#Historicity? tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And "not historical" is not the same as "fictional". Some would take the position is that no historical evidence exists or is likely to be found and so we may (or even should) be agnostic as to his existence. As it stands, the article says nothing about "existence", except its inclusion in Category:People whose existence is disputed. StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, for me it is exegetical acrobatics to say that a historical person who cannot be shown to be historical isn't a fictional character. There are millions of people who died and left absolutely no trace, but we don't write their biographies. Mutatis mutandis and following a thought of Richard Dawkins, people like me don't have problems with claims like God exists, they have problems with claims like God was born of a virgin, who was herself born of a virgin.

agnostic as to his existence is a valid conclusion in deductive logic, it is not a valid conclusion in epistemology.

All cats are dogs. Are dogs are blue animals. Therefore, all cats are blue animals. is a valid reasoning in deductive logic. But it tells us nothing about the real world. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Thanks for pointing out that ahistorical is not the same as fictional. There is another case of infobox character at Isaac which seems to have been there for a longer time. Should a similar discussion be started on the talk page there? ––St.nerol (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just wait until this discussion is finished - it looks like we might be getting a workable solution. StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - Even if, by some slight chance, this character could be, at some point in the future, traced to someone who really lived, it is highly likely that the narrative changes from that real person to the account in the Hebrew myths have garbled him beyond recognition. Infobox person is right out, for the reasons explained by tgeorgescu. Infobox character is plausible, but maybe we should have several types of infoboxes for legendary and mythological characters, including one for people for whom there is actual meagre historical evidence (not this guy). There is an infobox mythical character, but it is a redirect to infobox character. We could use that one as a compromise, but it would have no practical consequence. Infoboxes do not even tell you what type of infobox they are, until you edit the article and see the name of template used. So, unlike categories, this is only a content question insofar as in which fields the infobox character differs from infobox person. The specific infobox person fields, birth date, birth place, death date, works, and so on, are clearly inapplicable to Abraham unless one randomly picks one of the fantasy dates theologians have invented or puts in a range. But in the last case, that would still add a fantasy element.

Looking at similar cases:

• Odysseus has infobox deity (although he is not)
• Merlin has infobox character
• Shakuntala has infobox character
• Menelaus has infobox noble (I guess people use this one when the myth tells us about predecessors and/or successors)
• Gilgamesh has infobox royalty (ditto, although Menelaos is also a king)
• Lian the Great has infobox royalty
• King Arthur has no infobox
• Sigurd has no infobox
• Romulus and Remus has no infobox
• Cú Chulainn has no infobox

I guess the few experts on mythology here have too much work anyway, but this looks like something that should have clear rules implemented. And the Hebrew mythology should be treated like the others. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the chance that King Arthur was historical is a million times greater than the family of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob being historical. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox character. It's clear from the infobox parameters that it wasn't designed to be used in this context. It's for fictional characters. I don't believe that Abraham existed, but I don't think it's appropriate to call him a fictional character. As Hob Gadling says, infobox person would also be inappropriate, but that's not what this article uses. It uses a custom infobox designed to display all the relevant information in a neutral way, which is fine. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

So, do you say that born c. 2150 BCE died c. 1975 BCE would be neutral? Just speaking of scholars from the 20th century who accepted Abraham's historicity, that information is not neutral.

Even restricting our input to luminaries of biblical archaeology who accepted Abraham's historicity, he lived from c. 2150 BCE to c. 1975 BCE seems highly contrived. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I'd remove the birth and death dates as speculation, but those dates are still displayed in infobox character, so that's beside the point. What infobox character does suppress is the Hebrew rendering of Abraham's name, the reason for his importance, and several important features of the narrative such as the names of his wife and concubines. I don't see how readers are served by removing this information. What I meant by "neutral" is that the present infobox doesn't assert that Abraham was a real person, but nor does it deliberately offend a significant section of the world's population with an "In-universe information" header. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

