Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jgriffy98 (talk | contribs) at 09:25, 1 September 2019 (→Article Bias). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 High‑importance 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 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. 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 High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology 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. Ancient Egypt Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egyptological subjects 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 EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient EgyptTemplate:WikiProject Ancient EgyptAncient Egypt Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ancient Egypt to-do list: edit history watch purge Needed articles. We should have an article on every pyramid and every nome in Ancient Egypt. I'm sure the rest of us can think of other articles we should have. Cleanup. To start with, most of the general history articles badly need attention. And I'm told that at least some of the dynasty articles need work. Any other candidates? Standardize the Chronology. A boring task, but the benefit of doing it is that you can set the dates !(e.g., why say Khufu lived 2589-2566? As long as you keep the length of his reign correct, or cite a respected source, you can date it 2590-2567 or 2585-2563) Stub sorting Anyone? I consider this probably the most unimportant of tasks on Misplaced Pages, but if you believe it needs to be done . . . Data sorting. This is a project I'd like to take on some day, & could be applied to more of Misplaced Pages than just Ancient Egypt. Take one of the standard authorities of history or culture -- Herotodus, the Elder Pliny, the writings of Breasted or Kenneth Kitchen, & see if you can't smoothly merge quotations or information into relevant articles. Probably a good exercise for someone who owns one of those impressive texts, yet can't get access to a research library. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Folklore Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clester07 (article contribs).

Pyramids of Giza

New and unsourced content in the article compares the working condition of the supposedly enslaved Israelites with the workers who built the Giza pyramid complex. How is this relevant? The pyramid complex was constructed by the 4th Dynasty (27th to 25th century BCE), and the Exodus story is typically seen as depicting the 2nd millennium BC. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I've removed that text, which was wildly out of place. One could perhaps make a general point about the nature of the Egyptian corvée system, which was probably responsible for the pyramids as well as any major monument built in the New Kingdom—but only if there's a reliable source that directly contrasts those working conditions with what Exodus describes. A. Parrot (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Moreover, the offered source doesn't mention Israelites or the Exodus, so WP:SYNTH applies. Zero 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Four points:

• The evidence showing that the pyramid builders were well fed, does not mean they were NOT slaves. One does not starve a valuable animal like a horse or camel or dog, so why would one starve a slave?
• I am not aware of ANY source anywhere that "proves" that Israelite workers were present in Egypt in significant numbers, at any time in history. There may well have been handfuls of Israelite slaves here and there, as the Levant was conquered and ruled by Egypt at various stages, but not a workforce or an "army" of Israelite slaves as suggested by the Bible.
• The "Hyksos" are "believed" to be from Canaan, but were probably not Israelites in the Biblical sense. Some of them may well have been slaves, but again, not remotely in the numbers as suggested by the Bible.
• The pyramids of Giza were probably built in the 3rd millennium BC, perhaps earlier, but certainly not later. Did the "Israelite people" even exist as such in that time period, or did they only originate much later in history?

Wdford (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The royal workforce in Egypt was made up primarily of corvée laborers, so it's assumed that that's what the pyramid builders were. As for the Israelites, the first appearance of that ethnonym is on the Merneptah Stele, circa 1200 BC, roughly 1300 years after the construction of the Great Pyramid. It's assumed that their ethnogenesis was sometime earlier than that, but not by much, and even the conservative biblical scholars of past generations, the ones who wrongly thought the patriarchs had a historical basis, didn't place the patriarchs earlier than 2000 BC. And, as has been discussed repeatedly on this page, the massive Israelite population described in Exodus cannot be historical. A. Parrot (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede Edits Good To Go?

Anon editor, Fajkfnjsak, has made repeated edits that almost dramatically change the context of the lede. I haven't been as involved in this page as I used to be, but I know the lede went through a quite extensive overhaul and this one person has changed it on his own. Is everyone ok with that? It also seems odd that the contextual changes are similar to anon editor, Jgriffy98, who repeatedly had his changes reverted - is this a coincidence? Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

I personally do not like the changes but Fajknjsak has reverted me every time I've reverted anything he's done. As they aren't terrible, I let it go, but if other users prefer the old wording I certainly would as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the changes aren't "terrible", but allowing an IP to run the page isn't how things are supposed to work. It seems very odd to me that several IP editors over the last 6 months have made very similar changes to this page. Smacks of Sock Puppetry especially since Fajknjsak hasn't been heard of since I brought this up... Ckruschke (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well, sockpuppetry issue aside, ideally it shouldn't matter if the IP is an IP or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

"Ideally" However, IP editors are often anon for a reason. Ckruschke (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

@Fajkfnjsak:, would you care to discuss your edits here?--Ermenrich (talk)

It doesn't look that different to me, & still contains howlers like the book being "published" in the 5thC BC! The escape from oppression theme was of great importance to Early Christians, and other Christian groups (under Muslim rule) etc, and if African-Americans are mentioned these should be too. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Fajkfnjsak's POV, but he edits too bluntly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, he's doing the exact same thing on Plagues of Egypt and also reverting long established editors. Ckruschke (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

He's currently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I'd just like him to use the talk page to discuss what he's doing. He hasn't responded to my ping and he completely removed my attempt at rewording to avoid saying the exodus "was published", taking out a long stable part of the text with reference in the process. I've tried a reworded version so hopefully he'll actually engage here when his block is up.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit here strikes me as far more problematic. He removed sourced material claiming it was unsourced.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

POV-pusher or straw-man sock? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Concerning the removed text, why are we quoting a news article from Haaretz in reference to Samaritan traditions? Don't we have better sources on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't personally at the moment. I replaced like with like, but obviously we should look for better sources. I've noticed that Israeli newspapers get cited a lot in biblical articles where an academic source would be preferred so it's a fairly widespread problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The lede is currently extremely emphatic that the Exodus is a myth, stating it three times in three different ways at the end of the first paragraph and the beginning of the second:

However, there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Ancient Egypt, or even lived there. Scholars broadly agree that the Exodus has no historical basis and that the Israelites originated in Canaan and from the Canaanites.

The consensus of modern scholars is that the bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, which formed as an entity in the southern Transjordan region by the 13th century BCE. The lack of historical evidence for any aspect of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, or wilderness wanderings is what leads most scholars to omit them from comprehensive histories of Israel.

