Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:31, 11 October 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abraham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Abraham. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Abraham at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iraq Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iraq, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iraq on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IraqWikipedia:WikiProject IraqTemplate:WikiProject IraqIraq Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Saints High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Abraham article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The "Historicity and origins" section is massively biased, and even self-contradictory.

"none of the kings mentioned are known" Known? Known by who? Known by anyone? Almufasa (talk)

"Abimelech could not have been a Philistine (they did not arrive until centuries later)" Completely false. Is the writer believing that no kings existed in this area?

"Urwould not become known as "Ur of the Chaldeans"" Questionable, and possibly irrelevant, if it was written down later.

"Laban could not have been an Aramean, as the Arameans did not become an identifiable political entity until the 12th century" Utterly irrelevant, even if true. Aram was an area, not just a political entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppyjoes7 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The edits you made to "fix" this plagiarized from the source used. Copyright violation is never right.

This site does not take original research, your assessment of the sources does not matter.

When McNutt says "none of the kings mentioned are known," it is followed by "from other sources." You have completely taken this part out of context, which is only either dishonest or incompetent.

The argument "Is the writer believing that no kings existed in this area?" is both a non-sequitor and a straw man argument. It demonstrates that you're not properly reading the source used. The author stated that Palestinian kings of that time and place are known, and that the records of that time and place do not match those in the Bible. The author also states that a king of the Philistines is given as being in Palestine in the Bible, when there is no evidence that the Philistines had arrived in Palestine yet.

The author points out that Babylon was not known as Chaldea until a later date. This does show that the text was written at a much much later date, which does drastically decrease the possibility that it was history and not legend.

Your reading comprehension is questionable at best. Quit attempting to push your misunderstanding bias of the source into the article. Your misunderstanding bias is not bias on part of the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"The edits you made to "fix" this plagiarized from the source used."

I did no such thing. That's a pure lie.

"your assessment of the sources does not matter."

Well, the article is massively biased, and that violates the guidelines.

"When McNutt says "none of the kings mentioned are known," it is followed by "from other sources."

Oh, really? Because the Misplaced Pages article said no such thing.

"Your misunderstanding bias is not bias on part of the article."

I'm afraid this refers to you far more than it does me.

"do not delete sources."

With this false accusation, you undid my edits. You are fighting to keep the article from being neutral.

Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here between the two of you. I hope that my new revisions to the Abraham#Origins will clear some of this madness up. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 10:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Jewish tradition holds that Ezra edited Genesis, adding contemporary place names. 124.198.202.25 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Even with a reliable source for that assertion, you would also need a source applying it to this stuff, as applying it otherwise would go against WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely there is no evidence for any of this so the whole article should start with "According to Jewish and Christian mythology..." Almufasa (talk)

That is just an ignorant comment when the lede already makes it clear that "he plays a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity and Islam." and the first section of the article delves into the Biblical criticism of the narrative using secular sources. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

He may play a prominent role in Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc. all of which are mythologies hence my suggestion that the article should be prefixed as such. Almufasa (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Name in different languages in the lead

Given that Abraham is seen as the father of both Jews and Arabs, I understand that his name is given in both Hebrew and Arabic. English is of course evident, as this is the English Misplaced Pages. I'm less sure about Ge'ez, Greek and Russian. I'm not very familiar with the Ethiopic tradition and don't know if they claim Abraham as their ancestor, but at least that claim is not supported in their scripture. As for Greeks and Russian, there is absolutely no connection.Jeppiz (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

For Ge'ez, I can see where one could draw a connection as there is/was a Judaic (now Christian) community in Ethiopia which claims descent from Israelites, and claim to have the actual ark of the covenant (there's a better wiki article about it, somewhere, I just can't recall an article name). However, I'm not sure if this tradition is notable enough to include — yet another — language to include in the lede. My thought is that it is better without it, as your edit currently is. — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No oral tradition?