a significant section of the world's population are Hindu. Does that apply to Shakuntala, too? Why claim that the Hebrew mythology has to be treated as the real thing, even in respect to those who don't believe in it, while the Hindu mythology gets treated as superstition? tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good example. The infobox at Shakuntala uses the parameter info-hdr= to prevent the phrase "in-universe information" from displaying. If it's possible to make infobox character look pretty much the same as the current infobox in this article, I've no objection to using it. It's the output I'm concerned about, rather than the technical detail of which infobox we use. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely - it's the output and in particular the "in universe" bit. If that could be suppressed, we would be good to go. But it seems there's no reason to change the infobox type anyway.StAnselm (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with what Dan from A.P. and StAnselm said here. I don't even understand why it is necessary to change the infobox type and mess up how it displays to begin with, and causing all this ruckus.--FeralOink (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Question Do we have nothing like a "legendary figure" info, and box? It seems like there's a whole swath of people who have been treated more as historical than as mythical, yet whose historical status is in doubt. (Or for whom it's difficult to say how many characteristics an actual historical figure would have to match in order to qualify as the historical so-and-so.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with User:StAnselm that Abraham is not fictional, but he isn't a historical character either. As a result the categories in either infobox don't apply - nowhere in the text is he described as Abram ben Terah, the dates 2150-1975 BCE are arbitrary, he is not the founder of Judaism (according to Genesis 1:1 God is the founder of Judaism), and so on. I agree with XOR'easter, a new infobox type is needed, perhaps "Old Testament characters". That would allow us to avoid the synthetic character of the current box and include accurate information on dates, which are AM and tell something about the theological character of the text. Achar Sva (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support alternative I agree with the comments by User:StAnselm and User:Achar Sva. The fiction template does not make sense here. It is pretty weird to treat historical agnosticism or historical nuetrality with mythicism. Especially since there is no evidence in the sources or traditions that people like Abraham were ever viewed as mythical or pure fiction in the vein of Harry Potter. The same goes for people like Pythagoras - who has an extremely poor record too. Most of the time, when uncertainty emerges it rarely leads to mythicism in research in the ancient world. Most of history is forever lost and only obscurities remain for much of it.Ramos1990 (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Question Is it possible for us to create a new type of infobox, one that can be used for biblical characters? It would include such info as the book they're found in, dates (use AM for the Torah), family as given in the text (don't go synthesizing), places of birth and death if provided in text - maybe we could discuss what should be included. Achar Sva (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Weak support for using "Infobox character". I would honestly much prefer it if we had a separate infobox for mythical and legendary characters. Since we don't, I find it more reasonable to place Abraham among the likes of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Bugs Bunny rather than even for a moment considering that Jewish mythology has any particular claim to historicity. We already have misguided readers and editors who suggest that guys like Adam, Noah, Moses, and even Daniel (biblical figure) may have existed. The last think we should do is give in to their delusions. And the dates given for Abraham's life seem to have nothing to do with historical records, just biblical archaeologists and their fairy tales. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: But after all, large portions of the Hebrew Bible is historical or contains historical characters. How do you know where to draw the line, exactly? Is everything that has been verified history and everything that has not been or cannot be absolute fiction? –St.nerol (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not surprised that it contains historical characters. We have sources pointing out that the Book of Daniel seems to be a 2nd-century BCE historical novel, and historical fiction tends to use historical characters. The problem is that we have creation myths and origin myths in the Book of Genesis, Josiah's propaganda tales in the Book of Joshua, fictionalized historical figures in the Books of Kings (several of its characters are attested in archaeological sources), and yet we get people who take everything at face value. The Book of Exodus mostly depicts mythical characters, but the locations mentioned seem to be real. I recently had to explain to an editor that searching for evidence for Moses' existence is pointless, but Pi-Ramesses was a real city. Apparently many people seem unfamiliar with the concept of myths using real settings. Dimadick (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose us using infobox character for Old Testament people.(Summoned by bot) As StAnselm says very succinctly, "not historical" is not the same as "fictional" or more precisely, "partly unknown as to what extent historical or mythical" is not the same as "wholly fictional". There is a sliding scale in the Old Testament, and in some ancient history, as to what is probably wholly historical, but with mythical elements attached, through to wholly mythical, with every concievable intermediate stage. Lumping all together as 'fictional character' seems motivated more by the wish to "make a point", than with pragmatic considerations of rendering info. A new userbox type could be the answer, but the proper place to establish the extent of 'historicity', is within the text itself, which will vary, but does not appear to be always clearly done at present, but using an infobox designed for the wholly and explicitly fictional does not seem to be the answer. Pincrete (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox character. I find it very interesting (as well as baffling) that Tgeorgescu's initial rationale behind this change was to point to WP:RNPOV, because I would have to say that using a fictional character infobox for a religious figure is actually a perfect example of not adhering to a neutral point of view. Wikipedia articles about religious figures are meant to talk about how those people are viewed within the religions that believe in them, without making any definitive statements about whether those religious beliefs happen to be correct or not. To say that Abraham and other Old Testament prophets are fictional characters is to explicitly say that those who believe they are real people are incorrect, which is an NPOV violation. There is also the secondary issue that the character infobox lacks the parameters to include numerous pieces of information that are in the current infobox, but the NPOV issue is my primary reason for this opposition. --Zander251 (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose the use of infobox character for religious figures per User:Zander251. Using the infobox for fictional characters on articles like this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Articles about figures from religions in which millions, or even billions of people believe in should have their own infobox, specifically for religious figures. Rexh17 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