Do we need all four of these? I personally feel that the senence at the beginning of the second paragraph is probably enough for the lede. That was the state of things prior to the most recent series of edits.

In addition, we currently say "the Exodus myth" or refer to "the myth" too frequently. Fajkfnjsak keeps changing any other word ("story" "narrative") to myth. In some cases, I think even just "the Exodus" would be more appropriate.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

You are way too interested in me. Also no need to tell on me, just talk to me.

I agree it could be slimmed down, but cutting out all form the lead except for the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is way too extreme. You would be completely removing very different information instead of consolidating them.

I also agree that it says "the myth" too much. There are certain instances (ie the 1st paragraph - "The myth's message is that...." could just say "It's message...") where it could just say the Exodus. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not "telling on you," I am bringing your edits up for discussion by the community. If I am "interested in you" it's because you've been making a series of very blunt edits to this article and others related to the Exodus topic. And I'm hardly the only one who has noticed this, as evidenced by this entire thread.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Btw you just added the words "the myth" into the lead today. Changed "it" to "the myth" Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I did, yes, because otherwise I didn't think the referent was clear. But that was mostly because it was previously described as "the Exodus myth" where we could have simply said "the Exodus".--Ermenrich (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

No one made you write the word myth. Just 2 sentences prior to where you wrote "Exodus myth", I wrote "The Exodus" without the word myth. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at the diff . It already contains "the Exodus myth". If you look at my edit here I originally changed myth to story, as it already was when I first made the change .--Ermenrich (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how to link your edit. But just look at history page and look at the changes in your edit. You clearly changed "it" to "the myth". Enough with trying to blame others for your edit. I wrote "the Exodus" in the end of the 1st paragraph. You could have used that if you wanted to too. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't affect anything about what I said before - you have been changing instances of story or narrative to myth. Is there some reason you don't want to just discuss that fact?--Ermenrich (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

You just did what you accuse me of. When you can see that I wrote "The Exodus" at the end of the 1st paragraph. And you went out of your way to change "it" to "the myth" which was totally unnecessary. Pot calling kettle black. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Just fixed your excessive "myth" addition. Changed "myth" back to it. Also changed 2 other instances of "the Exodus myth" to "the Exodus", that some other editor added in the first place. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes, I'm doing a few more now. They generally restore the article's wording to that of c. June 6 of this year , when the term "the Exodus myth" only occurred once in the whole article (in the section on the Exodus as myth).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I've made some further changes to the lede based on Fajkfnjsak's openness to cutting down the number of sentences devoted to historicity and some of the comments that were made earlier. I'm open to further ideas for improvement.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I said I was open to consolidation. I specifically said I was against removing all these separate, sourced, pieces of info from the lead. You keep making edits without consensus. I made some good faith edits to address your concerns. Why don't you try some good faith edits, consolidate the sentences, don't remove them all in their entirety from the lead. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we could consolidate the last sentences of the 1st and 2nd paragraph? Thoughts? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

If you'll review the edit, I think you'll see that's exactly what I did. I only cut one sourced piece of information and consolidated two sentences into one.

Compare the current wording:

The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it tells the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Ancient Egypt, their liberation through the hand of their tutelary deity Yahweh, the revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan, the land their god has given them. Its message is that Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh, and therefore belongs to him through the Mosaic covenant. The covenant's terms are that Yahweh will protect his chosen people, as long as they will keep his laws and exclusively worship him. The Exodus and its laws remain central to Judaism, recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in festivals such as Passover, as well as resonating with non-Jewish groups, from early American settlers fleeing persecution in Europe to African Americans striving for freedom and civil rights. However, there is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Ancient Egypt or even lived there. Scholars broadly agree that the Exodus has no historical basis and that the Israelites originated in Canaan and from the Canaanites.

The consensus of modern scholars is that the bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, which formed as an entity in the southern Transjordan region by the 13th century BCE. There is a widespread agreement that the composition of the Torah or Pentateuch, the biblical books which contain the Exodus, took place in the Middle Persian Period (5th century BCE), although the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets. The lack of historical evidence for any aspect of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, or wilderness wanderings is what leads most scholars to omit them from comprehensive histories of Israel.

to my version

The Exodus is the founding myth of the Israelites. Spread over the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, it tells the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Ancient Egypt, their liberation through the hand of their tutelary deity Yahweh, the revelations at biblical Mount Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan, the land their god has given them. Its message is that Israel was delivered from slavery by Yahweh, and therefore belongs to him through the Mosaic covenant. The covenant's terms are that Yahweh will protect his chosen people, as long as they will keep his laws and exclusively worship him. The Exodus and its laws remain central to Judaism, recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in festivals such as Passover, as well as resonating with non-Jewish groups, from early American settlers fleeing persecution in Europe to African Americans striving for freedom and civil rights.

The consensus of modern scholars is that the bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel, which formed as an entity in the southern Transjordan region by the 13th century BCE from the indigenous Canaanite culture. There is no evidence that the Israelites were ever enslaved in Ancient Egypt or even lived there. There is a widespread agreement that the composition of the Torah or Pentateuch, the biblical books which contain the Exodus narrative, took place in the Middle Persian Period (5th century BCE), although the traditions behind it are older and can be found in the writings of the 8th century BCE prophets.

The information on Canaan is now found in the first sentence of the second paragraph and I moved the sentence on slavery in Egypt to the second paragraph. The only thing removed is that historians don't include it in their histories, which I find to be redundant given that we've said historians don't hold it to have happened. Does anyone else have an opinion? @Ckruschke:, @Gråbergs Gråa Sång:, @Johnbod:, @Dimadick:?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Ermenrich: - can you archive most of this page except for maybe the last edit you made? Its getting hard to follow. I put your edit back in while including the part you removed about scholars agreement on the lack of historical basis. Thoughts? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There was a mistake in his comment format, I have fixed it. It is clear now.