I find this modern claim that little or no oral tradition is incorporated in the story of Abraham a bit odd. Here is just one example of an older tale that was recast, obviously in the oral stage, into a story involving Abraham: Jud 19 > Gen 19. Especially cf. Gen 19:5-8 with Jud 19:22-24:

Gen 19:5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. 6 And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him, 7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. 8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

Jud 19:22 Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

The multiple parallels and near equivalence of dialogue are not likely to be due to chance, nor is such invention or confusion on the part of the story tellers easily attributed to post-exilic scribal activity. The fact that Ezekiel's triad (Noah, Job, and Daniel) differs from that of J-E-D-P (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) does not mean that the Abrahamic tradition was not already old in more limited circles (Judah or Benjamin?), if only in oral form. We could give many more examples of evolution in the oral stage, e.g., the variant traditions of a patriarch's wife being taken by a pharoah or Philistine king. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.133.10 (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages uses reliable sources, preferably secondary sources, not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Rest assured, no original research is involved with my statement above. Such discussion may be read in any good commentary of Genesis or Judges. --AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.128.133.10 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to make a new section for each new statement, and please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). If it is not original research, please provide sources for your statements, or we cannot add them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing directing me how to respond other than adding a new section. I don't care whether or not you change anything, and I feel no need to provide a bibliography of higher criticism to respond to such a spurious claim as that attributed to Blenkinsopp to the effect that the "Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE." This is utter nonsense. What is it doing in an encyclopedia article? 67.128.133.10 (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)AGF

There's a button right next to new section saying "edit." You can also look to the right of any section title, and click the edit button there to edit only that section. WP:CITE is one of the cornerstones of this site. Nothing goes into articles without sources, and the burden lies on you to provide those sources. It's no different than any college. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The "edit" function provided no cursor--can't work with it.

Rather than respond to your insistence on sources I'll simply show how the article text itself contradicts the spurious claim that no oral tradition is involved:

"There is basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary and originated when he became identified as the father of Jacob and ancestor of the northern tribes; his association with Mamre and Hebron, on the other hand (in the south, in the territory of Jerusalem and Judah), suggest that this region was the original home of his religion."

Do you not understand that this "secondary" connection entails a later historical period and a change in tradition in response to this period? That is, the tradition evolves over time in accord with an evolving historical setting. And this "sitz in lebn" is of course pre-exilic. So your "basic agreement" here flies in the face of Blenkinsopp's claim and the article seems oblivious to the fact that it is presenting conflicting viewpoints. I am merely pointing out that Blenkinsopp's is untenable and should be deleted. At the very least the article should note the different viewpoints, rather than present an incongruent picture. --AGF 67.128.133.10 (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf

I'm having trouble understanding how you could create a new section if you can't edit: it's just variations of the same function. Again, we do not take original research. If you do not wish to provide sources for any assertions, Misplaced Pages is not the place for you. Editor understanding does not matter here. The basic agreement part does not say that the secondary connection was the same as the literary inventions discussed by Blenkinsopp or that the Mamre and Hebron connection was part of any oral tradition. It could just as easily be read to mean that that the literary tradition changed over time. If you can provide evidence that the sources being cited are contradictory, and that the two sections need to be clarified as competing theories, then you'd be on to something. Otherwise, any relationship between the two sections is totally being read into the article.

If you do not wish to provide sources, all your assertions will be treated as unsourced original research. One fact of life in any academic field is "cite your sources," and Misplaced Pages goes to an extreme to exclude anything that is not cited to a source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in case talk is still around: Anyone can edit a wikipedia article, including you. Just experiment a bit to get the hang of the mechanics. Read what Blenkinsopp says (there should be a link to the book in the bibliography section), and correct any mistakes the article makes regarding what he says - but don't correct the man himself. (For example, I think he talks about Abraham's "cult", not his "religion"). Get other books too by all means. I think, by the way, that what Blenkinsopp means is that the Abraham story in Genesis is a literary creation, not a written version of an existing oral tradition. There was an earlier tradition, but Genesis is a late work, c.500BC, and the authors were out to create a foundation myth that tied the traditional ancestors to the Exodus, and they had no qualms about making things up. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Repeat, no cursor

Like I say, you're the one who wants me to edit. True, the paragraph did not say specifically that that the evolving tradition evolved in oral form, but it certainly does require that they evolved in pre-exilic Israel, and this is what JB is supposed to have said: "Joseph Blenkinsopp writes that a common view among modern scholars is that the Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE..." "Originated," mind you, which precludes pre-exilic evolution of either sort, scribal or oral. Moreover purely scribal evolution of tradition is inherently unlikely; steady accumulation of incremental variation is automatic in oral transmission, as when you play the game "gossip."