  It cannot be that what Wikipedia writes depends on what "millions, or even billions" of people believe. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the beliefs of a mob are not reliable. Reliable sources say Abraham is not historical, and that is the end of it. We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, but leaving it open that he may be real when the consensus among experts is different would be against the rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, I can read his words and I know Achar Sva is usually right about Bible scholarship, but I don't understand the difference between unhistorical and mythical. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Weak OpposeI saw the proposers change when he originally attempted it, but I refrained from commenting because I have very little experience with mainstream biblical scholarship. I would be okay with creating an infobox for etiological myths. However, using the character infobox doesn't sit well with me because many of these biblical stories that mainstream scholars do not believe in have at least a little historical basis, according to William G. Dever, and my limited research. However, St. Anselm makes a better case. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Good luck with this: "It cannot be that what Wikipedia writes depends on what "millions, or even billions" of people believe. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, and the beliefs of a mob are not reliable. Reliable sources say Abraham is not historical, and that is the end of it. We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, but leaving it open that he may be real when the consensus among experts is different would be against the rules." Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities. Wikipedia is going to get a fatwa if you head in this direction. Not from me, but it is obvious to me how ill conceived your current line of thinking is.--FeralOink (talk) 17:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  @FeralOink: If you think that Hob is seeking to introduce brand new policy, read this:

  Thank you for your views. Wikipedia has a strong bias in favor of academic sources for history. That is how it should be. If archaeology says Beersheba was founded 6000 years ago and the bible says it was founded 4000 years ago, archaeology wins. Zero^talk 13:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  If you want to use the bible as a reliable source of history, present your case at WP:RSN. You won't succeed; it's been tried before. A better use of your time would be to read WP:RS to see how lack of bias is not the same as treating all sources equally. Zero^talk 14:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

  You've been answered, read the answers again please. If we want to write what the Bible says about Jesus, for instance, the Bible is a reliable source -- for what it says. That is not using it as a source for any historical Jesus, if there was one, it is using the Bible as a source for what the Bible says, just as we would use Vanity Fair or Lord of the Rings as a source for what they say. What could be more reliable as a source for what a book says than the book itself? dougweller (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  Meaning: Wikipedia has already rejected the Bible, Koran, Vedas, etc. as WP:RS for history and archaeology, by precept and example, and this has been consistent since Wikipedia began. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE for details. Just don't blame me for creating this long-standing policy. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

• You even quote me saying, We should not call him fictional, because myth is slightly different, and then you argue Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities as if I had said the exact opposite. Have you no shame? And do you think everybody here is so stupid not to notice this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough, Hob Gadling. You said I should feel shame for my comment on this Wikipedia talk page, and suggest that I think "everybody here is stupid"? Since when did you become the morality police or a clergyman, to autocratically make denouncements of shame upon other editors? You need to read this, No personal attacks. In 11 years of editing, including editing on highly contentious articles about Donald Trump and Gain of Function research pertaining to COVID-19, I have never encountered such unwarranted attacks and misattributions of my good faith contributions. I urge you to contribute while remaining calm and refraining from gratuitous insults. I don't feel like Wikilawyering but WP:TENDENTIOUS and a host of other WP:x for x = 1 to infinity could be applied here. Furthermore, I never said that I want to use the bible as a reliable source of history. Let me reiterate that: I do not want to use the bible as a reliable source of history. Rather, I said this, and I reiterate it: "Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham nor are the Hindu deities." I don't know what they are exactly, other than Donald Duck. He IS a cartoon character! Wikipedia does not consider its diverse readers of many faiths (or none at all) to be "ignoramuses" by default. There are many middle grounds, as others have suggested here, besides infobox character and "in-universe information" for religious figures. I concur with users Mx Granger, Johnbod, and StarryGrandma.--FeralOink (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