Ermenrich you can quote like this {{Bqoute|The text you want to quote}} or {{Cqoute|The text you want to quote}} etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Some editor added "tutelary deity" Yahweh. Should we eliminate those 2 words? Seems true but kind of random.
also can you archive this page, its too much to follow. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hardly random. A tutelary deity is "a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation". That is Yahweh's role in this myth, the protector of the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I said it seemed true, just random because I thought describing Yahweh in this article's lead seems out of place. But I don't really care either way, so I'll just leave it in. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Does anyone else have an opinion?" That something is a myth, has nothing to do with its historicity. "many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past." ... "One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborate upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gain the status of gods. For example, the myth of the wind-god Aeolus may have evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds. Herodotus (fifth-century BCE) and Prodicus made claims of this kind. This theory is named euhemerism after mythologist Euhemerus (c. 320 BCE), who suggested that Greek gods developed from legends about human beings." Dimadick (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Do you have an opinion specifically on the manner this is presented in the lede now though?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

saying its "has nothing to do with its historicity" is black and white and as incorrect as saying "all myths are 100% false and every one is based on nothing". Clearly all myths are not created equal. Being a myth means they are to some significant degree, false, or at the least, supernatural (ie unfalsifiable/unverifiable). I'm sure some myths are distorted (ie false) accounts of historical events, while others are entirely made up.

One cannot borrow the historicity of the actual event and lend it to the false event (myth).

For example, if I make up a myth, "Australia enslaved millions of Finnish people." Then I said it was based on Americans enslaving Africans (real historical event). The historical event (the Americans enslaving Africans) does not make the myth (Finnish enslavement in Australia) true to any degree.

And the fact that some people consider myths and legends to be true has no academic relevance. some people believe in ghosts too, which like supernatural myths, are unfalsifiable/unverifiable

Some people believe in the Exodus, creation, etc myths but they're still considered myths (false) by academia

Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

1. ^ Moore, Megan Bishop; Kelle, Brad E. (2011-05-17). Biblical History and Israel S Past: The Changing Study of the Bible and History. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802862600.
2. Coogan, Michael David; Coogan, Michael D. (2001). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195139372.
3. Dever, William G. (2001-05-10). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802821263.
4. Meyers, Carol (2005-07-11). Exodus. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521002912.
5. ^ Meyers 2005, pp. 6–7.
6. ^ Moore & Kelle 2011, p. 81. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFMooreKelle2011 (help)
7. ^ Faust 2015, p. 476. sfn error: no target: CITEREFFaust2015 (help)
8. ^ Sparks 2010, p. 73. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSparks2010 (help)
9. ^ Redmount 2001, p. 59. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRedmount2001 (help)
10. ^ Bandstra 2008, p. 28-29. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBandstra2008 (help)
11. Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (2004). The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195297515.
12. Coogan, Michael David; Coogan, Michael D. (2001). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195139372.
13. Dever, William G. (2001-05-10). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802821263.
14. Meyers 2005, p. 5.
15. ^ Romer 2008, p. 2. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRomer2008 (help)
16. ^ Lemche 1985, p. 327. sfn error: no target: CITEREFLemche1985 (help)
17. ^ Redmount 2001, p. 63. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRedmount2001 (help)
18. Berlin, Adele; Brettler, Marc Zvi (2004). The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195297515.
19. Coogan, Michael David; Coogan, Michael D. (2001). The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195139372.
20. Dever, William G. (2001-05-10). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?: What Archeology Can Tell Us About the Reality of Ancient Israel. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802821263.
21. ^ Bulfinch 2004, p. 194. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBulfinch2004 (help)
22. ^ Honko 1984, p. 45. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHonko1984 (help)
23. "Euhemerism", The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions

Torah or Bible?

I noticed in reviewing the recent edits that the term Bible was replaced with Torah in at least one place in the lede. Now I realize that this topic has a special relevance to Judaism, but Torah is certainly the less familiar term to most people who will be reading this article. I would advocate sticking with Bible or, possibly, the first five books of the bible, rather than Torah.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the bible serves well enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus is from the Torah. It is linked so people can read about the Torah if they want to. It's not just that it is of "special relevance", the Exodus is from the Torah, not the Bible. It would be misleading to say otherwise.

The Bible just contains the Torah. It would be like if someone wrote a well known book - "Book X" which contained the Bible, and we removed all references to the Bible from Misplaced Pages and replaced them with "Book X". Fajkfnjsak (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Torah is used throughout the article too. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The Torah is the Jewish name for (usually) the first five books of the Bible. No Christian or non-Christian would ever refer to the grouping of these books as "The Torah". Christians have "The Bible" of which "The Pentateuch" is the term that Christians commonly refer to the first five books of the Bible. Saying that either The Torah or The Pentateuch or The Bible is "THE" word is silly. Likewise using the term The Torah interchangeably with The Bible is not just silly, it reveals that the editor doesn't understand the difference in terms (since The Torah's five books are merely a subset of the 26-book Bible). That is why we are having this discussion in Talk.

I don't have an issue with using either term and if the group feels that "The Bible" is the term that should be used, that's great - when its the proper word to be used in the context of the sentence. Considering the page is about The Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt (or from wherever "modern scholars" now think it happened), The Torah is probably the more operative word when we are referring to the actual book of Exodus, but there are other places where it refers to the Bible in general or another one of the books of the Bible, old testament, etc, so using The Torah as a replacement for The Bible would be incorrect and confusing for the reader.

IMO, we should be using the term "The Torah" when the article is referring to the events of The Exodus or the actions of the Jewish people or specifically the book of Exodus or the specific "Jewishness" of a passage or action and use the term "The Bible" in all other places (and specifically when referring to Christian or non-Christian views of the Exodus) with other words (such as The Pentateuch) sprinkled in here and there when germain.

My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

The Torah (Pentateuch) is the part of the Tanakh (old testament, Hebrew Bible).

The Bible includes this with the New Testament

You're thinking of the Hebrew Bible (Judaism), which is not the Bible (Christianity)

The Exodus is from the Torah, which is part of the Hebrew Bible. I'm proposing we use Torah, because that is where the Exodus is actually from.

The Bible just has the Hebrew Bible in it. Like "Book X" has the Bible in it. Using the Bible is like changing all pages with the Bible to Book X.

modern scholars do not think the exodus happened at all. the article is about the mythology of the Exodus. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the Torah is a specifically Jewish term and as the Exodus story is not specific to the Jews, being in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, we ought simply to use the term bible and be more specific as to it being the first five books as needed. The term "bible" is common to both religious traditions. We can use the name of a specific book of the bible if necessary as well, but the Exodus story is in all five.

