Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:52, 17 October 2015

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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. Judaism High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-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. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Bible 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

The 600,000 Israeites number

I just added a sentence and a reference on this because I'd never come across the idea before, namely that an army of 600,000 Israelites would have nothing to fear from any enemy, Egyptian or Philistine. Quite true and obvious, but the sort of thing you just don't think of.

I was then browsing Hoffmeier (his book's in the bibliography) and came across his investigation of the number. It's quite even-handed (I have respect for Hoffmeier, but not for Kitchen - Hoffmeier always tries to look at every argument, Kitchen never does). One thing that struck me there was that Hoffmeier links the 600,000 number to a Sumerian base-6 counting system. He's slightly wrong, the Mesopotamian counting system was base-12, not base-6. (It works like this: using the thumb of your left hand, you count off the joints of the four fingers, which gives you 12; with the fingers of your right hand you count off groups of 12; this allows you to count to 60 on two hands - I saw this being done in Iraq in the 90s). Anyway, Hoffmeier is only slightly wrong, and it's possible that the use of 6, half of 12, points to a Mesopotamian locale for the originator of the Exodus story. I don't mean by that that he was a Bablyonian, but that he may have been a Jew living in Babylon, or who had lived in Babylon. Lemche has put this idea forward in a rather joking fashion, but there could be something to it. (See Hoffmeier's Ancient Israel in Sinai, page 157). PiCo (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

William Dever on proto-Israelites

"recent archaeological discoveries in Israel and the West Bank have shown that the majority of the proto-Israclitcs had probably never been in Egypt. They were displaced Canaanites who had fled the Late Bronze Age city-states and had colonized the sparsely settled hill country frontiers of central Palestine. There was no military conquest of Canaan, only a socioeconomic revolution. Furthermore, the emergence of early Israel must be placed not in the fifteenth century bc, but shortly before and after 1200 bc. Thus the Biblical story of the exodus and conquest of Canaan has little basis in fact. The Egyptian elements in the Biblical story—the Joseph saga, a few Egyptian names like Moses, references to the “store cities of Pithom and Ramesses” in the Delta—can all be shown to be literary devices. They are most easily accounted for in the Saitc Dynasty (26th Dynasty) or Persian period (27th—31st Dynasties), precisely when the Biblical tradition was being edited into its final form. In summary, the patriarchal and exodus/ conquest narratives in the Bible may rest on genuine oral traditions, or even on distant memories of a few actual historical events, of the Hyksos and Ramesside (19th 20th Dynasties) eras. Later tradition, however, has set Israelite prehistory into a supposed Egyptian context that greatly exaggerates any real role that Egypt could have played in the formulation of the Israelite people and state."Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"The revelations at Sinai"

Jytdog reverted my reversion of ... it gets a bit complicated. Anyway, the point is that the phrase "revelations at Sinai", as a description of part of the contents of the Exodus story, has been piped to the article on the Ten Commandments, and I reverted it because I say the revelations relate to more than that. They revelations do include the Commandments, but they include more.

This phrase is in the second sentence in the lead, and is intended to outline the Exodus story: "It (the exodus) tells of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan." The source, as noted, is page 59 of Carol Redmount's 1998 contribution to the Oxford History of the Biblical World, "Bitter Lives: Israel In And Out of Egypt". (The link opens to page 58).

Note first that Redmount uses the plural - "revelations", not "revelation". Why she does this becomes clear as you read the chapter. On page 60 she describes what happens at Sinai:

1. God appears to all Israel (a theophany, or revelation of the god to his worshipers - always an important event in the bible)
2. God hands down two law-codes to the Israelites, one being the Ten Commandments, the other the Covenant Code (Christians aren't even aware this exists!)
3. God reveals the specifications for the Tabernacle, where he will dwell with Israel (later comes the Temple, but for many centuries the Tabernacle is where God manifests his strength to his people).

So there are at least three revelations at Sinai, YHWH's revelation of his own self (his glory and his strength to stand beside his people); his laws (two codes, not just one); and his earthly dwelling prior to the Temple.

This is why Redmount says "revelations", and, in my modest way, I'd like to shake Bible-believeing Christians up so that they actually read the bloody book!PiCo (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hm, The motivation to "shake people up" is not what we do here. With regard to what the Exodus story says happened there, you are (as usual) accurate. This is easy to fix by having the lead say something like ""It (the exodus) tells of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai including the Ten Commandments, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan." Does that work for everybody? Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me :) PiCo (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No objection on my part.--Jaconiah 74 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing that I think is a significant issue, here, is that the body of the article does not even mention the ten commandments, let alone give much of a inkling of the other revelations. Thus, in those respects, with the lead mentioning both the ten commandments and other revelations, we have an inconsistency between the lead and the body of the article. This, I think, needs to be fixed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Taking the exodus story, rather than just the Book of Exodus, the ten commandments aren't all that significant. The really central element is the Book of Leviticus and the law-code of Deuteronomy, which between them set out the commandments for holiness and the laws for living as part of the holy community of Israel. PiCo (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

PiCo, Well, obviously, not everyone sees it exactly that way, but my main point is that you listed a number of revelations, and you wanted them to be mentioned in the lead. I actually like the lead, as it is now, but the lead must be consistent with the body of the article. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you can add a paragraph on this subject?

I don't want them listed in the lead, it would be too much detail. I was happy to just to mention "revelations at Sinai", it was others who wanted to specify what the revelations are. The details should go in the body. But the whole thing comes from sources, not from me - so long as there are sources, anyone is welcome to edit.PiCo (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

long-established sourced contextual material and explanations needed

hello. The addition was very valid, needed, and sourced. You should not have totally removed the hard work I put in, that was referenced and clearly sourced, and contextual. Or "pico". But it seems that one reason you jumped in is simply maybe because (at least in part) Pico did what he did. And you feel maybe a bias for him, instead of honestly examining the situation. There's no "undue" anything, as this has been the long-established explanation, and Cahill is reputable, and in article like this, and in context of the paragraph about "possible explanations with numbers", to not have it there shows the article was sorely lacking. What prompted me to put this needed addition was I was looking at the article days ago expecting to see this type of information about "too embarrassing for the Egyptian priests and record-keepers to record and put down". I saw nothing anywhere of it, though this has been known as the explanation of some historians etc for decades. Why suppress that? Misplaced Pages articles should inform completely, not partially to the whims of some arguably biased contributors. To be frank. The whole article had nothing regarding the explanations given as to why there was outside verification, and so the article was arguably incomplete and lacking. Your edit rationale was totally invalid, given the context of the paragraph and the "possible explanations" about "figures" etc. What you did was extremely disrespectful and unwarranted. And not something I would put up with, frankly. This is a wiki. You don't own any article, and the addition (which I put a lot of effort and tweaking and work int) was totally valid, sourced, and in context, and also arguably very needed. The article was not complete without this well-known explanation and matter. If you remove again, you'll get reverted again. You were totally out of line with this. Again, sir, this was sourced and in context...no valid reason to totally remove, or suppress, because of "I don't like" reasons. Very disrespectful...and against WP policy). Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that long and irrelevant personal attack. However, what is needed is not your speculations about other users, it's an argument for why the material you want to include is relevant here. You have cited one single source of what appears very much to be a marginal opinion not shared by mainstream academia. That a text is sourced is not enough to be included, and Pico's removal was perfectly in line with WP policies. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