So I repeat, the interpretation attributed to Blenkinsopp is quite at odds with the "basic agreement that his connection with Haran, Shechem and Bethel is secondary," since the "secondary" stage of the tradition entails the reprocessing of an earlier tradition, and it behooves us to be informed as to the historical settings that produced these developing stages. Arguing through JB's quote we must assume both stages were post-exilic, that the northern shrines were incorporated into the tradition for the gratification of a northern, Samaritan audience. And this in a time when shrine worship outside the temple at Jerusalem had long since been abolished, unless we take the Deuteronomist also to be post-exilic.

Accordingly, the text is inconsistent in both respects: in that it reports the theory that the Abrahamic tradition is both scribal and of post-exilic origin, while depicting an evolving tradition which almost certainly requires a pre-exilic setting, and which by far favors an oral form of transmission (as I argued in my first post). There was no post-exilic motiff for a post-exilic attribution to Abraham of ancient outlawed shrines. If anything, the P and D writers would have wished to distance Abraham from the embarassing shrine legends, and in fact it is possible that the Dathan/Abiram passages do just that, if Abiram was Abram in another, eventually overruled, tradition.

If you don't follow my argumentation I suggest you consult with a professional Bible scholar--I'm just trying to help. --AGF67.128.133.10 (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf

All I hear (see) is noise. A lot of blah, blah, blah that means nothing without WP:Reliable sources. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A fictional Abraham?

A major upshot of the report that "Joseph Blenkinsopp writes that a common view among modern scholars is that the Genesis story of Abraham was not transmitted by oral traditions, but originated from literary circles of the 6th and 5th centuries BCE..." is that Abraham is a necessarily fictional character, a late invention with not even a legend behind him, much less a history. I'm not sure that is what the Wiki contributors intended to convey, or even that Blenkinsopp really intended to convey such a nihilistic portrayal, but it is apparent that those who control this page don't have much of a clue at all of what they are conveying. Therefore, caveat emptor: sometimes you get what you pay for. You might want to check EB.

--AGF67.128.133.10 (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)agf

There aren't assigned editors who control the page, it's volunteer duty. As one of the volunteers, I am notifying you that this is not a general discussion board for the topic, nor a place to discuss original research, and I will remove all future posts that do not bring forth sources (even ones used in the article). If you really think your own interpretations and views are so important, get published, then cite the book here. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think wiki controls me...  :/   — Jasonasosa 02:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Abraham is real.

According to a Misplaced Pages page on Babylonia, Abraham has been known since the reign of Hammurabi. He is referred to in Babylonian scripts as Abi-ramu.

71.164.209.66 (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Anonymous

The existence of someone with the same name doesn't prove anything, how could it? Dougweller (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Narrative in the Qur'an

I've moved the Narrative in the Qur'an section to Islamic views on Abraham#Narrative in the Qur'an out of respect for the hard work that was put into preparing such material... because, the alternative was delete that section since it did not have WP:THIRDPARTY sources, and could be viewed as borderline WP:ORIGINAL work. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for "it is widely believed" - pretty rubbish

Ok the first source is the website of Grace Communion International which says it "is a denomination with 42000 members".

Second source is from "The Ensign Message, identifying the Anglo-Saxons, Celts and kindred peoples as the present day descendants of the Israel of the Old Testament."

Third source is the Kjos ministry, a family ministry which is um, what can I say, a bit unusual?.

Fourth is to something called "Judaism 101", a page on a personal website (author claims no qualifications).

There 4 sites are considered enough to back the statement "It is currently widely believed by Christians, Jews, and other scholars that Abraham was a true historical figure."? Seriously? An very very small Christian denomination, two groups which might kindly be considered fringe and are even much tinier, and one Jew's website? Clearly none of them are scholars, none of them represent their faiths in any significant way, and in fact at least for the 3 Christian sources are clearly represent a miniscule minority.

Then we have: " For example, the Catholic church takes the stance that Abraham was more than a mere myth, and that archaeology supports this position" with the New Advent Encyclopedia as a source. A couple of problems - what the Church says officially can be reported, but we can't use the article to suggest it's the view of most Catholics. It probably is, but we'd need a better source. But in any case, what does this article represent? Certainly not any modern view, its sources are long dead, eg Theophilus Pinches and Archibald Sayce. So, we are using the century old New Advent encyclopedia to back this claim? Does anyone think that maybe readers might think that where it says "archaeology supports this position" readers might think that means something a bit more modern?

