Select Page

Talk:Abraham

Better depiction

I edited using a more abstract and ethnically relevant illustration to reduce fallacious renaissance era preconceptions that Avraham was a white European man wearing fancy modern garb. Initially I used c:File:Musée Unterlinden - chapiteau de l'église abbatiale d'Alspach - les Justes dans le sein d'Abraham (XIIe siècle).jpg but @איתן קרסנטי objected, and my second suggestion c:File:PikiWiki Israel 47514 Samaritan museum on mount Grizim - Left.jpg was punted to here. Any relevant objections? Refael Ackermann (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is "ethnically relevant" meant to mean? In general, I agree inasmuch that lead images should be as generally representative as possible. For historical or legendary figures, that often means older, less stylistically particular illustrations. We often try to avoid particularly European or Christian depictions of figures from the Hebrew Bible, when possible. There's no actual provenance other than "Samaritan" that I see for your second suggestion, though, and it's not exactly generally representative of the figure as balanced in the article on its face. Remsense ‥ 论 20:41, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the subject is (1) mythical (2) of middle-eastern decent, IMHO a more abstract and less renaissance-esque depiction should be preferred over the European-idealized version by Giovanni Francesco Barbieri. Personally I prefer the very abstract c:File:Musée Unterlinden - chapiteau de l'église abbatiale d'Alspach - les Justes dans le sein d'Abraham (XIIe siècle).jpg. P.S. unsurprisingly free-to-use depictions that better align with bronze-age middle east looks and garb are rare. ("ethnically relevant" is clean-speak for "not European Christian shlock")Refael Ackermann (talk) 20:59, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Samaritans are considered the ethnoreligious group closest genetically and culturally to the people who wrote the Torah be they Canaanites or Israelites. Refael Ackermann (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Palestinian origin hypothesis" to "Canaanite origin hypothesis"?

The area was called Canaan and not Palestine during the possible period of Abraham's life, so maybe we should change it to that? Then again, Palestinian would be the one used by historians today. Does anyone have any thoughts? Blagai (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, will make the change. Brent Silby (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I posted it and didn't change myself since I thought it better to wait for consensus, but I won't revert your edit. If anyone contests it feel free to say why in this thread. Blagai (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Title change to "Abraham in Christianity"

I feel the entire article overall gives more weight to interpretation of Abraham in a Judeo-Christian light, which gives a wrong impression on Islamic interpretation. There's some notable differences compared to the Islamic version, for example Lot is barely mentioned in the wikipedia page for Islam's interpretation while he seems to be a central figure in the Christian narration. It is probably better off to name this page as "Abraham in Christianity" and make a different page for Abraham as the page heavily relies on Biblical sources anyway. LostCitrationHunter (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle (1911)