WP policy says clearly not to give "as much" on it in an article. It doesn't say to not put anything at all. Or necessarily zero. Also, Cahill is NOT "fringe" but very reputable. It's just an opinion that it's "undue" or so "fringe", simply because it's a minority opinion... though, is the point. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: ''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given. And WP policy is not necessarily to suppress or remove stuff that is minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. Cahill is NOT a marginal or "fringe" historian, but very respected. And WP policy is to modify more so rather than totally remove. As I stated already, this is a long-held and long-established explanation given by some historians and theologians and scholars, as to why there's no actual record by the ancient Egyptians about the Exodus. And long-time-sourced and valid. And in context of the paragraph, arguably needed. It's just the opinion (thus far) of maybe two Wikipedians that it's "un-due"? Why though? Especially given the way it's worded, that it's NOT the majority opinion, but simply has been given as a possible reason...by some historians and scholars? It's already stated in the very paragraph itself that the majority scholar opinion etc is that it was allegory, etc...but why not (especially in context of "the numbers" matter) put something that's been known for decades now? Again, sir, this is arguably NOT really "un-due" as this has been the big old explanation given by scholars, and it's in context, and is very sourced. Thomas Cahill is a reputable scholar and historian. Even having his own WP article page, etc, and he's not the only one has given this as an explanation. Why suppress that and not let it be known by a reader? Again, though, WP policy is that a "minority view" (especially in context) is NOT to be totally zero in an article. But just simply "not as much". Anyway, truce, let's try (maybe) to work together. And as I mentioned, the WP policy and recommendation is NOT to totally remove or revert or delete (especially sourced, valid, and good-faith additions and information), Alternatives to reverting and Misplaced Pages:Overzealous deletion which applies not just to articles but also "other materials", rudely, like this, but to perhaps modify. As I said, though. I will abide by real consensus on a talk page, when established, even if I don't agree, and I do not violate 3RR. Let's try to work together, and see the points. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid you misunderstand "fringe". It is not pejorative, it is simply a description of view held by a tiny minority. Galileo was "fringe" at his time. I means no disrespect to Cahill by saying that his is a fringe view. However, you are mistaken to believe we should include every view, or that WP rules impose such an inclusion. Quite the contrary, the rules state quite clearly "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article". This seems perfectly clear. Cahill may be right, but as long as it's just Cahill's opinion, it does not belong on Misplaced Pages. (And please try to answer in one post, it's really not necessary to write 16(!!) times to answer one single remark.) Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It's NOT "just Cahill's opinion". There are many others (I thought I made that clear) that it's a general view and explanation of a NUMBER of sources (past and present). You're acting (by what you said) that it's only Thomas Cahill or something that came up with this! It simply isn't. Yes it's a minority view, but again the WP policy says clearly not to give "as much" on it in an article. It doesn't say to not put anything at all. Or necessarily zero. Also, Cahill is NOT "fringe" but very reputable. It's just an opinion that it's "undue" or so "fringe", simply because it's a minority opinion... though, is the point.

See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: ''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given. And WP policy is not necessarily to suppress or remove stuff that is minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. Cahill is NOT a marginal or "fringe" historian, but very respected. And so again, WP policy is that a "minority view" (especially in context) is NOT to be totally zero in an article. But just simply "not as much". Again, sir, this is arguably NOT really "un-due" as this has been the big old explanation given by scholars, and it's in context, and is very sourced. Thomas Cahill is a reputable scholar and historian. Even having his own WP article page, etc, and he's not the only one has given this as an explanation. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you're not listening to what I'm saying, just repeating the same mantra without even bothering to WP:HEAR, which is highly dispruptive. I already explained fringe once. And Cahill is the only source you have given. If there are other reliable sources holding the same view, please present them. Jeppiz (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim that no record whatsoever of a major economic, political and demographic catastrophe was preserved is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It is like all African Americans would leave US permanently and no record of such event would remain for 100 years later. But I grant you that very conservative and fundamentalist scholars would side with Cahill. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the entire point, Tgeorgescue, as in a way I'm actually in agreement with what you said, but it's frankly in a way a straw-man and a fake argument, and a category error, and somewhat irrelevant to this matter, because it's not the matter that it's "extraordinary" as that's already admitted, but the point that SOME SCHOLARS HAVE OFFERED THIS AS AN EXPLANATION...of dishonest or suppressive Egyptian record keepers, which is admitted was done in many cases, to hide such an embarrassing and appalling fact, as has been the habit of ancient pagan priests and scribes. Did you even read the edit and addition in the article, and the neutral tone of wording? It was NOT offered as a fact or as true, but as some scholars and historians have given it as an explanation, and Cahill is not some kooky fringe source, but considered respectable and reputable, and it's not just him. But again, you're confusing things in a way with a category error argument. It doesn't matter that it's "extraordinary" but that it's an explanation long-time given and sourced, and in context of that paragraph was lacking. And again, WP policy is not to give zero to "minority view" but simply just "not as much". Please re-read what I wrote above in my other comments. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

What about writing much less irrelevant text and instead starting to present these sources you claim exist? We're interested in sources here, you know. Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I would like to have a clear guideline on how to report conservative and fundamentalist Bible scholarship, since sometimes it is considered reliable, at other times it isn't. Maybe the context makes a difference, but I would like to have it spelled out clearly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems, Jeppiz, that (and I don't mean this rudely or insultingly) that this was something you simply didn't know. And your lack of knowledge to this long-time explanation is no excuse to suppress it from Misplaced Pages. You indicate that you didn't know that this was given established view by your seeming to think by your words that it was only Cahill, and now you demanding more sources saying these types of things. You honestly didn't know that it's been ADMITTED (in general) that ancient pagan cultures always omitted, exaggerated, embellished, in their record-keeping and historical accounts for later generations? I minored in classical history in college, sir. I know about these matters. Anyway, per your request...

Etyptologst J.A. Wilson:

"Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned." (The World History of the Jewish People)

In fact, I'm adding this source to the statement. Again, sir, this is a LONG-ESTABLISHED KNOWN THING...by historians. And it should arguably be represented and known on a Misplaced Pages page. Despite your "I don't like" reasons, and ignorance of this known fact. Just speaking bluntly. You acted like this was so far-out "fringe" and even if it's the minority view, I clearly demonstrated (that you ignore and dismiss0 that WP policy is simply to not give "as much" attention. But not necessarily zero. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

About Cahill being a well-established scholar, at Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman and Tabor it has been argued that "well-established scholar" is not the same as "unable to write fringe views". Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