I don't really know why you feel the need to mention mythology in this context.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

was addressing ckruschke - said article is about the exodus of the... and implied that modern scholars think it happened but somewhere else. So was clarifying. read the comments in the thread

Jewish people say Torah way more than Bible, not even close. The Exodus is literally about the Jewish people. Book of Exodus is clearly the Torah's book. Just because the Bible contains the Torah, does not mean we should ignore where the Book of Exodus is actually from. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The first five books of the bible are not exclusively Jewish books. They may have been once, but that time has long since passed. Most readers here will not be familiar with the term Torah, in fact, I'm willing to bet most readers here are not Jewish nor interested in the Exodus as a specifically Jewish story. It makes sense to use a broader terminology in this case: both Jews and Christians use the term bible, and we can be more specific as needed.

It's clearly a Jewish book about Jews from the Torah. The Bible contains the Torah. That does not change where the book is from. It doesn't matter if readers are interested in it "as a Jewish story", whatever that means. We're not preaching to people based on their interests. We're presenting the Exodus as it is, which is a Jewish myth from the Torah. At the least I think the article should mention both the Torah and the Bible. I don't see any reason to exclude the word Torah, as you did in your edit. That would be erasing its actual origin. And as I said, Jews use the word Torah. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, so far it appears that consensus is generally behind my change.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

We're rather reinventing the wheel here! Of the three available terms for (almost entirely) the same books: Old Testament, Hebrew Bible and Tanakh, we normally use "Hebrew Bible". We use Torah when talking about it as a whole, & should mention the Exodus is part of it, but as it is only sections of the Torah, I don't think we should use it as the main descriptor of where the story is found. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"Torah is certainly the less familiar term to most people who will be reading this article" How do you know, is there an available reader's poll? Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Given the percentage of the English-speaking population that is Jewish rather than Christian, some other religion, or non-affiliated, I'd say it's a safe bet.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

"the first five books of the bible" The common term for these is Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem with Pentateuch, but it seems that some people find it more Christian than Jewish. It's currently mentioned and linked in the article, along with Torah.

Do you have a specific edit you'd like to recommend?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus is literally a myth about Jewish people. In what way do you find it "more Christian"? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a whole section of the article about Passover, which clearly indicates that this is more relevant to Judaism than Christianity. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

"We can use the name of a specific book of the bible if necessary as well, but the Exodus story is in all five." Technically not. The group also includes the Book of Genesis, which depicts the legendary ancestors of the Israelites migrating to Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

?? Isn't Genesis one of the first five books of the bible? I don't think we're disagreeing.EDIT I guess you're differentiating between the Israelites going to Egypt and the Exodus proper. Fair enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The Book of Exodus is a book in the Torah. The Bible just contains the Torah. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You changed a sentence from "Torah" to "the books". It is a sentenece about the Jewish people in Israel. The whole Exodus is about the Jewish people. At the most you should be adding in the "Bible", not using it, or "the books", as a replacement for "Torah". Fajkfnjsak (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're referring to. I find two or three places where "the books" is used in the article, but I don't think I'm responsible for it being there, nor do I find it particularly problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The Torah (the Exodus story) served as an "identity card" defining who belonged to this community (i.e., to Israel), thus reinforcing Israel's unity through its new institutions.

became

The books containing the Exodus story served as an "identity card" ... Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The_Bible_and_violence#Using_the_Term_"Violence"_Accurately

I'm posting here because I think this article has watchers who may be interested. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"Published" / "publication"

@Fajkfnjsak:, could you please review why I've changed it from saying "published" to "was composed" before reverting it. Obviously ancient texts were not published in the modern sense in the ancient world, as Johnbod pointed out above. Yes, the source does use the term "publication" but it means it in a sense that will be unfamiliar to most readers, and this is why first Johnbod and then myself had wanted to change the wording.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I already read what both of you wrote. He called it a "howler" and you said "for obvious reasons" "we want to avoid saying that word".

Neither is a reason. Which is why I changed it to the source's wording. Misplaced Pages should reflect the sources. I think published clearly means written and disseminated. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree it should be changed. it is not usual to use it for manuscript works, as this originally was. The source uses "composed" immediately above, so there should be no objection. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

publication definition = "the preparation and issuing of a book, journal, piece of music, or other work for public sale"

seems representative of what happened

publication vs written vs composed? which are you advocating for?

Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

That definition is precisely what isn't meant by publication here. The torah wasn't released for sale in bookshops in the fifth century, it was composed and thus made available for copying by scribes.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod and Ermenrich. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The author switches from written to transcribed to composed to publication, so I guess any work. So if you don't want publication, why composed vs written or transcribed? Also, he uses both Torah and Bible; at the least, both should be in the article. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Composed/composition because that's what happened. Somebody/bodies wrote the Pentateuch. It gives our readers the most accurate impression of what actually is being referred to.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I meant why composed instead of written or trasncribed? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Written is not as clear as to what it means and transcribed implies that it already exists and is merely being rewritten on a new piece of parchment/papyris/whatever.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is written not as clear?

transcribe - put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form. - seems same as written

Not that it matters a lot, but just wondering between the 3 if it is just preference or there is a reason. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: This is how you ask someone about something without telling on them by referring to their actions in the 3rd person.

Written is my preference. Do you have an explanation for why composed is better? Also, why did you make the edit before we reached consensus, and then said in your edit summary "per talk" as if we had consensus? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean "unanimous agreement." There is a clear consensus for the edit. Whether it says "written" or "composed" does not affect that consensus, nor is it very important. At any rate, the text currently uses a noun "the composition of" where saying "the writing of" would be awkward. Not that that is set in stone.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus for a change from publication, not what edit to make. The text says written, transcribed, composed, and publication as I mentioned.

I would say "...was written in the Middle Persian Period..." Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede citations and mis-citations

Now that Fajkfnjsak has been blocked for contentious editing, I decided to have a look through some of the lede text again. I noticed that the sentence "There is no evidence that the Israelites lived or were enslaved in ancient Egypt." was cited directly to websites rather than using ref=harv, even though the references are all in the article under the correct format already. I've converted them, but Fajkfnjsak and the various IPs who have been editing the lede lately failed to provide page numbers. Someone will have to find them. Additionally, I read through Redmont for as much as google books would let me and it directly contradicts the text its being used to support. I quote:

To some, the lack of a secure historical grounding for the biblical Exodus narrative merely reflects its nonhistorical nature. According to this view, there was no historical Exodus and the story is to be interpreted as a legend or myth of origins. To others, still in the majority among scholars, the ultimate historicity of the Exodus narrative is indisputable. The details of the story may have become clouded or obscured through the transmission process, but a historical core is mandated by that major tenet of faith that permeates the Bible: God acts in history.

p 87

I think we need to check carefully if references are being misused on the article.