P.S. It was DimadIck that mentioned Donald Duck, but you could have corrected me, yet didn't. Also, I commented relatively calmly, and y'all unleashed a torrent of quote refs etc. By the way, dougweller is a nice, reasonable man and you shouldn't quote him in ways that aren't applicable to the current situation. I never said that I want to use the bible or any other religious text or tract as a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia. Rather, I object to gratuitously insulting people of faith by belittling their deities.--FeralOink (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@FeralOink: You are really very confused. You had said, Good luck with this: [lengthy quote of what I said] Allah is NOT a cartoon character like Donald Duck nor is Abraham. That wording clearly suggests that you were refuting my quote by pointing Abraham is "NOT a cartoon character". But THAT SENTENCE ACTUALLY AGREED WITH WHAT I SAID.

That contradiction is what I pointed out when I wrote, You even quote me saying. But again, you read only half of what I wrote, and did not even attempt to understand what I said and why I said it. Instead, you got all dramatic again and repeated yourself and talked about this and that, nothing of which addressed the actual point, namely that your previous contribution did not make sense and that you had pretended to refute what I said when you actually agreed with me. I don't think I will respond to your next flap of excitement when you focus on small irrelevant parts of this response and repeat yourself again, it would just distract from the subject.

Do not ping me, I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Stop insulting me. I am not "really very confused". You clearly refuse to abide by this: No personal attacks. I have not made a single disparaging comment about you, yet you won't stop attacking me. Appropriate behavior would be to explain why you believe I misunderstood you, which is what you kindly did, then leave well enough alone. Instead, you continue to ridicule me, and even SHOUT at me. Try to be more rational and less emotional please?--FeralOink (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose infobox character. Of course we should not say "In-universe information" for a religious figure. Arguments about historicity aside, it just looks ridiculous. If Template:Infobox person and Template:Infobox religious biography are not acceptable, then maybe we need a new infobox template. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox character It just doesn't work as well, as the discussion above shows, & may be here for POV reasons. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support alternative. When the infobox was changed to use the generic {{infobox}} rather than {{infobox character}}, that change was also reverted as violating site-wide policy. See Special:Diff/1058507826. It seems that the use of infobox character is being used to impose a POV on the article. The issue is not whether Abraham is a historical person. In the absence of reliable sources that conclude that ancestral and religious figures like Abraham play the same role in human history and culture as fictional characters do, there is no reason to impose a fictional classification on Abraham. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Extra comment: reliable sources Till now nobody mentioned any WP:RS. I will begin by citing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6687181/ which shows that telling if Mickey Mouse is a god is a serious problem in anthropology. Previous work: https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~henrich/pdfs/Zeus%20Problem.pdf . It is a real problem in archaeology and Bible scholarship, see Maiden, Brett E. (2020). "On Artifacts and Agency". Cognitive Science and Ancient Israelite Religion: New Perspectives on Texts, Artifacts, and Culture. Society for Old Testament Study Monographs. Cambridge University Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-1-108-85925-7. You see, I have produced three WP:RS, my opponents have produced none. They have shown opinion (doxa), I have shown knowledge (episteme). So, whatever they might think about it, the Zeus problem, aka the Mickey Mouse problem is here to stay. It has been reliably published, it has been discussed in more than these three sources, there is no way to undo it. And, yup, sometimes the very existence of the problem is more relevant than its solutions. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Can you explain the relevance? I don't have access to the third source, but the first and second don't appear to claim that "secular/fictional counterintuitive agents" and "believable/worshipped counterintuitive agents" are the same thing, only that determining why some counterintuitive agents are in the first category and others are in the second is difficult, with the first source proposing a method by which this can be done, and the second arguing that context biases are also relevant. To me, it seems that these papers support the opposite of your position; the fact that they are trying to define and explain why these categories of counterintuitive agents are different supports the notion that they are different. BilledMammal (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Yup, they offer a solution to the problem, yet the problem is more important than its solution. This is manifest in the fact that different scholars posit different solutions/views. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Apologies, but I still don't understand. Can you explain how these sources support your position? BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• The sources do not claim there is no difference, but it is hard to tell. I plead hard to tell, I do not plead there is no difference. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• "The Mickey Mouse problem refers to the difficulty in predicting which supernatural agents are capable of eliciting belief and religious devotion." Mickey M does not elicit belief and devotion. God does. So does (or did) Justin Bieber. I'm not sure where this is taking me...Achar Sva (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• I think I understand now, thank you. However, I disagree with your interpretation, as the sources don't appear to be claiming that it is hard to tell the difference between secular/fictional counterintuitive agents and believable/worshipped counterintuitive agents, only that it is hard to explain the difference at the content bias level. They also seem to all agree that at the context bias level this level of difficulty does not seem to exist. BilledMammal (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Request To Review Location Of Terah's Death