But it's NOT really a "fringe view" that generally (see the J.A. Wilson quote above) that "Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned." (The World History of Jewish History). Regards... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It is a leap of faith from "they are generally positive" to "that's why there is no evidence whatsoever of a major demographic catastrophe". E.g. some scribe had to complain that Hebrews are no longer available for work, so they are unable to gather the crops, build houses, or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Merger, I'm not insulted by someone indicating I don't know every fact in the world, why would I be? I don't know everything, I never will. I am a bit troubled by your repeated failures to keep from discussing other users. As for the claimed "The World History of the Jewish People", it does not yield a single hit on Google, and the only J.A. Wilson I can find is A. Jeyaratnam Wilson who is most certainly not a WP:RS on the subject we're discussing, so Cahill remains the only source that has been given. Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you keep missing the point, and it's getting tiresome now, frankly, as you're repeating the same argument and category error, and I already clarified that it's NOT stating it as if it that's the actual occurrence, but simply that this is one explanation that is OFFERED by some scholars and historians (past and present) on why the Egyptians never recorded a defeat by the Hebrews. What part of that is not understandable? I did not word it in such a way as to give the indication that this is what Misplaced Pages itself believes, but simply that (again) this is one explanation that some sources (valid reputable sources) have given. So your stuff about "extraordinary" and "leap of faith" is a non-sequitur, and also not even all that true. As it's been ADMITTED in general that ancient cultures embellished and suppressed embarrassing information. And as far as the Exodus, yeah, it's considered an overall minority view, but that's also stated in the paragraph contextually. And as I stated more than once and quoted actual WP guidelines, that minority view is NOT to necessarily have zero mention, but simply just "not as much". WP is not supposed to suppress information and sourced materiel on the whims of a few admittedly ignorant or "I don't like" Misplaced Pages editors. The matter is sourced, for a while now, as even a general point of hiding and embellishment, by ancient pagan authorities, and WP itself says (to repeat) that "minority views" are not necessarily to have no mention at all. Just not to the same degree, and that's been followed here. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting tiresome and that somebody is missing the point, though it's hardly Tgeorgescu. If Gabby Merger isn't willing to hear, there's not much we can do and I won't waste further time on this. What is obvious is that the consensus is against including this fringe view, with three users opposed to it and only Gabby Merger in favour. PiCo and I have already reverted, but as Gabby keeps insisting on ignoring WP:BRD, Gabby's version remain the version of the article, so I'd appreciate if somebody would revert; at least for the duration of the discussion, in accordance with WP:BRD, as Gabby Merger is clearly unwilling to do the right thing. Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you keep missing and dodging the point that "minority views" are not necessarily to be given zero mention, but simply "not as much". You keep evading that. Instead you put some insulting comment pleading for someone to revert again, regardless of everything I took the time to present here, and WP quotes, and facts. You keep rudely dodging and not caring. And as far Tgeorgescu, he keeps bringing up irrelevant straw-men. So yeah, he big time keeps missing the point. That it's not stated as if WP agrees, but simply that it's offered.

You asked for another source, I gave you one, and you find fault with it. So there's no point in continuing this, as it's made clear that you're being stubborn and not listening to all of WP guidelines, but keep dodging it, of "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given.

Also, you said that I keep ignoring Bold Revert Discuss. How so exactly? I'm discussing here, big time, and took the time to present, quote, and go over matters and points, that you have no appreciation or respect for. You're very pot-kettle-black, and very uncivil.

And YOU keep ignoring the WP guideline of "not as much" detail, but not zero, as far as minority views. The exact quote and wording are right there. That's clearly stated in the WP policy, and for some reason you "don't like" that either, but keep ignoring, evading, and rationalizing that away, with your ignorant view that this matter was so "fringe". It's a minority view and explanation, but WP says some mention of those things in context can (and even should) be given. You don't care about that though, obviously. You're not even caring about the facts, but keep dissing and dismissing to hold on to your admittedly ignorant view of that matter of Egyptian suppression of facts. And then find uptight fault with Wilson as a source. Sighs....

And WP policy is not necessarily to totally suppress or remove stuff that is "minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. That's the point that YOU keep missing and not accepting. You even admitted that you didn't even KNOW that this was a practice of ancient pagan cultures, and your ignorance of that fact was guiding your reverts. And thereby hiding valid well-known well-established sourced facts. (Also, no real "consensus" has been built. A couple of editors does not really make that. Try 5 or 10 WP editors. Not one or two.) Not gonna keep going around in circles and repeating myself 1000 times on this. Minority views, UNLIKE what you keep thinking, is not supposed to be 100% suppressed, like you and "pico" wanted to wrongly do...but simply not give the same degree of mention. But that does not mean necessarily "zero". Re-read the WP guidelines I quoted verbatim. Thanks....... Gabby Merger (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Two words in responses to John A Wilson (Gabby, why are you not clear about his name)- Ipuwer Papyrus. Doug Weller (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabby Merger, you have given exactly one source satisfying WP:RS. That is not "minority", it's "fringe". And why do you refuse to restore the established version, as WP:BRD requires? If you find it rude that I appeal for Misplaced Pages's rules to be followed, then consider it rude. Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because you couldn't find that book by Wilson on Google does not necessarily mean it's such an "unsatisfying source". Not all valid sources and books and works (especially if written in the 1960's) are necessarily so findable on Google or the web searches. And the fact that it's a source from the 1960s, by the way, proves my point of "long-established". Anyway, sorry things got a bit heated, but it hurts that I put all this together, and you dismiss it and basicall wrongly say that I ignore "Bold Revert Discuss", when that's all I've been doing here now on this Talk page for HOURS now. And frankly, as I said, you keep ignoring the WP guideline of "not as much" detail, but not zero, as far as minority views. The exact quote and wording are right there. That's clearly stated in the WP policy, and for some reason you "don't like" that either, but keep ignoring, evading, and rationalizing that away, with your ignorant view that this matter was so "fringe".

It's a minority view and explanation, but WP says some mention of those things in context can (and even should) be given. You don't care about that though, obviously. Your statements are not warranted. You're seeming not to really care about all the facts, issues, or guidelines, but keep dissing and dismissing to hold on to your admittedly ignorant view of that matter of Egyptian suppression of facts. And then find uptight fault with Wilson as a source. Sighs....And WP policy is not necessarily to totally suppress or remove stuff that is "minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. That's the point that YOU keep missing and not accepting. You even admitted that you didn't even KNOW that this was a practice of ancient pagan cultures, and your ignorance of that fact was guiding your reverts. And thereby hiding valid well-known well-established sourced facts. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

The bigger problem is: when conservative and fundamentalist Bible scholarship could be considered a minority view and when it can be considered fringe? Till this problem gets answered principally, by matter of policy or guideline, symptoms of it will continue to haunt Misplaced Pages articles and talk pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