Seriously, this is all rubbish. For the moment, I'm removing the sources and replacing them with fact tags. But unless you can have some good research which would have to be mainstream, not fringe, I think this section needs to be removed or heavily rewritten. Dougweller (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I added those, and they aren't "all rubbish." In fact, you just proved one of Misplaced Pages's main problems. Earlier in this very talk page, I questioned this section and made some edits. I received the reply "This site does not take original research, your assessment of the sources does not matter." So, I ask, Dougweller, who are you to remove that sourced material? You had no right.Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Church websites and newsletters are not academic peer-reviewed works and therefore do not meet our reliable sourcing guidelines. "The Ensign Message" is a white supremacist site, which makes it so unreliable a source that you have no choice but to admit you made a mistake. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for not catching these bad sources when I moved the said material.  — Jasonasosa 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Apology not accepted. Why would you so quickly assume that Dougweller's analysis is accurate?Sloppyjoes7 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The apology wasn't directed to you, and Dougweller's analysis is not assumed to be accurate, he is simply repeating observable facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:21, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I note that the The Harvard Crimson is also used as a source (it is clearly inferior to the Yale Daily News of course).

As your penance, you might want to note that the first 3 sources are used in a number of articles., , (ok to use Grace in its own article of course). Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would just remove said content altogether if you ask me.  — Jasonasosa 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Done --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

So who wrote the Torah?

This section worries me (headed Form):

Scholarship for more than two centuries have agreed that the Torah, in which the Patriarchal stories are found, was drawn together from different literary sources. However, any particular identification or dating of the textual sources have been strongly debated.

It is widely held by modern biblical scholarship that the Patriarchs, including Abraham, are not clearly and unambiguously attested in the Hebrew Bible earlier than the Babylonian exile. This has led modern scholars to propose that the entire Torah, which include the stories of Abraham, all originated from literary circles either during the Persian period of the late 6th century BCE, to the 5th century Babylonian rule, or as late as Hellenistic times. Under these dominions, the Patriarchal stories are seen as hope for the Jewish people when Jerusalem, the Temple, and the Davidic kingship were all but destroyed. YHWH's dealings with their ancestors provided hope for a future in which an ancestral foundation could be built. Thus, Abraham served as a model for those who would return to Judah.

There are however, modern supporters for an earlier dating. Robert Alter interjects that the Hebrew language evolved over nine centuries of biblical literary activity, from the First Commonwealth (1000 BCE to 586 BCE) to the late Persian/Hellenistic periods. Both Alter and Ronald Hendel argue that there is very little Hebrew in the Torah that could bare a late dating to the 6th-4th century BCE eras, due to their linguistic differences.

Well for a start, this is source criticism, not form criticism. More importantly, it relies rather heavily on Robert Alter's Five Books. Alter is a great scholar, but here he's arguing his personal convictions, not setting out the position of the scholarly community as a whole. Despite what Alter says, there's a growing consensus that sees the five books getting their first version in the late 7th century and reaching final form in the early Persian period. And the argument that the forms of Hebrew are pre-Exilic isn't Alter's, he's just repeating it. Anyway, I'd prefer to see a more generalist book used for mthis - and it can be done in a single sentence, not a whole subsection. PiCo (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Form Criticism part of Source Crticism

Before you start ranting about "dangerous" and "worrisome" things... you should know what you are talking about first. The first section Abraham#Form is very much Form criticism.

"Form criticism is a method of biblical criticism that classifies units of scripture by literary pattern and that attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission. Form criticism seeks to determine a unit's original form and the historical context of the literary tradition."

All of these points are covered within that section. Also note that...

"It is used to supplement the documentary hypothesis explaining the origin of the Pentateuch."