In the Origins and calling section, the following text is confusing:

Terah, the ninth in descent from Noah, is the father of Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Haran is the father of Lot, who is Abram's nephew; the entire family live in Ur of the Chaldees. Haran dies in his native city, Ur of the Chaldees. Abram marries Sarah (Sarai), who is barren, and on the death of Terah, Abram, Sarai, and Lot depart for Canaan, but settle in a place named Haran, where Terah died at the age of 205.

This seems to say that Terah is in Ur, dies in Ur, and then dies again in Haran. Unless Terah actually does die twice, I think the wording could be improved. I don't know enough about the topic to edit it myself. RisingMaverick (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's probably supposed to read "on the death of Haran", but that would be redundant anyway since Haran's death has already been mentioned. I'll fix it. Dan from A.P. (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the bible

It's important that Wikipedia entries not ape the language of the bible by using words like “afflicted” & “dwelled”, quoting the KJV's antiquated syntax, & using “know” in the winking biblical sense. Use plain English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysto (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Who was aberham in

Be for God spoke to him 2001:5B0:43E0:B849:21F5:92F6:CBBB:30FC (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Silly question. Abraham is a fictional character, not a human being. The Book of Genesis is a mythology book, full of folklore. Abraham is no more a historical figure than Paul Bunyan and Little Red Riding Hood. Dimadick (talk) 08:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean his name. It was Abram. Also, the article writes like his existed and that is the consensus. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Reading Turtle: Wrong: mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists do not claim that Abram has existed, and our article does not give them the lie. At the end of the day, Abraham/Abram is a character from the Bible, he does not belong in history at all.

The genealogies from the Bible are fanciful, the chronology from the Bible is fanciful. Even if you provide archaeologists with three skeletons, they have no way of identifying those as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Mainstream Bible scholars do not speak of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob like they would have been real people. If you need a source for that, see https://yalebiblestudy.org/

"As I said many times in this class: historicity is not important! What's important is what the text means, what is the text trying to say." Shaye J. D. Cohen (Yeshiva boy who became a Harvard Bible professor), http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/ , The Exodus lecture, https://player.vimeo.com/video/76323651 tgeorgescu (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Remove dates from born/died section

It seems unnecessary to cite birth/death dates for a fictional character. Seabrem (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed before - e.g. Talk:Abraham/Archive 7#Infobox vs. Article. The thing is, it looks like there was a consensus to remove them. It's related to the issue of the infobox which has come up from time to time. StAnselm (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

So I was bold and removed them. Actually, we don't even need a consensus for that. We need a consensus to put them back in. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It was added by User:BennTheResearcher in April 2021. StAnselm (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Prophets MUST not be pictured

please it must be that there is any picture for the Prophets So it is essential to remove Prophet Abraham picture PBUH 51.39.141.125 (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In your religion, perhaps. I don't belong to your religion and neither does Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is neutral and secular; we do not adhere to what any religion tells us to do. ZetaFive (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Abraham's Religion

Please change the religion listed for Abraham from Yahwism to Judaism. 40.134.143.178 (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Judaism did not exist at the time Abraham was said to be alive. Pngeditor (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And to tell you the truth, I'm afraid that at that point from the standard biblical chronology Yahwism did not exist, either. But again, estimates about when Abraham lived vary by 1000 years. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it altogether. This was a recent addition, and highly dubious. StAnselm (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, are we going to be in-universe, or retro-scholarly about this? Over four distinct religions claim him as their own, so take a pick. On the other hand, scholars want to nail down his historical deets and retcon a hypothetical intermediate religion in his place. That's a quixotic task, I laugh at the futility of it.