My view is: some kind of mention that true believers keep faith in the Exodus as a historic event is warranted, be it even according to WP:BLUE. It is a notable theological view and it should not be purged from Misplaced Pages. Of course, we would still have to decide its proper wording. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I agree with that view but then it should be presented as a faith-based view. The current version, including yours, present it as an academic disagreement, and that is inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Tgeorgescu... It was correct what you added, sourced, and valid what you put in, according to context, and according to WP due and undue and sources. Your edit and addition were contextually valid, and arguably warranted, and I would never revert what you put it, because it happens to be referenced and sourced and what's stated by majority scholarship on this issue. So it was a valid modification and elaboration etc. To what I put in, that was also sourced. As WP policy recommends, "modify instead of wholesale deletion", to improve not remove. And again, the point of Wilson and Cahill was in the context of the very section and paragraphs themselves, of rationalizing or explaining why Egypt herself never chronicalized things like the 10 plagues or the Hebrew exodus out of Egyptian slavery etc, or the destruction of Egyptian charioteers and soldiers or of that then reigning king of Egypt. Of course majority historians discount it ever actually happening, in that way, or at all, but it's also known and admitted (as a general point) that ancient pagan nations or kingdoms in general would not always be so honest or straightforward or complete in their recording of everything. Embellishing some facts and details, while minimizing or even totally hiding others. And that was really the point. Anyway, thanks for your work on it too. It was a bit blunt, but it was quoted correctly. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Gabby Merger, where are you actually getting your Wilson quote from? You don't seem to have known his name, and he never wrote a book called "The World History of the Jewish People". I'm thinking that you haven't read what he actually wrote but have seen quotes elsewhere, which really isn't satisfactory. I found it easy enough to find his name and details about the book, but your reference details are wrong. I'll also note that Wilson wrote half a century ago, and Cahill isn't a specialist but a generalist. "Some scholars" shouldn't be there, just the two, but actually since Wilson isn't completely accurate perhaps that quote shouldn't be there at all- you didn't respond to my comment earlier at all. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Wilson does not appear to satisfy WP:RS and Cahill is WP:UNDUE. Unfortunately, the article in its current form is a victory for bad behavior, as Gabby Merger has managed to impose it just by edit warring actively enough and wearing down other users. Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. ::::::::::Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. (As for Jeppiz, again, your behavior was arguably rude and appalling and dismissive and ignorant (by your own admission) and "I don't like" and not acknowledging the quoted WP guideline of "minority view" given SOME mention, but just "not as much", etc etc. I'm not perfect, and neither are you, if that's the case. And also the "modify instead of revert" etc.. And you lied about my ignoring "Bold, Revert, Discuss", as that's all I've been doing here, for hours, on this talk page, which you show no respect or appreciation for. So as I said, you're very pot-kettle-black...though I tried to discuss and present and work here with you.) Gabby Merger (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Gabby Merger (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I notice that Doug Weller directly asked Gabby Merger from where she got the Wilson quote, and Gabby Merger coyly responded that "I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book". Perhaps Gabby Merger is not aware that if she gets a citation from 'another book', then she should say where she read it. Since Gabby Merger's editing history unambiguously indicates her to be an apologist for Jehovah's Witnesses, it comes as no surprise that the source for her use of Wilson is The Watchtower, 15 November 1968, page 681 (bound volume). The Watch Tower Society also quotes the same book by Wilson in Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 451.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

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

This is a recent reliable source which (more or less) grants you the point about past consensus about the Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: at Talk:Gospel of Luke#Neutrality I made an argument that conservative/fundamentalist Bible scholarship fails WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, since its claims are not taught as fact in most major universities. My subjective impression was that I failed to convince other editors. Anyway, this has to be sorted out formally, instead of being fought piecemeal in every talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Of course, you're absolutely right about that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that such scholarship is presented as historical scholarship, so Misplaced Pages would be accused of gatekeeping in favor of "liberal" scholarship. The deal is this: conservative scholars start from theological assumptions (like biblical inerrancy), work them out in empiric-analytic arguments and present it as history. So, at least apparently, it is hard to distinguish between theological claims and historical scholarship, since their own claim is that they write history, not theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I'd never propose censoring any view. If it can be showed that there's a critical mass of contemporary scholars holding that view, I also think it should be mentioned in interest of WP:NPOV. Despite a very long discussion, all we have is Cahill, and even though Cahill is WP:RS, only one is still WP:FRINGE. More would be needed if we're to keep this in. Jeppiz (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Gabby, we really hope that editors read the sources directly. We shouldn't even use snippets. As in archaeology so in other forms of research, context is key. And there's no reason to trust any source other than the original. Especially when trusting your sources lead you to call John A. Wilson (Egyptologist) the author of the book in question. I assure you he is not. I agree that many Creationists do use that as an excuse, and it is true that the Egyptians didn't boast about their defeats. But what is suggested was put in its place - are we looking for lacunae and claiming that shows that was when the Exodus took place? The problem is that's just an excuse, not evidence, but it's being used as though it were evidence. But anyway we can't use it. The point about 1964 is that Egyptology has come a long way in the last half century, and you need something more recent, eg Kitchen. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Missed the 48 hour block imposed last night, so we won't here from Gabby Merger for another 24+ hours. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, all. It might really help if someone here said something to the effect of, well, indicating what everyone is talking about here. So far as I can tell, thee seems to be a question about whether the Egyptians mentioned the Exodus, and possibly sources which indicate that because the Egyptian historians tended and pharaohs didn't really brag about their failures, lack of historical evidence is to a degree evidence. Is that anywhere near being right? If it is, are we, basically, talking about the lack of contemporary historical evidence supporting the Exodus? If that final matter is the basic point, there are a really disgusting number of reference works which discuss this topic, at sometimes fairly great length, including the recent, admittedly Christian conservative, Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, the older more academic Anchor Bible Dictionary, and the Oxford encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which probably covers this particular topic within their article on the Book of Exodus, among a number of others. The relative weight and attention they give this question collectively might be the best indicator of how to proceed here, and I imagine it might be possible to get many or most from WP:RX for those involved here to consult. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter, relevant comment as always. One major problem (among several) I have with the text Gabby Merger insisted on inserting, and which would apply to any similar insertion, is that I feel it misses the point. The article makes quite a detailed case, grounded in mainstream academia, for why an Exodus akin to the one described in the Bible could not have happened. The fact that the Biblical crushing defeat is not mentioned is just one of several such arguments, yet the text appeared to do away with all objections by bringing it down to just one point. Most archaeologists consider the lack of any mention of that Biblical defeat the least important argument. Finkelstein (I believe it was Finkelstein) wrote that the strongest argument is the absence of any archaeological finds in the Sinai. If any mass emigration slowly moved from Egypt to Israel across to Sinai, we would have found archaeological evidence for that, but there is absolutely none. That is not explained by Egyptians not recording defeats. If a foreign population lived among the Egyptians and numbered anything even close to half of what the Bible claims, it would have been recorded. Perhaps not the actual defeat against that people, but most certainly their existence among the Egyptians. And if Egypt was really hit by such a disaster that its first-born died, all its crops and livestock died, and a large number of its grown men died, then that would be exceedingly evident in the demographics of the region, it would have been a disaster that would have set back the Egyptian culture for decades at the very least. Yet there is no indication of that. Reducing this to a discussion of whether ancient cultures recorded defeats or not is to miss the point of the discussion about the historicity of the event. (As for the sources used, it goes without saying that the Watchtower is not WP:RS.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The assertion by fundamentalists such as Jehovah's Witnesses and others that the Egyptians simply 'removed all traces' of the Jews being in Egypt for hundreds of years is quite ridiculous. Just to demonstrate how weak their assertion is, JW literature claims that the Jews were in Egypt for 215 years, and that the Egyptians deleted all the evidence that they'd ever been there. To 'explain' why there is no evidence that the Jews were in Egypt, their book Insight on the Scriptures claims:

Absence of information concerning Israel. This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.

— Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 451

That's right, Hatshepsut, who we apparently shouldn't know about is given as 'evidence' that the Egyptians were so good at deleting records.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but let's focus on the article and the historicity issues rather than JW. Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Just demonstrating that the claim about Egyptians 'erasing records' is a very poor argument and should not be presented as a scholarly view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Does lack of evidence mean something didn't happen? Sh33na (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. To Jeffro77 above. The original and first reference that I put in was Thomas Cahill, and his book The Gifts of the Jews - How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. And I originally put that ref alone. The Wilson ref came later on, from a search, and at the request of Jeppiz. But Cahill alone I felt was overall sufficient at that point. (And that Cahill book had literally zero to do with anything with Jehovah’s witnesses, or any JW books or journals or sermons. That wasn’t even on my mind in that sense, nor did I look at ANY Watchtower publications regarding this article or this specific matter. Cahill had nothing to do with that.) And even Jeppiz admitted a number of times that it was a reliable source and ok. But the Wilson source that I provided here later on (and then soon on the article itself) was only at the demand of Jeppiz, for another source. He kept insisting to find something else, etc, so I did a search, and the Wilson thing was even more pointed in a way, and it’s in a pro-JW website, “strictly genteel”, which transcribed the noted WT book “Is the Bible Really the Word of God?”, and the link can be found here http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/wordofgod/wordofgod4.html. (Also, to DougWeller, hello. I’m still not sure why you say that I got the name of the book wrong. That’s what’s stated as the source. J.A. Wilson. And “The World History of the Jewish People”. At least that’s he main part of the name of the book, and I believe Wilson was a co-author of that or something.) But, to Jeffro, you seem to think (incorrectly) that I probably had the Wilson ref as paramount, when in actuality that was just a side thing and accident, because of subsequent demands and circumstances on this Talk page. Cahill was actually my guy on this specific matter on the Exodus matter, NOT Wilson necessarily nearly as much. The exact (in-context) quote from Cahill’s book says this:

“When we examine the considerable extant literatures of Mesopotamia and Egypt, we find no obvious mention of the Israelites. If, as the majority of scholars have provisionally concluded, Israel escaped from Egypt in the reign of Rameses II about midway through the thirteenth century B.C., why is there no record of this marvellous defeat in any Egyptian text or inscription? Of course, the defeat may have been so embarrassing to Egypt that, like many great powers, it could not allow itself to record honestly what happened. Alternatively, the story of the drowning of Pharaoh’s army may have been inflated over time by Hebrew oral tradition, and what had been a minor skirmish in Egyptian eyes (we know, for instance, that Ramses II died not in a watery grave but in his bed) was eventually puffed up beyond all recognition. Most radically: the Exodus may never have taken place, but may be just a story concocted, like Gilgamesh, by nomadic herdsmen in need of an evening’s entertainment. This last hypothesis, though temptingly unambiguous, can be maintained only by ignoring undeniable aspects of the actual text of the Bible. There are real differences—literary differences, differences of tone and taste, but, far more important, differences of substance and approach to material—between Gilgamesh and Exodus, and even between Gilgamesh and Genesis."

Cahill continues:

"The anonymous authors of Gilgamesh tell their story in the manner of a myth. There is no attempt to convince us that anything in the story ever took place in historical time. At every point, rather, we are reminded that the action is taking place 'once upon a time'—in other words, in that pristine Golden Time outside of meaningless earthly time. The story of Gilgamesh, like the gods themselves, belong to the realm of the stars. It is meant as a model for the hearers, who believed, in any case, that everything important, everything archeteypal, happened, had happened, was happening—it is impossible to fix this occurrence clearly in one tense, since it occurs outside of time—beyond the earthly realm of unimportant instances. For all the ancients (except the Israelites, the people who would become the Jews), time as we think of it was unreal; the Real was what was heavenly and archetypal. For us, the heirs of the Jewish perception, the exact opposite is true: earthly time is real time; Eternity, if we think of it at all, is the end of time (or simply an illusion). The text of the Bible is full of clues that the authors are attempting to write history of some sort....But there is in these tales a kind of specificity—a concreteness of detail, a concern to get things right—that convinces us that the writer has no doubt that each of the main events he chronicles happened.”

He makes it pretty clear that, even though not saying it dogmatically, he does lean towards these things as probably happening somehow, that there probably was a mass exodus of Hebrew Israelites from Egypt, but may have been embellished later, and the point about Egyptians hiding and omitting defeats or embarrassing facts and details. Yes, Cahill may be a “generalist” as Doug Weller said, but Cahill deals more generally with historical issues, and is arguably versed in the general field of history, as has already been conceded. He’s also written histories on ancient Greeks.) Cahill was my only reference, and it’s fairly solid.) By the way, just to make it straight, though I can be considered (to some extent) an “apologist for JWs” as you put it, I’m nothing right now, and I have not been actual Witness, for decades now. So don’t think I’m an actual Witness, when currently I’m not in reality. I’m pro-JW overall, sure, as it’s been made clear that I favor their take on the Bible, theology, prophecy, soteriology, eschatology, Christian living, etc etc... But I don’t attend anything, nor am I officially a member of anything. I only state this because you made the statements about me regarding that stuff earlier, on this page. And I want no mis-views or mis-notions, and just setting the record a bit straighter in a way. You’re right that I’m a sometimes apologist for JWs, but that’s not all I do on Misplaced Pages (like some others are more into it). I hardly ever go on JW related articles, nor do I care that much about them, though I've contributed and added sometimes in passing to Witness related sections on rare occasion. But not actual articles themselves. They’re taken care of by you and BlackCab and others quite nicely overall (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically, but honestly).

Also, by the way, to Jeppiz’s statement above that the lack of inscriptions or writings by the Egyptians of the Exodus is only a small part, but rather more so lack of archaeological finds for heavy migration and remains etc...or a heavy defeat or catastrophe ever happening to Egypt like that...there’s one interesting thing here, a papyrus of interest:

In the Leiden Museum in Holland is a papyrus written in a later period, but most scholars recognize it as being a copy of a papyrus from an earlier dynasty. It could have been from the 13th dynasty describing the conditions that prevailed after the plagues had struck. It reads,

‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’ (Erman, A., Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum, quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 94—101, 1966)

There is an admittedly lack of solid archaeology, but then there was a lack for the Amorites migrating to Babylon, as pointed out by Assyriologist Alan Millard. Amorites flooded into the Babylonian empire, taking over a number of cities and establishing their own dynasties. This is evident from a large body of written material from the period. Even after this influx of Amorites, the material culture gives no appreciable sign of change. Millard argues that the same thing could have happened with Israel. Since the Israelites were commanded to take over the material culture of Canaan (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-11), it appears that a nearly seamless transition from the Canaanite culture to an Israelite one is easily explained. Millard, Alan R. (2008), “Were the Israelites Really Canaanites?” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? ed.Daniel I. Block (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group).

But anyway, again, to re-iterate, you’re not correct if you think that Wilson was my original, first, or main source...or what I wanted in the first place. Thomas Cahill actually was (and is). Wilson was a supplement, due to Jeppiz’s insistence earlier. That was all. Which was ok, because I agree that more refs are always better in general. Regards........ Gabby Merger (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that Cahill wrote history in this book:

But to understand ourselves—and the identity we carry so effortlessly that most “moderns” no longer give any thought to the origins of attitudes we have come to take as natural and self-evident—we must return to this great document, the cornerstone of Western civilization. My purpose is not to write an introduction to the Bible, still less to Judaism, but to discover in this unique culture of the Word some essential thread that runs through it, to uncover in outline the sensibility that undergirds the whole structure, and to identify the still-living sources of our Western heritage for contemporary readers, whatever color of the belief-unbelief spectrum they may inhabit.

— Cahill, INTRODUCTION * The Jews Are It

His writing is more story-telling that historiography, or, if you want, he is not concerned with historical fact, but with the history of ideas.

The text of the Bible is full of clues that the authors are attempting to write history of some sort. Of course, as we read the patriarchal narratives of Genesis or the escape-from-Egypt narrative of Exodus, we know we are not reading anything with the specificity of a history of FDR’s administration. The people who constructed these narratives did not, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, have access to the card catalogue of the Library of Congress or the resources of the Internet. They had heard the story they were writing down, had received it from an oral culture, had in fact received it in two or three variant forms—in the varieties we would expect from tales told over and over down the centuries at one caravan site after another. They did their best to be faithful to their tradition, even if one strand of that tradition occasionally contradicted another. ... The Israelites, by becoming the first people to live—psychologically—in real time, also became the first people to value the New and to welcome Surprise. In doing this, they radically subverted all other ancient worldviews.

— Cahill, FOUR SINAI * From Death to Life

For making this point is irrelevant whether the Exodus is accurate historiography, all it matters is that its authors thought they were writing real history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The point of the long quote of Cahill, from his book, was to show that it's clear what he said, and it was in context. And also, to make the point to Jeffro77 that Cahill alone originally was my source for the edit, not Wilson. (And Cahill definitely wrote about history, and analyzed and spoke this specific matter and its attendant issues.) And that Cahill had literally nothing to do with any JW literature or books. The Wilson quote and ref came later on...only because of Jeppiz's demanding another source on this Talk page etc, etc. That was really all. My long comment above was mainly (though not exclusively) to Jeffro77, because of certain things he commented and wrote above. And to make very clear that Cahill alone was my original source, for this matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

He is underlining the point made by Jewish stories upon the history of ideas. So, it is a lame source for maintaining that the Exodus story has historicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cahill does not marshal evidence for Exodus having historicity, he just stresses the point of those stories and their impact upon worldwide mentality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cahill definitely wrote about history, and analyzed and spoke this specific matter and its attendant issues. But again, that was not actually really the main point of my lengthy comment above. But that, to Jeffro77, the Wilson ref was not my original source, but rather Cahill alone was, which even Jeppiz admitted was an ok source. And also that the ref was in context. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cahill sifts no evidence for the Exodus as a historical event, he mostly comments upon its paramount importance for the world of ideas. So, Cahill cannot be taken seriously as advancing evidence for Exodus, he even does not claim of doing so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As I said to you more than once already, days ago, the Cahill quote is NOT the point of "presenting evidence for the exodus", but if you remember, that the explanation of "hiding embarrassing details" has been an explanation offered as to why there's no Egyptian inscriptions for it. Where did I ever say that Cahill "offered evidence for the exodus" in that sense? That was never the point, and never the gist of the edit. But (again) to make the point that this has been a rationale and explanation offered for decades now, that the Egyptians suppressed any information of embarrassing defeats. Not necessarily "offering archaeological evidence for the exodus". Frankly, I hope that finally makes it clear now. I never said that Cahill gave actual "evidence" or whatever, in that sense. But if you notice, though, in my lengthy comment above, Erman, A., Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum, quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings, has, with that papyrus, arguably. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence whatsoever for the exodus. Nothing in Egypt, nothing in Sinai. The exodus story is filled with supernatural events, even Moses walking on the roof of heaven (which hardly sounds like "an attempt to write history"). It also draws on earlier Middle Eastern literary sources. The most economical answer to the lack of evidence is that the book is theology, not history. This is the position of the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pico, your comment speaks nothing really to the actual specific points in the last few comments, and gist of this whole section. You just repeated the same old position, which is already well-known. The point was that the explanation for "no Egyptian inscriptions" was that Egypt (like other world powers) never really recorded their defeats or catastrophes (hardly ever), and simply the point that that's an explanation that has been given, and why should a WP article not mention that point?? Also, by the way, you're wrong anyway, when you say "no evidence whatsoever", because you ignore the papyrus mentioned above, that arguably can be considered "evidence" of something happening, though not necessarily solid conclusive "proof". (Evidence and proof are not the same). Yes, supernatural events, and miracles of course, but there's nothing in the Book of Exodus that says "Moses walked on the roof of heaven" per se. So, I'm not sure where you got that from. But as far as a mass exodus of Hebrews from Egypt, or something, there's a lack of solid archaeology for that, but the papyrus mentioned above has been something that's been considered. But even if you were technically right (which you're not), about there being "no evidence whatsoever", that's not the point of the Cahill quote and edit. But simply to mention the fact that one long-time explanation for no Egyptian notations on the exodus was Egypt never would record that, as they would generally suppress embarrassing information like that. That was it. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There is indeed a description in Exodus of Moses and the elders of Israel walking on the roof of heaven. It might be an amusing exercise for you to try to find it.

In your edit, the one I reverted, you misrepresented what Cahill says. You made it seem that he's supporting the idea that the Egyptians were embarrassed by the exodus, but he actually says that this is one of three possible explanations. He doesn't support it himself, nor do biblical scholars. It's misleading to put it in the article as if mainstream scholarship thinks this is a viable argument. PiCo (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the lengthy comment above, and all of what Cahill wrote? If not, please do so, and you'll see that nothing was "misrepresented", and I made it clear that Cahill offered this as a possible explanation, and thinks the exodus at least "may" have happened. You, on the other hand, dogmatically think it never happened at all. But please don't place bad-faith assumptions on me, as that's not civil or nice. Nothing was misrepresented. Cahill does definitely feel that this was a possible explanation, that was conveyed. But again, read the entire quote above...and see where his (clear) leanings are. And again, the point was that this has been an explanation offered, for a long time now, as to why there's no Egyptian scriptions recording the exodus or the tragedies there etc. Not sure why that's hard to understand. It's not worded in such a way as conveying the idea that it's a majority view, or that WP itself holds to that. But simply that some have offered that as an explanation. And WP policy says that "minority views" should not be shut out completely (which is what you were doing) but simply not mentioned "as much" as the majority view. As far as "walking on the roof of heaven", instead of just telling me where you think that is taken from, you instead say "it might be an amusing exercise for you to try to find it". That attitude of course is in many of your actions and comments, PiCo, and is quite unnecessary. I was trying to think of what you could be referring to, and I did a general search, and there's nothing. Which leads me to think that you're mistaken. There's nothing on "Moses walking on roof of heaven" anywhere. Was it in the Book of Exodus, or maybe one of the other books of the Pentateuch?

Which is regardless anyway, because even though Exodus does NOT say "Moses walked on roof of heaven" anywhere (that I can see), it's conceded that supernatural events are reported in the book, which is discounted by the majority of "scholarship", as is already known. And was not the point of the Cahill thing, which was not "misrepresented", as the full quote above kinda proves. Cahill thought that was a very possible explanation, that Egypt suppressed embarrassing information, and that the Hebrews were NOT like the pagans, but were trying to write genuine history. Cahill's own words above. But again, where exactly do you imagine Exodus saying Moses walked in heaven's roof? Google yields nothing on that, from what I see. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cahill is not a biblical scholar and isn't aware of what biblical scholars are saying. Please read the second para of the lead to see what the mainstream scholarly view is. Cahill is correct to list those three possible explanations for the absence of evidence of the exodus from Egyptian records, but his personal view is not the mainstream view. Putting that view in the article would misrepresnet, to our readers, what scholars think.

Yes, Exodus does describe Moses walking on the floor of heaven:) PiCo (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cahill is a reliable source, in general, as was even admitted by Jeppiz. He may not be the best source for this, in some ways, but he is a historian and is reputable. Also, you said "roof of heaven", now you say "floor". Which is it? And why don't you just tell me where you think that is? You keep dodging that, which makes me think, frankly, that you have no idea what you're talking about in that matter. First "roof"...now "floor"...and still no scripture or verse at all presented for that. (But it's already known that miracles and divine intervention were asserted in the Book of Exodus.) Also, again, the Cahill thing was NOT presented "as if it was a mainstream view". You keep repeating that same falsehood. It was not presented that way at all! When exactly was it presented like that, in the edit? It was made clear that it was an explanation offered by some, and later in the same paragraph was mentioned that most scholars do NOT believe that to be the explanation. Although it's been conceded in general that ancient world powers were not always forthright in reporting defeats or embarrassing details. Human nature. But where do you get this idea that "Cahill isn't aware of what biblical scholars are saying"?? He's very aware. That's the point. Cahill is not some guy down the street who runs a pizza place, who is posting blogs or something. But a reputable scholar, etc... Why wouldn't he know? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You really need to learn how to be concise. Argumentum ad nauseum, repeating the same things over and over again, does not make your points any stronger. Cahill is not an Egyptologist, so his opinion isn't really that notable here, and Jeppiz' 'admission' that Cahill is a reliable source "in general" doesn't lend weight to his view here. It's a bit odd to contend that Cahill "may not be the best source for this" while also contending that he be cited as the best source (as your "original and first reference"). If his view were to be included at all, it would have to be properly attributed to him rather than presented as the view of "some scholars" (although it was apparently only one hypothetical proposal by Cahill rather than his specific view). At no point did I suggest that Cahill had anything at all to do with JWs, nor did I suggest that Wilson was your first source.

The 'Wilson' quote (which according to Dougweller, is not actually authored by Wilson) presents a quite outdated and superseded view of Egyptology that isn't representative of any current scholarship. As such, it is a worse source than Cahill. If Cahill isn't the best source, please provide a better one.

Whether you are a member of JWs is quite irrelevant. I correctly indicated, as you have acknowledged, that you are a JW apologist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pico, I have to agree that abstract statements about Moses 'walking on the floor/roof of heaven' are not particularly useful. If there is a reference, just cite it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The verses which describe Moses walking on the floor of heaven (which is also its roof - from eath it's the roof, from God's throne it's the floor) are in Exodus 24:9-11. The context is that Yahweh has just given Israel its laws (the exodus covenant) and now Moses and the elders go up to God's throne-room to seal the covenant in a solemn feast. "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. (In fact it IS the sky, but now the elders are on top of it) ... they saw God, and they ate and drank."

Cahill is not a reliable source. He's a popular writer, he's never held a teaching post, never published a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal related to biblical studies, his book has not been reviewed in the scholarly journals (and I'm willing to bet it never will be), and so far as I can see he can't even read Hebrew. Even the title of his book is an error - he calls the Jews "desert nomads" when in fact they lived in cities and villages.

Gabby, if you go to the article you can read the second para of the lead, which describes the scholarly consensus. It says, in brief, that scholars don't regard the Book of Exodus as a history book, that it dates from the Persian period (about 500 BCE, long after the supposed events), that they do think there must be something behind it but that they don't think that "something" is recoverable. They also think we should read the Exodus story as theology - which is why the pericope about Moses meeting God in Heaven is so important. The supernatural part of Exodus is what it's all about. Cahill doesn't grasp this.PiCo (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah... Exodus 24:9-11... in fairness, that passage doesn't explicitly refer to the 'pavement' as 'heaven' or 'the sky', but the implication is there. Gabby's view of this verse will probably reflect the JW view, which is that 'seeing God' here was just a 'vision' (which could be inferred from the verb in verse 11, but less so from the verb in verse 10). But if the 'account' is supposed to seamlessly drift between 'actual' events and 'visions' (essentially, God performing a parlour trick), it doesn't lend to the story's veracity anyway (and 'eating and drinking' in a 'vision' is a little pointless).--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I knew that Exodus never actually said that Moses walked anywhere in heaven. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh Gabby, Gabby...: "Moses .. went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky... (i.e, the sky seen from above, which is where heaven is ... and they ate and drank." Gabby, please, go to the article, and read some of the books it lists. Those are by real scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Exodus 24 does not say that Moses was “on the roof of heaven” or its “floor”, but that he was on a mountain and, according to verse 11 in Hebrew, “envisioned” God. That’s not the same as Moses himself walking around in heaven itself per se. And Jeffro77 above has pointed that out, regarding what was and wasn’t explicitly said, and what was or wasn’t literal. That’s why Google yielded NOTHING at all of the actual words you said earlier “Moses walking around on the roof of heaven”. If it’s as you say and thought, there should have been results somewhere. There was nothing in the search, with your wording. Meaning, you’re misreading Exodus 24, sloppily, and putting an eisegesis into it, that’s not really there. It simply does not say that Moses actually himself walked around on top of heaven's "roof" or (later you said) heaven's "floor". At least not in the sense you meant. He was on a mountain and was given a vision. As the Hebrew indicates, a different word in verse 11, and as common sense itself shows. Nowhere do you read in the passage that Moses was actually brought to the spirit realm of Heaven and walked around there in that sense. And (to repeat) it's known that Exodus reports miracles, and visions, and divine intervention. But saying that it states Moses walked on top of heaven is a bit of an over-statement and misunderstanding in that matter. He saw a vision, and was only on a mountain. Regardless of physical "skies". As far as Cahill, and how you discount him, as not being a “real scholar”, Misplaced Pages’s own article on Cahill states: "Thomas Cahill (born 1940; New York City) is an American scholar and writer. He is best known for The Hinges of History series, a prospective seven-volume series in which the author recounts formative moments in Western civilization. He continued his study of Greek and Latin literature, as well as medieval philosophy, scripture, and theology, at Fordham University, where he completed a B.A. in classical literature and philosophy in 1964, and a pontifical degree in philosophy in 1965. He went on to complete his M.F.A. in film and dramatic literature at Columbia University in 1968. In anticipation of writing The Gifts of the Jews, Cahill studied scripture at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and spent two years as a Visiting Scholar at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, where he studied Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible. He also reads French and Italian. In 1999, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Alfred University in New York. Cahill has been a contributor to Irish America magazine." He’s a scholar and a historian. That’s not even debatable. Regardless of who may be more versed in this particular subject,...that does not mean Cahill is not a “real scholar”...in general. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Google and Misplaced Pages?

Cahill isn't a reliable source for biblical scholarship: he holds no teaching position, has completed no higher degree, has never published in peer-reviewed journals within the discipline, has never presented papers at conferences such as SBL. He's a good, solid generalist, but ot a reliable source.

In the second para of our article we describe current mainstream thinking by biblical scholars on the question of the historicity and origins of the exodus story. They make clear that the consensus is that the exodus story was written in the Persian period for a essentially political and social objectives, drawing on older traditions that go back to the 8th century. What those traditions actually were, nobody knows, and the consensus again is that it's impossible now to ever know. Cahill is perfectly welcome to say things outside the consensus (i.e., that the Egyptians might have erased all the records of the previous 400 years), but we shouldn't mislead readers by making it seem that those ideas are held by scholars within the profession of biblical studies.PiCo (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Pico's absolutely right about Cahill being a generalist. And as well as biblical scholars, few (very few I think) Egyptologists agree. Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Doug Weller. I conceded in my lengthy comment farther up, that Thomas Chahill is a "generalist", but in the area mainly of history. He is best known for The Hinges of History series, a prospective seven-volume series in which the author recounts formative moments in Western civilization. And the only real point of my edit was to convey the fact that some scholars (even someone like Cahill who has shown skepticism, and is NOT a "fundamentalist" by any means) have presented the possibility as one explanation being Egyptian suppression of embarrassing facts. And NOT as any "mainstream" view for the silence of the Hebrew exodus, but simply that it's been postulated. Why should Misplaced Pages readers not know that (in the most NPOV tone and careful wording) in an article like this? Especially with Tgeorgescue's modification and addition days ago, showing clearly that that's not majority view as far as a possible explanation for lack of solid evidence in Egyptian inscriptions etc for the Hebrew exodus? That was my only point. And the Wilson source, from the mid 1960's, (which I was not originally putting in, but I found later on, at the insistence of Jeppiz), only confirmed the fact and point that it's been a "long-held" view and explanation. (Also, I only wrote down the name of Wilson's book as it was stated in the stuff I got it from, as I describe above. I didn't mis-write it or something, but only put down what I have.) It's been conceded (in general terms) that ancient pagan world powers were not always forthright in reporting defeats or embarrassing details, in their recording of events. But anyway, Doug, if you have not done so already, please read through the lengthy comment above that gives a full Cahill quote, and also some other things regarding a papyrus that clearly shows that Egyptians went through tragedies similar to what the "Ten Plagues" purport to have done. Please check out the stuff that's a little higher up, (if you didn't already), that was mainly directed to Jeffro77, but also to you and Jeppiz to some degree. I'd appreciate your take on that, if you can. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Doug Weller, PiCo and Tgeorgescu for showing that Cahill is not a reliable source for this statement. While I originally felt Cahill might be WP:RS here, their well-articulated arguments made it clear that Cahill is indeed not a suitable source in this context. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The quote from Grabbe shows that fifty years ago the historicity of Exodus was broadly accepted, that's granted. But the argument with embellishing/erasing inscriptions is not very convincing, since it entails erasure not only of public inscriptions, but also of all correspondence meant for the eyes of the powerful only. Further, it does not explain the lack of other archaeological evidence from Egypt, Sinai and even from (the conquest of) Canaan. So, obviously, mainstream scholars consider it a lame attempt at immunization against criticism. There are other scholars who argue that the Exodus might have been possible (not proven, just possible), I suggest that they should be quoted as minority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Tgeorgescu. It should go that route. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, which is why I have called for additional sources. Given the recent edit warring and disagreements about sources, I suggest that the sources be discussed on talk first. As long as they are WP:RS sources (i.e. contemporary works by peer-reviewed scholars in a relevant field) there should be no problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated above, there is a frankly frightening number of recent reference works, from all sorts of perspectives, relating to the Old Testament or Bible or whatever you want to call it. Particularly for the more significant topics, of which this is one, I have no doubt that the amount of material in them all collectively is probably more than our length guidelines permit for a single article here. But I have to think the best way to go forward is to look at as many of them as possible, more or less determine the "average" of the weight they give all subtopics related to this one, and more or less structure our own content accordingly. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

If such sources exist and are presented, I (for one) will be glad to see them included. I have no problem at all with the theory of the Exodus as an actual event being included as long as it satisfies WP:RS and WP:DUE. Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Dispute has spilled to this article

A dispute with User:GBRV upon the application of WP:RS/AC has spilled to this article. See Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus.23Edit_war. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@GBRV: For a brief introduction see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:GBRV, you have as much right as anyone else to edit this article, but since this is so contentious, could you please make the edits one at a time so we have a chance to evaluate them? Thanks. PiCo (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We cannot state as a fact the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, since this would violate WP:NPOV? Yeah, right. Perhaps what should the other side to the dispute do, invent evidence which just isn't there? There is more agreement to disagree about an interpretation of a few verses from the Gospel, but we cannot invent archaeological evidence which does not exist.

I've read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn't impossible. He knows very well he hasn't proven anything. You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view

— Peter Enns, loc. cit.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the dispute over archaeological evidence centers around issues such as whether we could reasonably expect any identifiable artifacts from a nomadic migration, and whether scattered dig sites would be sufficient for establishing whether the evidence is there or not. I doubt there's any evidence for the mass migrations of the Helvetii and related tribes described by Julius Caesar in his "Commentaries on the Gallic War", either, so does that mean that Caesar was just making things up? There usually isn't going to be much evidence remaining in the ground for something like this, and what little does exist is open to interpretation. Worse, the argument that "there isn't any" or "isn't enough" is a variation of a recognized fallacy called an "argumentum ex silentio", an argument based on a gap or perceived gap in our knowledge, which is a fallacy because there could be many reasons why evidence hasn't been found (in this case, you'd have to dig up a heck of a lot of territory to search for evidence over a long migratory route whose exact path isn't even known, and any artifacts would need to be of a type which could be definitely linked to this specific migration). Keep in mind that at one time, there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible, leading 19th century authors to claim that the Bible was making these cities up. But then archaeologists finally uncovered the ruins of these places and found clay tablets which mention many of the same people and events mentioned in the Bible. Today, no one believes that these cities were fictional. That's another reason an "argumentum ex silentio" is ridiculous: a lack of evidence may be temporary.

And yes, there is legitimate ongoing debate about this type of thing. You have yet to provide any justification for claiming that the authors you support would constitute the overwhelming consensus. GBRV (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@GBRV, there is no dispute over archaeological evidence for the exodus - even Hoffmeier, one of the very few who thinks it may have happened as described in the bible, admits that he can't find ay (see the Peter Enns quote given by Tgeorgescu). Evidence from silence is pretty good evidence of non-existence - the lack of evidence of little green men from Mars does not leave open the possibility of their existence. I've offered you a fair hearing, but I've also said you should do you edits oe at a time, so we can discuss them. PiCo (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me see GBRV's argument: Egypt suffered an economical, political and demographical catastrophe and because there is no evidence for it (yet) we should take at face value a hugely embellished story from an ancient book full of miracles and other mythical events? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Professor Donald B. Redford: the "silence is absolutely watertight" . Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then we will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Unknown-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles