Talk:Abraham

Abraham's incestuous marriage with Sarah

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

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

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

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

Opening sentences are misleading about historicity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earliest camels dated to 930 BCE

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

Abraham in religious traditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Avoiding edit wars over sections 2.1 and 3.1

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

These are the passages in question.

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

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

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

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

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

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