I suggest we place something general and indisputable such as Monotheism; would that work to quiet down controversy? Elizium23 (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure Monotheism is actually a religion; why do we need anything? StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Abraham identified

There are two different Abraham's in the bible. One who interacts with Nimrod (Ibiranu I of Ugarit)(1458-1435BC), and another who interacts with Chedorlaomer(Kuder-enlil), Ibiranu II of Ugarit(1274-1251BC). 2601:58B:E7F:8410:8929:E4B7:307D:B301 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Dossier Family's Jacob Isaac Abraham

we need more information : Joseph Family Name Ward Petion-ville Port-au-Prince Ouest HAITI HT 6142 yvonjoseph969@gmail.com or jylab2006@gmail.com 190.115.175.190 (talk) 05:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Early Iron Age bull figurine from Bull Site at Dhahrat et-Tawileh (modern West Bank, ancient Ephraim), representing El, Baal or Yahweh[32][33]

Extended content

El or Maleachi, is not a god or goddes, they dont have son and kid also they dont do marriage. as the picture in wikipedia, yhwh is not a bull or baal or moloch. he doesnt created or have a child, he only have a prophet. please seek on genesis. also quran please dont compare in adonai, elohim and yhwh with baal and moloch. it is such full disgrace and neglecting 10 commandment Best regard's QuaMbear (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC) WP:CRYBLASPHEMY. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC) You've got a good point. The root problem is that this article is really about "Religion in Iron Age Israel" (as reconstructed by modern secular scholars), and that should be its title. "Yahweh" is a lot of things, most prominently an important theological concept for Jews, and also for Christians. An article title "Yahweh" should certainly discuss the term's theological meaning. RogerBurk (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC) WP:SCOPE is This article is about the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Otherwise, all our ancient or medieval history articles are as reconstructed by modern secular scholars, why should be this article singled out? Anyway, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh has to have a place within Wikipedia. And true believers are seeking to deny it such a place. The Wikipedia Community will never make peace with such true believers, since obviously, the ancient polytheistic god Yahweh passes WP:N. So, it is a match (i.e. dispute) between true believers and WP:PAGs. The true believers are seeking to bully the god Yahweh out of Wikipedia, and the Wikipedia Community simply won't allow that. The true believers think that real, objective archaeological discoveries, such as that bronze bull, are blasphemy against their own religion. To any well-educated person appreciating WP:SCHOLARSHIP, their opinion seems exceedingly preposterous. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC) The bronze bull thing is interesting - it might explain why there is such a specific Golden Calf narrative in exodus: it wouldn't be the first time a theological narrative was positioned to dislodge a pre-existing worship practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC) I agree that there should be an article on Yahweh. The problem I have is that the article as currently written violates WP:NPOV. Whether or not Yahweh was a storm-god or that Israel used to be polytheistic is an extremely contentious claim. There are plenty of scholars who disagree with this reconstruction, sticking with the more traditional view that Abraham at least was monotheistic. That is the reason to treat this article differently than you might other reconstructions that have less contention. There is precedent for how to deal with this sort of thing. Look, for example, at the various articles on the books of the Bible. On issues that are contentious among scholars, you will see multiple POVs given. For example, Book of Genesis mentions the traditional view that Moses wrote the book, only then going on to assert that the majority of modern scholars date it later. It follows WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, attributing the POV in the text, rather than just asserting things. It continues to do this with when it describes its composition. It doesn't say, for example, "The five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources." It specifically points this out as the POV that is most common in the 20th century among scholars. It is my impression that the "true believers" (who often are just as much a part of the Wikipedia community as anyone else) do not tend to object to those articles. They still contain information that they may not believe is correct. Fixing up this article to be more NPOV would likely help. Though, honestly, I also think having Yahweh link to the disambiguation page and rename this article to show its scope in its title might also help. I suspect that most people who stumble on this page are actually looking for an article on the tetragrammaton or the modern Abrahamic concept of God. Article names on Wikipedia are supposed to reflect what the reader would most likely be looking for. This sort of thing is also mentioned in WP:NPOV when it discusses titles. — trlkly 23:47, 8 March 2023 (UTC) I tend to agree although I'm not sure what the exact answer is. We have this article and we have Yahwism, God in Judaism, Jehovah, Tetragrammaton etc. It may well all hang together theoretically/academically but it's a mess for the general encyclopedia reader. DeCausa (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. Scholarship from the Ivy League and similar universities posits that Abraham was completely unhistorical, or, if he ever existed, he is irretrievably lost to history. There's not a shred of evidence that Judaism existed in the time of David and Solomon, let alone Moses or Abraham. That gullible people think so does not make it a fact any more than flat Earth is a fact because millions of uneducated people still believe it. In the supposed time of Abraham (whose mileage varies with a thousand years only counting major archaeologists who believed he existed) there was no such thing as Hebrew language. I can grant you that inchoate Hebrew language existed in the 11th century BCE, but no more than that. Nothing like Classical Biblical Hebrew existed back then.