I might add that, just looking through some of the secondary literature, our section on the historicity of the Exodus is laughably small and could greatly be expanded.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just reviewed the other sources cited on the origins of Israel and the Exodus. From Meyers (cited in lede): Although there is no specific historical grounding for the biblical account of descent, sojourn, and depature, these analogues suggest a core of reality (p. 10). On the other hand Moore and Kelle do seem to reject the story and claim that the majority of histories of Israel do not include it (I only have a limited preview unfortunately). But even they note In other words, while the Egyptian features of the stories discussed here (names, place-names, and other details) are not enough for scholars to accept the stories unconditionally as factual reports, some believe they point to the inclusion of a group of Egyptian origin in earliest Israel. Faust, who I think was used to say that Israel developed from Canaan, in fact says: While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (p.476). Redmont, who I already note supports some sort of historical background, is cited in the article in a way to support the unreality of the Exodus. The statement "The Israelites originated from Canaan" appears to be a mis-citing of two sources saying that archaeology indicates continuity and thus a Canaanite origin.

In short, the article is not accurately reflecting what the sources actually say about the historicity of the Exodus. The article is in need of a rewrite on this matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I've decided to post notice of this to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Jewish history, and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East to get a broader range of opinions from people who hopefully a broader knowledge of this topic than I do.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't have all that many sources on biblical history, but I do have some of the most recent surveys of the scholarly field, including Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? by Lester Grabbe (2017 edition) and Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective by Thomas Levy et al. (2015), the latter of which includes Faust's paper and a couple of others cited in the article. Checking the citations for the historicity section via Google Books, they all jibe with the impression of the scholarly consensus that I get from Grabbe and Levy et al. The current text of this article isn't a gross distortion of that consensus, just an incomplete representation of it. The Israelites did originate natively in Canaan, probably out of a mixture of various West Semitic peoples. An Exodus like that described in the biblical text is utterly implausible and only defended by archconservatives, but many scholars have argued that one of the groups that made up the Israelites—perhaps the group that became the Levites?—could have migrated out of the Nile Delta, where we know Semitic communities lived during the New Kingdom. A cultural memory of their migration could have evolved into the Exodus story that we know. This seems to be the most widely accepted hypothesis, and it's certainly the one espoused by Faust and William Dever, but it's not the only one with significant support. Donald B. Redford thinks the Exodus tradition comes from the dim recollection of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt into Canaan at the start of the New Kingdom, and Nadav Na'aman argues that the Exodus is a distorted memory of Egypt's rule over Canaan during the New Kingdom and the collapse of that rule as Egypt weakened. A. Parrot (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I certainly don't think that RS are saying that the Exodus happened as in the Bible, the sources are very clear on that. My concern is mostly that possibly for some sort of ideological reasons people have been overstating the case and not adding anything about scholarly theories on what caused the story to exist in the first place. See this rather strange conversation about the Exodus being racist against Egyptians started by a banned editor who kept emphasizing how mythical the Exodus was . I think the article needs to discuss those theories you mentioned above: at the moment, the impression given is just that the Bible is wrong, which is true, but is not the only thing RS are saying about this. We currently only mention the Egyptian oppression of Canaan theory, and that in a sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with most of that, but I don't think ideological editing is the sole reason why the section is so short and one-sided. Articles and sections on controversial subjects, which this one is, tend to go through cycles of bloating, as people add arguments and counterarguments, and shrinking as other editors cut out the excessive detail. But I agree that the section needs expansion; this is Misplaced Pages's primary article on the Exodus as an event, and the question of where the story comes from is endlessly debated. That debate should be covered here. I might be able to help with that over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I've made a first go at it, but it obviously needs more work since I have only added what I found while researching the way that the sources already cited talked about the Exodus. think we should go a lot more in depth, personally: talking about problems like nameless Pharaoh, inability to identify Goshen, while also listing the reasons behind the theories in favor of some sort of historical kernel behind it all.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

"the Nile Delta, where we know Semitic communities lived during the New Kingdom." The so-called "Asiatic" ancestors of the Hyksos were probably already there during the Middle Kingdom of Egypt.:

• "In recent years the idea of a simple Hyksos migration, with little or no war, has gained support. According to this theory, the Egyptian rulers of the Thirteenth Dynasty were preoccupied with domestic famine and plague, and they were too weak to stop the new migrants from entering and settling in Egypt. Even before the migration, Amenemhat III carried out extensive building works and mining, through which the Hyksos might have arrived in Egypt and overthrown native Egyptian rule. Supporters of the peaceful takeover of Egypt claim there is little evidence of battles or wars in general in this period. They also maintain that the chariot didn't play any relevant role, e.g. no traces of chariots have been found at the Hyksos capital of Avaris, despite extensive excavation. Janine Bourriau cites lack of Hyksos-style wares as evidence against a Hyksos invasion. Archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes stated that the Hyksos were migrating Semites rather than a conquering horde. John Van Seters in his book, The Hyksos: A New Investigation, argues that the Ipuwer Papyrus does not belong to the First Intermediate Period of Egyptian history (c. 2300-2200 BC), as previously thought, but rather to the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1700-1600 BC). He sees a gradual settlement of the Hyksos from Phoenicia-Palestine." Dimadick (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Booth, Charlotte. The Hyksos Period in Egypt. p.10. Shire Egyptology, 2005. ISBN 0-7478-0638-1
2. Callender, Gae, "The Middle Kingdom Renaissance," in Ian Shaw, ed. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, 2003 ISBN 978-0-19-280458-7 p. 157. "The large intake of Asiatics, which seems to have occurred partly in order to subsidize the extensive building work, may have encouraged the so-called Hyksos to settle in the delta, thus leading eventually to the collapse of native Egyptian rule."
3. Booth, Charlotte. The Hyksos Period in Egypt. p.10. Shire Egyptology. 2005. ISBN 0-7478-0638-1
4. Bard, Kathryn (1999). Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Routledge. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-415-18589-9.
5. The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. Eliezer Oren, University of Pennsylvania 1997. cf. Janine Bourriau's chapter of the archaeological evidence covers pages 159-182
6. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, editor Ian Shaw, p. 195, Oxford University Press, 2002, ISBN 0-19-280293-3
7. Jacquetta Hawkes. (1963). The World of the Past, p. 444 "It is no longer thought that the Hyksos rulers ... represent the invasion of a conquering horde of Asiatics ... they were wandering groups of Semites who had long come to Egypt for trade and other peaceful purposes."
8. Seters, John Van (1 April 2010). The Hyksos: A New Investigation. Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 191. ISBN 978-1-60899-533-2. On the basis of the archaeological investigation, the foreigners of Egypt are seen as a geographical extension of the corresponding culture of Phoenicia-Palestine in the MB II period, a culture with a highly advanced urban society. This civilization of the Levant has its roots in the Amurrite world of both Syria and Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian period, and has a direct heir in the so-called Canaanite world of the Late Bronze Age. The MB II period began during the Middle Kingdom, and by the end of the Twelfth Dynasty the whole of Phoenicia-Palestine was under the influence of Egypt, with diplomatic ties and active cooperation between the rulers of the various city-states and the rulers of Egypt. During the early Thirteenth Dynasty, the foreigners had much freer access into Egypt. Many of them rose to places of high honor in the administration of the country.

