Talk:Abraham in History and Tradition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article seems to violate NPOV, as the author seems to be a partisan of Van Seter's theory. --Iacobus 02:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC) In that case, somebody should provide some balance, by bringing up any evidence that any of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 is actually mentioned in any ancient extrabiblical source. Can anybody provide any such evidence? Otherwise, Van Seters was not proposing a theory but stating a fact. Das Baz 2 May 2006, 11:59 AM.

Indeed, some of the kings may have existed, and I am editing the article accordingly. However, what Van Seters affirmed principally - that no king of Elam dominated a vast empire including Mesopotamia, Hatti, and Canaan, remains a fact, not a theory. Erudil 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If somebody has the technical ability to add a map showing Elam, Hatti, Mesopotamia, Canaan, and the Hurrian kingdom, please do so. Erudil 17:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up the prose-style, made it as npov as possible. PiCo 09:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I made another cleanup of the prose-style, with a view to making it NPOV. A number of Van Seter's key assertions are challenged by a range of liberal Christian and non-Christian archaeologists. I might find the time to add some details. --Taiwan boi 08:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to the article

This is an article about a book, and the book is NOT ABOUT CHAPTER 14 OF GENESIS!!!!! It's about Abraham, and the sources of the Abraham cycle in Genesis. So I've tried to make it more attuned to the book - in fact I think the section abt Genesis 14 should be droppedm entierly, as it's only one chapter out of the about 14 in the book. PiCo 14:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted this section for the reasons set out in my pervious post - the book isn't about ch.14 of Genesis. I'll find this material a home somewhere in Wiki if I can - maybe there's an article on Ch.14 - but no promises. PiCo 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This part of the article needs revision, as it is is woefully NPOV and out of date. Not only does it use triumphalist language such as 'Specially devastating' and 'Van Seters easily demonstrated', the book was written around 30 years ago and its conclusions challenged by a significant amount of archaeological evidence and studies since. Kenneth Kitchen made the case that although Van Seters justifiably objected to certain alleged correlations of the Nuzi and Mari tablets with the Patriarchal era, there was still a significant body of such correlations which could be demonstrated (Kitchen, 'Patriarchal Age: Myth or History' BAR, March/April 1995). He has also demonstrated a logical case for the confederation of nations in Genesis 14, which should at least be noted in this article. --Taiwan boi (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)