There are too many disciplines involved for the denial to be credible: archaeology, source criticism, linguistics, and so on. I don't say that we know all there is to know about the composition of the Bible, but mainstream Bible scholars are zooming on something.

While the consensus that the Pentateuch was based upon four big documents is crumbling, it isn't going in the direction gullible people would desire, but in an even more "radical" direction. The main merit of the Documentary Hypothesis was that it could provide an orderly account of the composition of the Bible—now even that can no longer be taken for granted.

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know of any serious body of scholarship that disagrees with the pagan and polytheistic origins of the worship of Yahweh. I looked up the bull thing after reading this, and it turns out that bulls were not just tangentially but strongly associated with worship of Yahweh, and this is a matter of not insignificant scholarly attention. It is known. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"strongly associated with worship of Yahweh" By its own or through identification of Yahweh with El? El's symbol was the bull, and his depictions in Ugarit feature him as a horned god, or at least with horns on his headdress. Dimadick (talk) 06:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Fictional character

The lead should point out that Abraham is a fictional character. The article body does, but the lead talks about him as a real historical figure 193.27.45.80 (talk) 08:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the lead section, starting "Most historians ...", does in fact make it clear that there is no evidence for him as a historical figure. IMO this is just about sufficient, even if the first two paras can be read as if factual. An unrelated issue with the lead section is the "out of the blue" mention of the Torah in paragraph three. This could be better linked in with what has been already said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:F8D4:3C0:8B3C:C6E3 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

He is referenced in the Bible and the Qur’an as existing. While most of history of key figures is solely based off word of mouth and historic written documents. I’d say there is no evidence, to the contrary, he didn’t exist. 2601:680:8380:43F0:7484:316C:43DC:D0E1 (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

the Bible and the Qur’an are not WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. Wikipedia isn't affiliated to either Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, see WP:RNPOV. the Bible and the Qur’an were not written by modern, mainstream historians, so the Bible and the Qur’an do not make the call.

My own take: we do not know anything about Moses and Abraham, to the extent we don't even know if they existed or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: And what is your opinion about this source? Potatín5 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Potatín5: There is a variety of scholarly opinions, especially from the interplay of higher criticism with mainstream archaeology, but no definitive evidence that he existed. And the consensus view seems to be that searching for such evidence is futile. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Hagar

and that her son would be "a wild ass of a man; ..." This should be "a wild donkey of a man;... 2A02:908:376:E200:D05F:40CE:E33E:180C (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Why? Members of the subgenus Asinus are known as "wild asses", not donkeys. Dimadick (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023

Islam is not a descendant of Abraham. Islam is a religion that was born in the Arabian Peninsula which was never visited by Abraham. Islam only takes a few references to Jewish and Christian teachings and history and then adds thoughts, assumptions, views, teachings that already exist or are added to make it more profitable for Arabs. An example is that Abraham never made it to Arabia, but in Islamic history it is suggested that Abraham arrived in the Arabian peninsula with Hagar. And even Islamic history says that Abraham died and was buried in Mecca, the Arabian peninsula. In addition, Islam states that Ishmael was the one sacrificed by Abraham, but according to Jewish history, Abraham sacrificed Isaac to God. In addition to the above, Ismail never lived in the Arabian Peninsula and Ismail's claim to bring down the Quraysh Arabs is also not true. Islamic teachings take Jewish and Christian teachings from encounters with Muslim leaders who studied with Jewish and Christian priests. They were impressed with these religions and designed a new religion for the benefit of Arab groups without being Christians or Jews. So that the center of worship was changed to Mecca where previously their center of worship was towards Jerusalem. So the claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham is not true. 103.149.121.22 (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 12:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2023

delete the pic haraam 178.153.93.218 (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Academic consensus

@Eternal Spirit 123: The mainstream academic view is the following:

The question of the historicity of Moses is the same as the question of the historicity of Abraham. That is to say, maybe there was a figure, maybe there was a leader. I am not here to undermine the historicity of Moses. I think that this is possible but I would say it's beyond recovery.

— Israel Finkelstein

Also, the problem with your edits is WP:GEVAL. While there are many evangelical scholars who agree with your POV, they are not mainstream Bible scholars. What is a mainstream Bible scholar?

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)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

"The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings" Your point being? We already know that it was written by humans. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2023

In the "Judaism" section, a sentence begins "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". The words Isaac and Jacob are linked, but this appears to be a mistake, because it links to a painting which seems irrelevant to the topic. Instead, there should be two separate links, so it should say "Along with Isaac and Jacob, he is the one whose name would appear united with God". 2607:F140:400:A000:E9E6:F83A:123E:2D8 (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Birth City

The info box lists Ur Kasdim as his birthplace and equates it with modern Basra, Iraq, without any citation. That equation is not backed up by the articles on Ur Kasdim or on Basra, or anything. There is no consensus among current scholars regarding the identity of the city, and modern Basra doesn't even appear to be a main contender. Venqax (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that information was unsupported by anything on the page. It's gone. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Extraneous apostrophe

Why is there an apostrophe before the word "around" in this phrase in the current version of this article: 'around 1289 BCE? 98.123.38.211 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Abram place of Birth,

I was under the impression that is was Ur, the Chedleans. Which he asked for his remains to be taken back there after his death. As he was quite un enthusiastic about leaving. God promises Sarai a Son Whose name is Isac and in his later stages would have many and be a Father to many children and known throughout many Lands. I am however only re literate to what I have read from a well documented group of Scholars. It is not concrete evidence unless it’s written in the Bible of Moses, which is where it came from. 92.40.218.0 (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Historicity of lede in Jacob article now corresponds to Abraham article

Edited the lede of the Jacob article to precisely correspond to the consensus of the Abraham page with the word Abraham changed to Jacob. If anything changes in the consensus here, feel free to edit there as well.

“Most scholars view the patriarchal age, along with the Exodus and the period of the biblical judges, as a late literary construct that does not relate to any particular historical era and after a century of exhaustive archaeological investigation, no evidence has been found for a historical Jacob.” IncandescentBliss (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@IncandescentBliss: Perhaps this source might be of interest for this discussion. Potatín5 (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You know I once wrote without even thinking, How dare you in the House of Jacob.

I don’t know where it came from other than all firstborn Sons in Africa are called Yankuba (Jacob) and are offered not literally but Spiritually to the Lord God.

Now this sounds very familiar to Abraham to show his faith he offered his Son to the Lord as a way of peace offering for his lack of whatever caused him to feel he had displeased the Lord God.

However proving his total Faith his Son was spared.

Just discussion material like I once said I saw Edrin in a very old piece of Scripture that was in Salem in America and was told not to be absurd no name exists, however I have found Edrai as a place in The Lords time. 92.40.218.0 (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ten Trials of Abraham

I think it would be pretty interesting addition to the article to write out the 10 trials of Abraham as described in the Hebrew Bible, where would that fit into the article? Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Spelling

The Baháʼí faith section begins with 'Baháʼís consiered', please add the 'd' to 'considered'. I can't edit the article 136.169.55.159 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Done, thank you Floine (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)