Do scholars agree or disagree as to when the story took its present form?

I recently deleted the sentence "Scholars disagree as to when the Exodus story took its present form" from the end of the Historicity section. User:Woscafrench undid the deletion with a note in edit summary that if I doubted the notability of the source I should discuss on Talk. The source was Collins' "The Bible After Babel", but while I certainly don't doubt that this book is reliable (it's a standard text), the citation as given had no page number and was impossible to verify. As it contradicts the first sentence of the section on Composition, "Scholars broadly agree that the publication of the first five books of the Bible took place in the mid-Persian period...", sourced to Romer's 2008 monograph "Moses Outside the Torah", I'm wondering what Collins actually says. If Woscafrench has the page number we can see what's going on.

My apologies, I just found it on page 46 of Collins' book (although it really needs a page reference in the source cite). Collins first writes of the scholarly consensus that the exodus story is a myth (he's talking in terms of genre and sitz em leben, the latter being the social situation in which a text arises), and then says "there is considerable disagreement as to when these myths became current and when they attained their present form". This does seem like something of a contradiction to what Romer says. So what are we to do?

I think Collins is referring to the existence of the Exodus story prior to to the creation of the Pentateuch. Oral myths aren't fixed entities, so any pre-Pentateuch version would have variants, but by "present form" he probably just means the basic elements: going into Egypt, slavery, Moses, and Exodus. Plagues seems like something that could be different in different versions (maybe that's why there are so many even, because different versions were combined - just my own OR though).

The whole article needs a lot of work I'd say. Just see the section I started above that no one's replied to yet. There clearly are scholars who support a vaguely historical notion behind the myth, which we barely get into.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am just an amateur, but ISTM that one should make a distinction between "myth" and "falsehood". I would say that the Exodus and Conquest is a myth, a founding myth, whch tells us that it is very important, not just a story. Everybody agrees to that. The consensus of scholarship is that the is little, if anything, historical-archaelogical that can be discerned in the myth. For example, whether or not there was a real human being, of the 13th century BCE or so, behind the protagonist, Moses, nobody knows. Unlike the mythical figure George Washington, where we know a lot about the real GW, but that does not take away from his mythical status. IMHO. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't dispute the label myth, but I think we're giving the considerations made by scholars like Redmont about what sort of history lies behind the myth short shrift in the current article. She considers various possible historical analogues (the Hyskos, for instance), notes problems (no one can say where "the land of Goshen" is), etc. But she assumes that something about the story has a historical basis, and even claims that a majority of scholars do. Without actually looking at some more Exodus scholarship myself, I can't say whether that's true of course, but I think an expansion of the section is probably needed.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there is a distinction between when the general story took its present form and when the story was first written down, and so I do not see the contradiction in the sources. The historicity section briefly deals with some of the potential historical basis, such as oppression in Canaan, but this section definitely needs work, as Ermenrich has pointed out. I wonder whether the mention in the lead is WP:UNDUE, especially if it is not summarizing information already in the main body of the article as per WP:LEAD. I think that if the lead has confusing information, then that confusion should be addressed/resolved in the main body of the article, or else the material is not an appropriate summary for the lead. Of course, we also have the issue of inaccurate information that is not supported by the cited material (as discussed in the above section). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

"no one can say where "the land of Goshen" is" See main article Land of Goshen:

• "In 1885 Édouard Naville identified Goshen as the 20th nome of Egypt, located in the eastern Delta, and known as "Gesem" or "Kesem" during the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt (672–525 BC). It covered the western end of the Wadi Tumilat, the eastern end being the district of Succoth, which had Pithom as its main town, extended north as far as the ruins of Piramesse (the "land of Rameses"), and included both crop land and grazing land." Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Alright, according to Redmount p. 65 it has "never been satisfactorally been localized", but I'm just going off her.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

1. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus," in Silberman, Neil Ash (editor), The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller (Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) pp. 267–269, ISBN 978-1850756507

Content removal

Do we need to mention that Moses is a mythical figure?

Do we need to have the tacked on thing about Moses being mythical in the historicity section? It does not strike me as entirely relevant for this article (or at least it needs to be given more context than it currently has). I'll note that it was copied over from Moses, probably by Fajskasafsa but maybe by one of the anti-Exodus IPs.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If there ever was a "real" Moses, he is lost to history. That could be mentioned, but I wouldn't lose much space with it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The article is fairly clear that the Exodus is a myth, that would reasonably make the named people in it mythical by default. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Not necessarily - it is quite possible that a myth is constructed around a historical figure - albeit a much-distorted story. It would be better to at least mention that, if there ever was a "real" Moses, he is lost to history. Wdford (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

15:23

but what about Moses himself surely 15:27 there must be some evidence for this 15:29 most famous Old Testament hero perhaps 15:32 the most famous of all Old Testament 15:34 figures even if there's no evidence of 15:37 the exodus they must surely be some 15:39 record of a leader as important as him 15:43 the name Moses is a name which is very 15:47 popular from early periods right down 15:51 into late periods so it's a fairly 15:54 common Egyptian name that's that's all 15:57 that we can say there is no text in 16:00 which we can identify this Moses or that 16:04 Moses as the Moses the question of the 16:08 historicity of Moses is the same as the 16:11 question of the historicity of Abraham 16:12 that is to say maybe there was a figure 16:16 maybe there was a leader I am NOT here 16:20 to 16:22 undermined historicity of Moses I think 16:25 that it is possible but I would say it's 16:27

beyond recovery

John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein from Bible Unearthed Discoveries of Old versions of the bible) on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I think those last two comments basically agree with each other. I'll try to think of a better way of mentioning that no one has been able to identify Moses as a historical figure.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Expand section on Exodus narrative?