Which means that Form Criticism is a sub-part of Source criticism (documentary hypothesis). If you User:PiCo understood this, you would save yourself from getting all worked up again. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 20:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Quotes taken from Form criticism referencing ("form criticism." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Dec. 2007 read online)

Supporting citations

If you had verified all of the supporting citations, you would find that the lede sentence is a neutral statement from Alter, Robert (2008). In the 2nd paragraph, Alter only reiterates what Blenkinsopp, Joseph (2009) says about how modern scholars believe the texual sources were rooted from the late 6th-4th century BCE eras. The last paragraph is the only paragraph used to show Alter's alternative view of an earlier dating. Thus the wp:weight of the article is balanced enough not to push either view too hard. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason you like to have it both ways, when there is too much stuff in an article about a Bible topic you don't like, you try demolishing it with arguments about too much "weight" and "undue" etc, BUT when you are left to your own devices and no one opposes you, you insert voluminous reams of material that are primarily from Christian and evangelical POVs. I can back up all these claims with a careful look at your recent editing history. Please stop the charade and stop chopping up and attacking long-standing articles just so you can get your way. You need to learn how to proceed with more CAUTION and build WP:CONSENSUS CAREFULLY and not come in with guns blazing and then put on the innocent act when you are called on it. By the way, have you considered that this title "So who wrote the Torah?" is outright offensive to many editors and could lead to uncalled for edit warring? Like asking "Who wrote the New Testamant?" or "Who wrote the Koran?" would be HIGHLY offensive to many Christianity and Islam editors given your tone here and the dismissive stance you take citing liberally from latter-day secular (university? pop? pulp? ghost?) writers but ignoring what those ancient religions and their scholars would have to say on those topics and not even caring to hear them out. Kindly note Misplaced Pages is not iconoclasm either!! Or do you miss that as well? Thanks a lot. IZAK (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

1. You User talk:IZAK state: "you (User:Jasonasosa) insert voluminous reams of material that are primarily from Christian and evangelical POVs. I can back up all these claims with a careful look at your recent editing history." - So are you saying that the Abraham#Scholarly criticism section, that I edited, is all Christian POV?
2. Did you even take a look at the edit history to see who wrote the title, So who wrote the Torah?

Before you start ranting, why don't you deliver? It's apparent that you don't check your information, which makes me question your abilities to edit as a wikieditor. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

PiCo wrote it, and it is demeaning. Minor typo on my part. WP:AGF. I am not ranting and you are not reading what I have to say. Pity. You just want to have it all your way, and call anyone who disagrees with you as "ranting" or what? IZAK (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no indication of a typo here, as it is read...

"You (User:Jasonasosa) need to learn how to proceed with more CAUTION and build WP:CONSENSUS CAREFULLY and not come in with guns blazing and then put on the innocent act when you are called on it. By the way, have you considered that this title "So who wrote the Torah?"...

So, as you can see... the two thoughts in your brain were put together spilling through your fingers faster than you can keep up with. You just need to slow down and pay attention to what and who you are writing to, backing up your comments with solid evidence, just as I had done in my retort to User:PiCo. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, you are deliberately ignoring what I am referring to, not just the comments here, but to your recent spate of rash editing all over the place when it comes to Hebrew Bible topics, such as when you rushed to chop down the Genesis 1:1 article after it survived a recent AfD and you were called on it and retracted; when you were ready to "hack away" (your phrase) as you put it at Talk:Noach (parsha)#Scope proposals that contributed to the massive downhill slide of a discussion that degenerated into squabbling. While for a while now you have edited these kind of religion topics wherein Judaism/Christianity/Islam intersect and overlap with little opposition, you seem to have now reached a point where you are running into headwinds where you need to slow down your efforts to become the almost sole editor and final voice-over for more and more Bible topics in what can only be described as a form of creeping annexation of these topics to reflect your POV as you merrily "hack away" to carve things up the way you want them to appear. I have long ago ceased that type of editorial style that was more suitable to WP's early days when articles where first appearing and all content was welcome, the more the merrier and there were relatively few alternative views, whereas today there are many layers of content submitted by waves of editors over many years that cannot be simply hacked away and what you are seeing is a reaction to your zealous approach, especially as you veer into more topics that directly interface with core subjects in Judaism that you do not display a strong grasp of. Just slow down and cool it and try to win over allies. IZAK (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of User:IZAK's statement, "...and try to win over allies" seems to suggest habitual WP:EDITWARRING. -   — Jasonasosa 22:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. You just don't get the message, no matter which way I send it. You have obviously not heard of WP:CONSENSUS and taking heed when you are up against WP:CONTROVERSIAL see it, WP has a list of Misplaced Pages:List of controversial issues and RELIGION is one of them. In almost ten years of editing on WP I have not been known to edit war in religion topics, and you have probably never noticed the {{Controversial}} warning template (even when it's implied) and many others like it that warn you to proceed with CAUTION. IZAK (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because you argue about Talk page titles rather than Main page content within wp:scope. I can see how you've skirted from getting caught from edit warring as you spend most of your time ranting on talk pages rather than contributing content within wp:scope to the main page.  — Jasonasosa 22:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong again. You don't know my history. In the early part of my ten years on WP I wrote many articles relating to rabbis and Judaism. Then when the categorization system came in I created the entire framework of categories for the huge Category:Jews and Judaism, I spend a lot of time improving almost all articles with Category:Jewish history. I used to spend more time on Israel-related articles but I don't have the time and there is too much controversy there that I avoid like the plague. The Hebrew Bible-related articles are a TOTAL mess because they try to blend opposing views in a maddening way so that they all suffer from severe multiple split personality disorders as they cannot make up their minds what to communicate, and many good Judaic editors have lost interest and confidence in them precisely because you have Christian and secular editors telling them what they should think and say and convey about a subject which rightly commenced with Judaism and was then conveyed to Christianity and which latter-day secular scholars have converged upon to tear to shreds. I spend time trying to IMPROVE non-Biblical articles relating to religious Jews and Judaism that could need help. I keep track of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, and I very seldom nominate articles for AfDs. There is just so much one person can do, as you well know. IZAK (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Focusing on latter day Bible critics and secular professors while ignoring what classical Judaism maintains puts the cart way before the horse

Why is this not mentioned when it is such an obvious point, accepted by Judaism for 3000+ years:

1. Classical Judaism, meaning Rabbinic Judaism not just "believes" but accepts it axiomatically that the Torah was written down by Moses (no link to WP article because it's a total shambles) as dictated from God based on nevu'ah which means "prophecy" -- a divine phenomenon whereby God communicates with select men and women that the secular mind cannot grasp. This is called "Torah from Sinai" or "Torah min hashamayim" and that it came in stages:
2. The Decalogue when God spoke the Ten Commandments to the Children of Israel gathered at Mount Sinai;
3. then the Ten Commandments were given carved on stone by God (first set) and Moses (second set);
4. then during the forty years the Israelites spent in the wilderness the Five Books of Moses (Chumash or Pentateuch) was dictated by God and written down by Moses who then handed it to Joshua and the Seventy Elders (forerunners of the Great Sanhedrin).
5. The rest of the Tanakh was written by the successive leaders and prophets ending with the Men of the Great Assembly who then "sealed" and closed the epoch of the Written Torah.
6. Judaism also holds that the Oral Torah (Torah shebe'al peh) was transmitted at the same time as the Written Torah.
7. The Oral Torah was written down by later sages and does not have the same status as the Written Torah but it was reliably transmitted through the Mishnah; Talmud and various Midrashim.
8. Drawing from both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah and based on their great Torah scholarship and piety in Judaism the most competent and greatest Jewish sages (meaning rabbis, not university professors and pop writers) have written further works of Jewish Law (Halakha), and commentaries.
9. Deciders of Jewish Law, have published later works based on the Written and Oral Torah such as Maimonides' Mishneh Torah and Rabbi Joseph Karo's Shulkhan Arukh the Code of Jewish Law that is the basis of all Jewish Law today.
10. Mystical, moral and homiletical commentaries on the Written and Oral Torah based on the Midrashim are a different but related field of knowledge with their own great works, such as the Sefer Yetzira and Zohar, and with its scholars specializing in Jewish mysticism and the Kabbalah such as Isaac Luria, Moses Cordovero and the early great rabbis of Hasidic Judaism.

This is Judaism 101 yet look how so few even know this much. IZAK (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The time it took you to prepare these points could be better spent improving the article Lech-Lecha. A lot of the points you bring up here are not within wp:scope of this article anyway. Further, Jewish 101 would be wp:undo weight here. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 16:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I think WP:SOAPBOX might be relevant to this thread. It is also worth pointing out that Rabbinic Judaism is itself a rather late arriver on the seen, dating to after the destruction of the Temple, and it is not necessarily proven that its beliefs are necessarily identical to those of earlier Jews. One thing that might be useful is to compare and contrast the content of this article to that of other reference sources. Going to the Highbeam Research site, I found articles on this subject in four reference works, the New Catholic Encyclopedia, Dictionary of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Encyclopedia Judaica, and World Religions Reference Library. There is also one in the Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, and presumably several others as well. I haven't checked on their lengths, but if anyone wanted copies of them e-mailed to them, just drop me an e-mail and I will forward them the articles I have online access to. Some of the other databanks which are currently offering free subscriptions here may well contain additional articles, as well as other subscription databanks elsewhere. I am on the candidates lists for the other free subscriptions as well, and should know by the end of the month. That being the case, if editors to this article are not themselves given access to those databanks or services, it might make sense to file a request for copies of those reference articles after the first of next month, when I should have access to those other databanks as well. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

John, too bad you reject the occasional reality check from the real world, and it's nice to know you live in your own academic ivory tower that has nothing to do with the real world where Judaism exists. Are you now an authority on Judaism and its beliefs and origins as well? Wow! You see, this is precisely the ongoing problem, that WP has become a "world unto itself" creating one huge mish-mash that would in its own language violate WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTMADEUP, WP:NEO and even WP:HOAX that is often a reflection of some editors acting like WP:SPIDERMAN. Someone asks who wrote the Bible/Torah, and the correct WP way to answer would be: According to XYX group it is ____; According to ABC group it is ___; According to modern secular scholars it is ____; and instead everyone mixes up all the views, no one knows how anything starts, discredits the religion's own set of axioms, with half-baked, zany and dishonest citations that are sham and discredit the purpose of WP:RS and WP:V with personal views from a mish-mash of zeros, and walla, WP has produced a new religion, or definition for a religion, that no one ever heard of or practices. This is disgraceful and does not become an encyclopedia. Think it over. IZAK (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like it, walk away. This is a secular site. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 03:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong! WP is neither secular nor religious, because this is ONLY an encyclopedia (look that up) that draws on ALL bodies of knowledge and welcomes editors from all areas of expertise and incorporates all points of view as long as they adhere to WP policies of WP:NPOV and the WP:FIVEPILLARS and all other long-standing WP policies. IZAK (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 19:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Jason, are you claiming that 2000+ years of traditional Jewish scholarship should be disregarded in favor of 200 years of secular scholarship? There are over two millenia of published works, by scholars accepted in their field, and of whom secondary sources certainly exist that compile their collective opinions. I completely agree that modern secular opinion deserves its place here, but not exclusively. In an article which is core to Judaism, I believe it selbstverständlich that the traditional Jewish view, as brought down through, at the very least, 1500 years of commentary, exegesis, gloss, and discussion from the Midrash to Rashi and the Ramban (two name two undeniably notable and seminal figures, who remain accepted as authoritative to this very day) need be discussed. Misplaced Pages is certainly not a religious project; but it is not anti-religious either. A good encyclopedia will bring both perspectives, as they are both necessary in understanding the topic, its context, its reach, and its effect on people. -- Avi (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The Abraham#Judaism section is (+3,322)‎ bytes; The Abraham#Scholarly criticism is (+5,897)‎ bytes... a difference of 2,575 bytes. My contributions to the Scholarly criticism section totals: 1,251 bytes. There is also a wonderful page called Lech-Lecha which is roughly (80,949 bytes) with about (+44,120)‎ bytes worth of "2000+ years of traditional Jewish scholarship", which dwarfs my contribution of a mere 1,251 bytes of scholarly criticism. So, feel free to contribute 2,575 more bytes to the Judaism section of this article if its really eating away at you.  — Jasonasosa 20:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jason, look up the meaning of primary sources in real world scholarship, as well as of secondary sources. Besides, when posing a question such as "So who wrote the Torah?" (sticking in the word "So" by anyone in any case, it is oh, SO demeaning) you then have to face the irrefutable fact that the Torah is the primary document of Judaism, and therefore also realize that Judaism has had and has its own field of Torah scholarship and Torah scholars, namely those that are relied upon today, the Talmudists (Judaism's teachers of the Torah), Rishonim (medieval scholars), Acharonim (latter scholars), and meforshim or parshanim, see {{Rabbinical Literature}} and {{Eras of the Halakha}} as introductions. If these terms mean nothing to you, you need to brush up on them when taking on questions about Judaism's most important text/s, such as 'So, who wrote the Torah?". Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear User:IZAK, your reply to my inquiry was: "PiCo wrote it, and it is demeaning. Minor typo on my part. WP:AGF." By this statement and you addressing me "Dear Jason" in your above comment bashing me for "So who wrote the Torah?" means that you back peddled and lied to me. From here on out, I having nothing more to say to you.  — Jasonasosa 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You and PiCo worked under that heading and at no point disputed it as it's a demeaning heading. IZAK (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you serious? You need to chill out. This does not improve the main page at all!   — Jasonasosa 22:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but it's hard to ignore you when you are zooming around and busy with so many Hebrew Bible topics lately, bringing up a number AfDs, moving material around all over the place, that's just nerve racking. I will look into the article with greater depth to see what can be done, if anything. IZAK (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, just a little FYI... you might want to get an update on my contributions to Genesis 1:1 from an admin at User talk:Jasonasosa#Genesis 1:1. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 22:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go for Abraham this makes sense, following the chronological and historical order. First you describe and explain the subject in its own terms, then feel free to supply all the Criticisms in the world. First comes the case then comes the analysis. IZAK (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. User StAnselm (talk · contribs) is not an admin, and yes, you do improve things many times, but by the same token you also are overly quick to make mass changes when more incremental change would work a lot better and not get people so nervous. There are so many ways to improve articles and WP content without getting into massive editorial changes of content. One can create useful templates, navigational categories, basic clean up without massive changes in core articles and panic being induced. IZAK (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