@Sinclairian: I saw you recently added Kyle (1911) in the "Palestinian origin hypothesis" section. My issue with this source is that it is over 100 years old and I doubt that it can be considered current scholarship. The article was apparently a critique of James Henry Breasted's original identification of the "Fort of Abram" in the Bubastite Portal in 1904, to which Breasted (1911) himself later responded. Do you still think that the source should be kept in the article? Potatín5 (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the source is obscenely old, and ordinarily I wouldn’t have even considered its inclusion — but, there were some extenuating circumstances. There are two references which are cited in the article for the “field of Abram” translation of the Bubastite Portal entry: the first is McCarter 2000, which of course presents a bibliography for every section except the one for Abraham, so where it got its information is anyone’s guess; the second citation is Hendel 2005, and it’s truly befuddling. So, Hendel writes the following:
Most Egyptologists read the last word in this place-name as the equivalent of Hebrew “Abram” or “Abiram.” (“Abram” and “Abiram” are variations of the same name, literally, “the [or, my] Father is exalted.)13 A recent comprehensive treatment of Semitic words in Egyptian syllabic writing concludes that the reading of this word as “Abram” or “Abiram” is “entirely certain.”14
So, I decided to check the sources out, and this is where the confusion sets in. So, note 13 of the chapter states the following:
Compare the variations of Abner (1 Sam 14:51, etc.) with Abiner (1 Sam 14:50); Abshalom (2 Chron 11:20–21) with Abishalom (1 Kings 15:2, 10).
This, obviously, has nothing to do with the claim that “Most Egyptologists read the last word in this place-name as the equivalent of Hebrew “Abram” or “Abiram.”” So, I decided to check note 14, which reads: Hoch, Semitic Words, 18, 205. This refers to James Hoch’s Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period, so I checked pages 18 and 205.
Page 18 of Hoch details 2 Semitic words borrowed into Egyptian: ab “father” and abbir meaning “mighty”, which he proposes was calqued to Egyptian as “stallion”. “Abraham” or any derivative thereof is not mentioned anywhere on the page, but he does mention the Akkadian name Abi-rami with no further specification. Page 205 details the Semitic ram “mighty” – no mention of Abraham, no mention of a combination with ab, and most importantly, absolutely nothing about the reading of the Bubastite Portal entry. In neither page is even the phrase “entirely certain” as quoted by Hendel present, not even once!
Like I’ve said, at this point I’m completely bewildered. Hendel sources do not support what he is saying at all. So I’m left to wonder, where the hell is he getting his information? Well, I went back to his footnotes, and I notice footnote 12:
The relevance of this text was first noted by J. H. Breasted, “The Earliest Occurrence of the Name of Abram,” AJSL 21 (1904): 22–36; and W. Spiegelberg, Aegyptologische Randglossen zum Alten Testament (Strassburg: Schlesier & Schweikhardt, 1904), 14
As far as I can tell, no other academic source has discussed the “field of Abram” translation since the 1911 rebuttal I added to the article. Sinclairian (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: Thanks for the reply. I have also checked pages 18 and 205 of Hoch's book and noticed that in both pages he lists the words ʾi=bi (< *ʾabu "father") and ra=ma₄ (< *râma "to be high, exalted") as appearing in "Shishak List, no. 72 [D. 22]", respectively. I think the "Shishak List, no. 72 [D. 22]" probably refers to the portion of the Bubastite Portal entry where Breasted identified a reference to the "Fort of Abram" (and this appears to be the way Hendel is reading Hoch). Also, as I said before it is not true that "no other academic source has discussed the “field of Abram” translation since the 1911 rebuttal", since Breasted himself published another article in 1911 defending his original proposal. Potatín5 (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point that Hendel essentially SYNTHesizes Hoch’s work and dishonestly represents their contents – he quotes affirmations that Hoch never said to endorse a conclusion he never reached. Hoch does not include Abram as a construct, Abram is not listed in the glossary of personal names found in Egyptian transcription, and there are no sources or evidence to support Hendel’s claim of the consensus reading. This is an utterly massive red flag.
Also, as I said before it is not true that "no other academic source has discussed the “field of Abram” translation since the 1911 rebuttal", since Breasted himself published another article in 1911 defending his original proposal.
Cool, so instead of having a complete dearth of scholarly literature since 1911, we have… a complete dearth of scholarly literature since 1911. Sinclairian (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: I'm not sure that Hendel is totally synthesizing Hoch's work. If you check the hieroglyphics presented by Breasted (1911) on page 293 of his article you will see that those are the same ones which Hoch gives alongside "Shishak List, no. 72 [D. 22]" on pages 18 and 205 of his book. So, it seems clear to me that both Breasted and Hoch are referring to the same portion of the Bubastite Portal entry in their respective works. This also appears to indicate that Hoch (at least implicitly) agrees that the name Abram/Abiram occurs in the Bubastite Portal entry. Finally, my point about Breasted's 1911 article was that it came after Kyle's one, contrary to your original claim that no scholar had discussed the "Fort of Abram" reading since Kyle. Potatín5 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
“Implicitly” is not good enough. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used! The fact that Hoch explicitly does not construct “Abram” in his glossary of rendered personal names clearly indicates he is not translating or endorsing the term as “Abram”, considering that the phrase also literally means “exalted father”. This is especially pertinent when an author (and I really can’t stress enough that this is the major point and something you seem oddly keen on not acknowledging) invents quotations to support their view point. Regardless of whether Hoch agrees in Breasted’s translations or not, Hendel uses his work to buttress an assertion that no one is making. He quotes something that Hoch never said. Both of his sources for the assertion he is being cited on Wikipedia to support are nonexistent. Sinclairian (talk) 15:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: I think Hoch does not included "Abram" in his glossary of personal names because "Abram" appears in the Bubastite Portal entry as a part of the name of a place ("Fort of Abram") rather than as the name of a person. Also, Hoch states on page 205 that *râma occurs "only in proper nouns", so he clearly thinks that this must be part of a name in the Bubastite Portal entry (the other part of the name being *ʾabu, thus making the name "Abram"). Hoch also states on page 6 in the Introduction of his book that he only includes proper nouns in his list of Semitic words if these are "of certain word formation"; perhaps this is why Hendel understands that for Hoch the reading Abram/Abiram in the Bubastite Portal entry is "entirely certain". Also, the original reason I openned this section had nothing to do with how Hendel reads Hoch's work; it was all about whether Kyle (1911) should be kept in the article or not. Potatín5 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that in nearly 90 years there is not a single consideration for or against the “field of Abram” reading, until 2000s, at which point it suddenly finds 2 supports - one which doesn’t cite sources, and one which synthesizes sources.
The moment you have to say “perhaps this is why it is read like this”, the source is as good as dead. That’s just site policy. I have checked every database I have, there is no mention of the “field of Abram” reading between 1911 and 2000. I even checked the more recent sources on the Bubastite Portal – and I’ve found the original entry which Breasted transcribed as “field of Abram” isn’t even read as such anymore because subsequent analyses have found that only that last couple signs that Breasted read are actually present (Breasted transcribed pꜣ ḥwqrwjꜣ mrbꜣrjmꜥ to read “the Field of Abram”, subsequent transcriptions - such as the one linked above - have shown this is actually two separate entries: pꜣ ꜣḥqꜣrwj “the fort” and mrbꜣrmj which lacks a consensus translation) If we’re going to include the original claim, which is dated to 1904, there’s no reason the 1911 work – the only proper analysis of the original – shouldn’t be included. Sinclairian (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinclairian: Well, I have found these sources [1], [2] by the well-renowned egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen who also gives the "Fort of Abram" reading as a possible one and even states that such reading "is fairly widely accepted". If such an egyptological authority said that, then it is clear that the "Fort of Abram" reading has continued to find support within scholarship long after Kyle (1911) argued against it. (Also, as Breasted pointed in his 1911 response, Kyle did not actually consult the original 1904 article when he wrote his own one, so I would not describe it as "the only proper analysis of the original"). Finally, the WP:SYNTH policy you mention applies only to WP editors and not to the secondary sources themselves (that is, editors must not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources in WP articles, but scholars who author the sources can do so in their own works if that is their own professional judgment). Potatín5 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]