Does anyone else feel that this section could use some expansion? At the moment it doesn't even hit the "Clif's Notes" version:

It begins with the Israelites in slavery. Their prophet Moses leads them out of Egypt and through the wilderness to Mount Sinai, where Yahweh reveals himself to his people and establishes the Mosaic covenant: they are to keep his torah (i.e. law, instruction), and in return he will give them the land of Canaan.

It leaves out probably the most memorable parts of the narrative: Moses's struggle with Pharaoh, the demonstration of Yahweh's superiority over the Gods of Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea. It also fails to explain why the Bible says the Israelites were in Egypt, etc. If I came to this page without knowing these things, I would have a hard time figuring them out. I would also suggest renaming the section "Biblical Narrative" rather than just "Summary".--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, although the I expect part of the reason those details were left out is to avoid overlap with Book of Exodus. However, I think the synopsis there could use some expansion, too. Neither article is anywhere near as long or detailed as it could reasonably be, given the enormous impact that the story has had over the millennia. A. Parrot (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have an expanded section called "Biblical narrative", and perhaps include a section on the later Egyptian versions by Manetho and I-forget-his-name (Moses as leper) with some introduction to where they're from etc. Given that no one thinks any of them happened as described, I would say that they are of equal value to the biblical narrative at least. Alternatively they could go in their own section.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd keep Manetho and Apion separate from the main summary, perhaps as a subsection of a much-expanded "cultural significance" section. Judging by the sources used at Osarseph, it's not 100% clear that Manetho did link the Hyksos to the Jews or whether that was a later interpolation, and even if he did, the name of Moses may have been grafted onto Manetho's original version. Moreover, I have a 2007 translation and commentary on Against Apion that argues, in one of the appendices, that the Egyptian "exodus" story was a collection of xenophobic Egyptian tropes about foreigners that was applied specifically to Jews at a later time; Hecataeus of Abdera, as reported by Diodorus Siculus (book 40, ch. 3), relayed a version of this story as encompassing a wide variety of foreigners who were expelled from Egypt, a variety that included ancestors of the Greeks as well as of the Jews. The upshot is that the Egyptian tradition is not independent evidence of the Exodus story, just something that got conflated with the Exodus story in or not long before early Ptolemaic times. A. Parrot (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure it's dependent in some way on the Exodus tradition, right. Cultural significance seems like a good place for it. I think Assmann has a lot on it and also general Egyptian-Judaean hostility (which isn't something I had thought much about before, but makes perfect sense).--Ermenrich (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Bias

I understand that there is supposedly a "scholarly consensus" that the Exodus is a myth and has no historical basis. That being said, there are many scholars who would argue otherwise, and have published countless articles and books that make a case for its historicity. I think we should at least acknowledge that in the article summary. All that's present on the article are arguments that its a myth, and that there is no scholarly debate on the subject. I don't think it's fair to phrase things that way, and there are plenty of sources I could refer to that defend the historicity of the Exodus. Not the supernatural aspects of the story, mind you, but the history surrounding the story. I would like to add some counterarguments to the article. Would anyone object to that? Please note that I'm relatively new to editing, so I'm still trying to figure out how the community operates. Jgriffy98 (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Another problem I see with the article is the rather poor quality of the sources used. The claim that there's a "scholarly consensus" that the Exodus is fake comes from a questionable source to say the least. I looked up the book cited in the article for that claim, but the author of the source itself does not back up that claim with any empirical evidence. I have raised this issue before, but the response I got was that "any claim made by a scholar is true, because Misplaced Pages says they're true". In other words, as long as citations come from a scholarly source, Misplaced Pages says that every claim made by that scholar is truthful, and should be accepted at face value. If that's the case, then there are countless scholars who would argue that the Exodus actually happened. If I were to put that in the Wiki article, however, it would be taken down immediately. There seems to be a sort of anti-religious/anti-theistic narrative that this article is trying to push. Jgriffy98 (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Jgriffy98 (talk) 22:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest actually reading what the article says (it emphatically does not say that no one believes the Exodus story is based on a historical event of some sort) and reading WP:RS. You can't just add your own observations/arguments to an article and if an RS says there's a scholarly consensus we report it as such.--Ermenrich (talk)

@Jgriffy98: It's not that "any claim that a scholar makes is true", but that positions must be represented on Misplaced Pages based on how much standing they have in the scholarly community. A significant minority may argue a viewpoint that the majority does not share, in which case both perspectives should be covered. If the consensus is overwhelming then the minority position is considered fringe and should either be excluded from mention entirely or (more rarely) described within the article and marked off as a fringe position rejected by most scholars. On Misplaced Pages this principle is known as "due weight"; see that page for more information.

There are many people who have argued for the historicity of the Exodus, but most of them are not scholars trained in the historical method, steeped in the evidence and arguments that have been made on this topic over the past several decades, and subjected to review by their peers. Whether you should add counterarguments depends on which sources you want to draw upon and how qualified they are. As far as I know, there are only two qualified scholars who argue that the Exodus as described in the Bible is plausible: James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen. But most scholars do not believe it is even plausible, and even Hoffmeier and Kitchen can't say that there's much positive evidence in its favor. I'm not sure which citation you're referring to when you call it "a questionable source to say the least", but from what I understand the consensus is strongly against the idea of a historical Exodus that's anything like the one described. Earlier generations of scholars did believe the story to be substantially more accurate than most do today, but careful reexamination, mainly of the archaeological evidence, made that position difficult to maintain. My understanding is based on only a few sources, but they're some of the most extensive and recent surveys of the scholarly literature (especially Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? by Lester Grabbe and Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective by Thomas Levy et al.). To argue that the sources used in this article are "low quality", you'll have to cite specific examples. Most of them are from highly qualified authors, and a few are studies within Levy's book.

That said, scholars don't regard the Exodus story as "fake" but as a cultural memory that may very faintly reflect some genuine historical event. I'm going to copy something I wrote in another recent comment, because I think this is a common problem for laypeople who read articles like this one. Many ancient texts describe events that happened centuries before they were written, which incorporate memories of genuine events along with legends. For instance, there really was some kind of attack on Troy in the 12th century BC, but people don't generally go looking for a historical Achilles. Scholars use the same criteria for analyzing the Bible that they use for these other ancient texts. To do otherwise would introduce bias by privileging the Bible above other ancient texts. Personally, I think anyone defending the accuracy of the early biblical books should read the Nibelungenlied and the Arthurian sections of Historia Regum Britanniae and compare them with what actually happened in northern Europe during the fifth century AD. Like those texts, the early biblical books represent a centuries-later understanding of a period of disorder and societal breakdown: the fall of the West Roman Empire in one case and the Bronze Age Collapse in the other. A. Parrot (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I appreciate the response, Ermenrich. You make some very good points. Thanks for clarifying a few of the misconceptions I had regarding Misplaced Pages guidelines. There are a few things you said that I have slight disagreements with, and I will follow up on them in due time. I definitely agree that there isn't a scholarly consensus that the Exodus actually happened. My point was that I don't think a scholarly consensus has yet been established at all. There hasn't really been any survey of scholarly opinion regarding the Exodus. That's why I think we should refrain from claiming that any such consensus actually exists yet. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jgriffy98: How formal a "survey" are we talking about? Numerous sources refer to previous work on the subject, state what "many" or "most" scholars believe, and cite the most pertinent examples by name. The statement in the article lead that "The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible does not give an accurate account of the origins of Israel" is backed up by two sources that do exactly that (Meyers 2005 and Moore & Kelle 2011). But scholars don't conduct regular polling of their own disciplines to establish what the consensus is for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. A. Parrot (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: First of all, I'd like to apologize. The last comment I posted was actually directed towards you and what you said. I got you confused with Ermenrich. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: "But scholars don't conduct regular polling of their own disciplines to establish what the consensus is for the benefit of Misplaced Pages." True, they don't do it for the benefit of Misplaced Pages. I don't think any scholar cited in the article wrote about the Exodus with Misplaced Pages in mind. The point is that scholarly communities often do conduct polls to establish a consensus, depending on the specific field and subject matter of the question. I have read through the sources you have mentioned, and they do not provide any empirical evidence for a consensus. They simply claim that one exists. I do not think there is any consensus that the Exodus really occurred or did not occur. A consensus has not been properly established on the topic, and I think that's something a lot of people struggle with. At least, I think Misplaced Pages's guidelines are not geared towards that reality, the reality being that there can often be a lack of consensus among scholars. Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: My concern is that many editors I have talked to regarding this matter have told me that, "The scholars we cited do not need to provide evidence for their claim of consensus. The fact that they are scholars is evidence enough. Since this guy claims a consensus exists, we're going to state his claim as fact in The Exodus article." Jgriffy98 (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jgriffy98: Perhaps some disciplines conduct polling of that kind, but I very much doubt that they all do. If you find such a poll on this subject it would certainly be worth looking at, but the guidelines don't assume that such polls will be available. In most cases they're not necessary. People who are capable of analyzing a huge volume of detailed evidence—which is true of just about everybody who qualifies as an RS—are generally capable of assessing the state of their own scholarly disciplines. If a source like Moore and Kelle says "The majority of current scholars believe the historicity of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, and wilderness wandering that the Bible remembers cannot be demonstrated by historical methods" (p. 91), that assessment is considered reliable unless another source of equal or greater qualifications contradicts it. If Moore and Kelle, Meyers, and Grabbe all say that, and Meyers further says "The vigorous attempts to show historicity for the exodus narrative at best can show plausibility, as even those who have made such efforts concede," and she cites a book by Hoffmeier specifically for that sentence, and Hoffmeier himself concedes exactly that in that book, that's pretty authoritative. And I can find more sources if I really need to. A. Parrot (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"that the Exodus is a myth and has no historical basis" The two statements are not equivalent. Myths are typically sacred narratives. There are plenty of scholars who speculate that the Exodus narrative is based on poorly-remembered events from the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt and the New Kingdom of Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Unfortunately, no such poll has ever been conducted. At least, not to my knowledge. If one did exist, it probably would be the best primary source to determine what most scholars think of the Exodus. Jgriffy98 (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: "The guidelines don't assume that such polls will be available." Forget about polls for one second. The claim that "most scholars believe the Exodus has no historical basis" is not backed by any empirical evidence, only the claim of an individual scholar. We're getting ready to go in a big circle here, so just follow my logic on this one. Imagine there is a scholar who is very religious, and he or she publishes an article claiming that "all scientists believe in the existence of God." Wouldn't that be a cause for skepticism, to say the least? If one biased academic publishes an article with made up claims of scholarly consensus, would it be logical to simply take his or her word at face-value? Do you see the problem here? Jgriffy98 (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

There is the WP:PAG WP:RS/AC, so we do things around here. How a top professor knows what the consensus is: Video on YouTube. And, yes, we are biased for Ivy Plus. If you want to know what they teach there about the Exodus, see https://vimeo.com/showcase/5520294 Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Hey, asshole. I watched the video you sent me, and it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion I'm having with editor A. Parrot. I'm willing to have a polite discussion with him regarding this matter, but not you. Take your condescending, snarky attitude and shove it up your fucking ass. You have been rude as hell to me in the past, and I do not want your input. If you want to post something here, I can't stop you, but just know that you're wasting your time. I'm not going to listen to a single thing you say. I swear to God, you're the one editor on this website that I can't stand. For anyone else reading this, I don't usually talk to other editors this way. Tgeorgescu is a rude punk who insults and harrasses other editors, and I'm not putting up with his bullshit anymore. Jgriffy98 (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• High-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
• High-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• High-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles
• B-Class Ancient Egypt articles
• Mid-importance Ancient Egypt articles
• B-Class Folklore articles
• Mid-importance Folklore articles
• WikiProject Folklore articles