StAnselm (talk · contribs) projects himself with such etiquette, even when he is obliged to relay criticism, that I mistook him for an admin. Maybe we could all learn something from him. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 05:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but for better or worse God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) created human beings who all have different faces and different personalities, characters, temperaments, and even different souls/spiritual and psychological make-ups. There are seven Billion+ humans on Earth today and they are all different to each other. But yes, there are rules of the road and we all need to aspire to them. Mastering WP:CIVIL is not the same for all people, everyone can improve all the time. IZAK (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that people "can" improve over time does not necessarily mean that they "will", although we can assume good faith that some people might. It is I think the sincerest hope of all of us that no one has cause to raise concerns regarding such matters in the future. However, if reason for such concerns do continue to be raised, then it is not unreasonable for others to take whatever action they might deem necessary and appropriate. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Arguments for a pre-exilic tradition of Abraham

May I take the liberty of providing a link to arguments for a pre-exilic Abrahamic tradition: http://agfosterjr.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/the-case-for-a/ 67.169.241.205 (talk)agf —Preceding undated comment added 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not RS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A Case for a Pre-exilic Abraham

Tried to edit, got no cursor as before. Tried to add descript, format demolished. Here's a 'non-blog' (since such names mean all) with addenda, making a brief case for a pre-exilic Abrahamic tradition: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NsAhw4e7ifBWQeXi4xTUenFAbDBHOKSgdruVmUkK7q0/edit 67.128.133.10 (talk)agf —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That's still a self-published source. We have no idea who it's by, if it's been reviewed, and the paper doesn't even give sources (which means it didn't even get a good grade, I'm sure, not that we cite student's papers). Here are the reliable sourcing guidelines. Many editors have repeatedly linked to them for you for a reason. Please read them. Here is a summary of the reliable sourcing guidelines:

• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Misplaced Pages) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).

Please read the reliable sourcing guidelines anyway, even though I have summarized it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

This article alternates between "Abraham" and "Abram". Is there any objection to sticking with one spelling or the other throughout the article? (As the title is "Abraham", that seems like the logical choice, IMHO.) Joefromrandb (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'll take a close look at the book of Genesis, you'll see that the name of the person concerned changes from "Abram" to "Abraham" at a certain point in the story. I believe this accounts for the discrepancy you note. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of it. What I meant to say is that with most people who undergo a change of name, the article usually explains it in the lede, while generally sticking to the name by whom the person was best known throughout the article. As Abraham is known mononomously, this seems even more important. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not to complex to follow and it is considered pivotal. Though I believe most modern sources use Abraham throughout the entire narrative up until the name change when a reminder is made. Religious studies would prefer otherwise, but for the general masses, we should keep it simple. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ Alter 2008, p. x. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAlter2008 (help)
2. ^ Blenkinsopp 2009, p. 38-39. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBlenkinsopp2009 (help)
3. Albertz, R, "Israel in exile: the history and literature of the sixth century B.C.E." (Society of Biblical Literature, 2003) p.246
4. Alter 2008, p. xi. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAlter2008 (help)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Iraq articles
• Top-importance Iraq articles
• WikiProject Iraq articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Saints articles
• High-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Judaism articles
• Top-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Top-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles