Talk:The Exodus/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Masoretic text

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I know it is Medieval, but you don't need to say that every time just because it is. You don't say, "...in the Ancient Greek Oddessey, so and so..." every time, it's not proper English. You're only making such comments (also the 430 years from Cain... bit) to disparage the source, and they don't seem to be relevant to the article. Per WP:BRD, please discuss here, waiting for input from others as well, rather than reverting the change. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

NC sojourn in Egypt

The point is that the Masoretic text (otherwise referred to as "The Hebrew Bible") is a medieval text that is streamlined to fit medieval (and hence modern) Jewish doctrine. And whenever there are pieces of information that differ from those given in genuinely ancient texts (such as LXX and SP), then the Masoretic texts should be dismissed in favor of the ancient and more reliable sources that have not undergone a re-editing process (at least not one of the same extent). In an article where the historicity of a biblical event is in question it is essential to keep to the most reliable information available. It is, after all, quite a difference between the Israelites staying in Egypt for four hundred and thirty in the MT and just half that time elsewhere. The information given in the ancient sources do, for an instance, make David Rohl's position more credible, because such a time frame fits neatly into that chrionological model and it fits with the information given by other ancient authors, e.g. Artapanus. Cush (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what the Masoretic text is, I teach Jewish Studies. I don't see how it is relevant to the article to mention that it it is a Medieval text, however, particularly since it's being mentioned to implicitly disparage the source. I think that the article is currently balanced; if you don't, you need to find sources supporting what you consider the under-represented point of view, rather than just adding in statements and arguments. And please watch the minor edits, it really would help. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 11:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you fight against POV, then you should be for the removal of this article, because it is blatant religious POV. Accusing me of POV because you rather favor Jewish doctrine is just ridiculous. Of course I disparage the source, because it is an inaccurate copy of older sources. Using such a faulty text and its offshoots (such as modern bibles) is no way to conduct research for an encyclopedia. The passage in Exodus 12:40 is "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers which they had dwelt in the land of Canaan and in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years." Period. That Jewish doctrine wants to boats with longer periods should not influence this article. This article's aim is some kind of accuracy, not to please the religionists. Cush (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want the article deleted, feel free to nominate it. However, while it still stands, I'm not happy with it containing unsourced POV jabs against the Bible (and that's not because I'm religious, I make jabs too - it's because this isn't the place for them). As I've said before, I think that it's an appropriately balanced article, giving air to all the views, as it should. If you don't, and can find specific instances where it's lacking, and can find material to back it up, then that's fine. Nobody's claiming that the Bible is a reliable source of historical narrative; it is, however, a source to be contrasted with all the others. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 13:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The Bible is the primary and only source with really nothing to be contrasted against, and no secondary source has ever confirmed that the Exodus ever happened. All there is is speculation. The entire Bible is POV and any use of it as a source of history is POV as well. I have read it thoroughly and I am disgusted with the totalitarian ideology it conveys. This is simply not a trustworthy source, because religious people lie in your face whenever it suits their cause or when the very foundation of their faith is in danger, no matter how long ago they have lived. And especially when they write down "holy" books. If you want to say something about the Exodus that is not already covered in the article about the biblical book, then come up with solid evidence and verifiably sources for the Exodus' factual reality. Right now, the possible dates for the Exodus span a period of over 400 years and the possible candidates for the pharaoh of the Exodus are a dozen. That is not an acceptable margin of error for an event that Judaism claims to be real. I am sick to give way to all the religious folks who have infested WP articles to force their doctrine down everybody else's throats. This is not the Encyclopedia Iudaica or some Evangelical mission platform, but a serious encyclopedia that aims for accuracy, not a tool for proselytization by offering a fake historization of religious beliefs. You want specific instances where it's lacking? I tell you: all of it. Why? Because faith is a fundamentally flawed concept, and faith is the only reason for the biblical story's existence. Cush (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've really no idea what you're talking about, but it seems to be along the lines of THE RELIGIOUS CABAL IS COMING! which is really un-necessary. I'm happy with the article; if you're not, feel free to make changes, but be aware that if they don't conform to our policies on neutrality, verifiability, original research and weaselly language, they will be removed. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are happy with the article, simply because you personally need the Exodus to be real. I want it removed, because none of its content is independent of religious doctrine. Subsequently a section in the Exodus article would suffice. Every article on a historical issue that in its opening sentence refers to the Bible as its primary source is superfluous and you could just cite the biblical passage. There is no education in this article, just further confusion and wild speculation. Cush (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That is just utter hogwash. The Exodus is one of the most important events in (what they see as) Jewish history. Whether it is historical, fictional or somewhere between is NOT the issue. As an event perceived by a major religion to be of great importance, it is wholly deserving of an article in itself. Because there is no independent, empirical evidence for the "event", then the only possible sources are religious in nature. To claim that this somehow debars it from warranting an article is clear evidence that your understanding of what constitutes an encyclopedia is rather limited.--FimusTauri (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Jewish history? Jews were not involved in the Exodus. Such a claim is the same as to say Protestants were taking part in the Crusades. Israelites do not equal Jews, nor vice versa.

As I see it, the purpose of this article is to create historicity for this myth by assigning dates and places to it. That goes far beyond what an encyclopedic article should do. I do understand the religious significance of the supposed event, however the in-universe style of this article also suggests a historical and possibly non-religious dimension to the narrative. At this point the requirement for evidence that is not primarily based on the biblical narrative comes in. But the fact of the matter is that all currently held synchronisms are rooted in the biblical narrative and try to link from there to Egyptian history. But to independently show that there is really a synchronism one would have to start in Egyptian history and only in the end make the connection to the biblical story. Egyptology came into being exactly with the purpose to prove the biblical story (at all cost). But that is highly unscientific and only in the recent 20 years or so honest efforts have been made to look at the available material differently. However, this article still dwells exclusively on the religionist approach, which makes it highly POV-pushing.

Btw, the citation in the article in Greek is from the Septuagint (which is ancient and is consistent with the Samaritan Pentateuch, and a lot more reliable than the Masoretic text of which no-one relly knows what the sources are), and it is very much about the topic of the article (the timespan that the Israelites supposedly spent in Egypt). Cush (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that there's been enough discussion. Wikipedia is not a lecturn for your tirades - if you don't think that the article should exist, nominate it for deletion. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

more on Masoretic text

Why do people around here not accept that the Masoretic text and subsequent versions of European bibles (including Luther's and King James') are NOT reliable sources when it comes to extracting information from the biblical text. The Masoretic text reflects Jewish doctrine of the Middle Ages and not a neutral historical account. The only reason why the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch are rejected around here seems to be the urge to only have purely Jewish sources. The example of Exodus 12:40 where in the Masoretic text the reference to Canaan was dropped is setting the tone of what to expect in the Masoretic text. There is no reason to dwell on the Masoretic text in an encyclopedia only because modern religionists have chosen that text to be the basis of their faith systems. And after all, the information given in this article is exclusively drawn from the Bible and not from reliable secondary sources. The entire story of the Exodus is absent from the historical and archaelogical record otherwise, so any speculation, no matter from whom and with what kind of academic degree, remains just speculation. So at least the most reliable source of biblical text should be used and not just the ones that sheeple would follow. I am so sick of religionists dictating what's on WP. Cush (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you are attempting to override the Masoretic text, you need not just to mention that your version is reliable, but to cite specific, reliable sources that confirm this. Perhaps you could link to some other Wikipedia articles where the Sepaguint [however it's spelt!] is used in the way you wish to use it here. But since you seem to wish to directly contradict the standard Bible (Masoretic, King James, almost all versions), some serious sourcing would be required. Also, note that re-inserting your version after being reverted is poor practice. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is generally the case that Christian scholars (who aren't versed in Hebrew) use the Septuagint, as its article makes clear neither version can be said to be "more correct" than the other. Best practice would be to offer both versions where they differ significantly, and say which version of "Exodus 12:40" you are using otherwise. All textual versions mentioned here are considered canon by some religious tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeDog (talk • contribs)

Cush: I read the entire above debate, as well as your edits to the article, and there is one simple answer to your questions, which has already been repeated by TreasuryTag several times at this point. You have not cited one reliable source in any of your edits. Until such time as you do so, everything you've said remains your own opinion, and we are not going to accept your statements based on your opinion that we should. We especially do not insert weasel words to deliberately undermine commonly used sources based upon the opinion of editors in the absence of both sources and the backing of mainstream scholarship. The Bible as we know it today is commonly accepted as a reliable source because of its common use in scholarly sources. We do what mainstream scholarship does because we are a tertiary source. So find yourself some backing for your edits in mainstream, reliable sources, and then we will address your concerns.--Dycedarg ж 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't see any sources that confirm the Masoretic text, especially when it comes to the Exodus. There simply are none. There is no such thing as mainstream scholarship. All there is is religious doctrine, and that is something else. The "mainstream" approach is not what works for an encyclopaedia. This whole article is based entirely on primary biblical references. Otherwise there would be names, dates, places without any speculation. So spare me the "reliable sources" stuff. The Masoretic text is not a reliable source, no matter how mainstream it is. This article is as accurate as one on the Flight of the Noldor would be. Cush (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: What difference does it make to the article which text is used? If none, never mind. If yes, then any contradictions should be explained. Rd232 ^talk 18:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference is the time that the Israelites allegedly spent in Egypt. There is simply no 430-year-period in Egyptian history that had large numbers of Aamu/Apiru. However there are periods of half that length that could be matched with the biblical narrative. So using the right source is really a matter of establishing some degree of historicity to the Jewish tale. The Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch are pre-christian texts that have not been heavily re-edited as the Masoretic text (which is 1000 years younger and was assembled from uncertain sources) and they show a different picture in essential passages.

You see, what really bothers me is the in-universe style of this article, when there is nothing to justify such a style by establishing historicity. Jewish doctrine is just not sufficient. Cush (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. If the Septuagint says one thing and the Masoretic another, they should both be reported. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Why include a bad later copy when more original texts are still available? Why bow to the religionists to use what they have chosen to be the foundation of their doctrine? If I have a number of sources I will exclude the one that is least reliable. The Masoretic text is the least reliable of the available material, so it is the one that has to go. This is an encyclopedia and it is supposed to represent the conclusions of a knowledge-finding process, but not the dead ends encountered during the process. I just don't want to see an article on a possible event in the past be messed up by modern religionist doctrine more than necessary. Cush (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very strange. First of all, the Masoretic text is referenced all over much older literature. Second, Rabbinical opinion AGREES with your contention that the period was half that length. (This is probably the source of the Septuagint, but never mind.) The only disagreement is in what the words of the text said, not in what they mean. This is a distinction without a difference. (The basic reason of the Rabbis is that the geneology of Moses shows a shorter period.)--87.70.118.103 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way, shouldn't that article (and related ones) at least MENTION different traditional views on the length of the time in Egypt?--87.70.118.103 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete David Rohl?

The article contains the following refence to David Rohl's theory on ancient chronologies:

"David Rohl's 'New Chronology' shortens the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost 300 years, subsequently placing the 13th Dynasty pharaoh Djedneferre Dudimose (Dedumesu, Tutimaos, Tutimaios) in 1450 to 1446 BCE, coinciding with an Exodus date of 1447 BCE. [17] Rohl, however, has limited support among scholars in his field."

David Rohl has no support whatsoever among professional Egyptologists. We should delete this reference from the article. PiCo (talk) 09:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, as long as it's cited, and contains a cited fact to state that he has limited support, I can't see any reason that it shouldn't be included. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the current content fits fine with Wikipedia:Fringe theories, if that's what we think it is. However the statement "Rohl, however, has limited support among scholars in his field.", whilst probably true, is currently completely unsourced. Rd232 ^talk 10:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While I'm no fan of Rohl, the fact that a well known professional Egyptologist like Kenneth Kitchen publically addressed Rohl's chronology at length (rather than simply snorting and turning away) may be sufficient grounds to keep a mention. -Lisa (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we got a reliable source for that now? Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A source for what? That Kitchen disagrees with Rohl but has no evidence to really refute him? Even Kitchen's own theories are not as sound as one might think. He is just older than Rohl and has published more. But that has no effent on reliability or even truth. And Kitchen is an evangelical christian, which certainly constitutes a conflict of interests when it comes to archaelogical accuracy. Cush (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? Really? Your agenda is showing, Cush. Ridiculous ad hominem arguments like that have no place on Wikipedia. -Lisa (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous, it's accurate (that if X is an evangelical Christian, it's a conflict of interest in terms of archaelogical accuracy). And it's only an ad hominem argument if we're addressing a particular claim by Kitchen without considering its substance. Rd232 ^talk 14:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Religionists are not trustworthy when it comes to ancient Levantine history. The trouble of Egyptology and attached fields of study for the past 200 years has been exactly that the purpose of these sciences was to find proof of the biblical narrative. The result of that approach is the 100% divergence of biblical claims from actual archaelogical and historical evidence. Kenneth Kitchen so far has done nothing to change that. And due to his convictions it is doubtful that this is his aim at all. I would be surprised if he were working towards the desctruction of the very foundation of his own belief system. I call that a very thorough conflict of interests. Rohl may be fringe yet, but his methodology and the evidence he presents are sound. I cannot say that for Kitchen. BTW the much cited Finkelstein is as much "fringe" as is Rohl. Cush (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That may be so but we're getting a bit WP:SOAPy. I think we're agreed that a mention of Rohl stays, let's move on. Sourcing or more detail for Rohl or criticism of Rohl might be useful. Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is soapy. We've discussed that over and over. It's just one story out of the bible. It's relevancy is purely religious in nature. Precisely because the archaeological and historical confirmation for the biblical narrative is zero. And criticism of Rohl or his work belongs in the article about him. But I see no well-sourced refutation there. Cush (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Cush, "Religionists are not trustworthy when it comes to ancient Levantine history" is not an acceptable comment here. It's no different than "Black people are not trustworthy when it comes to Black history", or "Jews are not trustworthy when it comes to the Bible". It's bigotry, plain and simple. Desist, or I'll report you. -Lisa (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly, it's nothing like saying that, most obviously because religious belief is a choice. Cush's statement is unhelpful and untrue, but it's nothing like the bigotry you compare it to. Please don't pour oil onto fire, let's move on. Rd232 ^talk 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Our aim should be to present the majority scholarly view on the dating of the exodus. If ther's a significant minority view or views, those should be represented too. But my problem with Rohl is that he's not a significant minority view - it's just Rohl against the scholarly world. PiCo (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Significance isn't merely statistics - Rohl's theories have had quite widespread public airing in books and on TV etc. That counts for significance as well. And in any case we don't have any evidence as to how much or little support Rohl has in academia. Rd232 ^talk 10:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is Barbara J. Sivertsen ?

And when did this article become a book reviews board? Cush (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sivertsen is a geologist at the University of Chicago [1]. And that is indeed way too much further reading, much of it quite general on biblical studies, not on the Exodus specifically. Needs trimming. Rd232 ^talk 21:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs deleting more like. Since when is a geologist an expert on biblical studies? Does she read Hebrew, Egyptian? Has she read Noth, Von Rad, Redford? I don't accept her as a reliable source.PiCo (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

...the central hill country could no longer sustain a large nomadic population?

This has to do with the invasion of the Sea Peoples and the fall of Egyptian power. Can someone explain to me what Finkelstein meant by this? I just was reading a book about the fall of Egyptian power but that seems to have happened in the reign of Ramses III which is too late for the dates of the very large increase in settlements. I think the settlements started popping up around the time of Ramses II and he seemed to have beaten the Sea Peoples off. Also, where does he think all of these people came from? Up near the top of the talk page it says something like the the Late bronze there were 29 settlements and that jumped up to 250 in the early iron age. His second book after TBU says that the southern Levant never reached a breaking point where they couldn't produce enough food to explain the influx of peoples into the highlands. I'm not trying to prove him wrong here. I'm just not sure what he means since Google Books has shortened their copy of TBU and I can no longer access where this info came from. 69.254.76.77 (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Borrow it from the library. PiCo (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit I deleted

Jerrywickey (talk · contribs) recently made a fairly large edit on the Hyksos which I deleted as OR. He asked why on my talk page and I pointed him to WP:OR which he wasn't aware of. He's responded on my talk page but as it will be of general interest to other editors, I'm copying it below. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here it is: Dougweller,

Thank you for your prompt response.

I didn't read the Wikipedia article on opinions and no original research. I have only just read them; and I am sure they make a lot of sense. I would be glad to discuss this edit.

Do you think you could identify just which of my 19 statements are my opinion or my original research? Because I am having trouble doing so. All 19 are numbered below. I give reasons and justifications for each one. Can you find a single one you disagree with my reasoning?

It was my 17th statement that prompted my edit in the first place. The original article content contradicts itself on accepted research regarding the dates of the Hyksos presence in Egypt. Early in the fifteenth dynasty is clearly the first Hyksos ruler which is concurrent with the Santorini eruption, while the original content poses that "This date [Santorini eruption] does not, however, coincide with the period of the Hyksos." The misstatement is so blatant that it suggests bias on the part of the author.

The author of the original content may have meant to conjecture that because Hyksos kings are recored after the Santorini eruption, the Exodus could not have been concurrent with the eruption. He did not state this however. If this was his intention, the statement is very ambiguous, suggesting instead that "the period of the Hyksos" does not "coincide" with the Sandorina eruption.

Only my statements 3 and 10 pose anything that could be construed as conjecture, but they do so with full disclosure of that fact and I state them only so that the reader may understand why some identify the Exodus with the Hyksos.

If my statements are indeed inappropriate, you have a lot of other editing to do. Read the other articles on the Hyksos and the dates and their activities reported there.

If on the other hand, you feel that the dates and activites of the Hyksos as reported by other articles in Wikipedia are appropriate, perhaps I could reword a few sentences to eradicate the appearance of posing new inferences and then post the edit.

Let me know what you think.

--Jerrywickey (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

1) Various "early" Exodus dates have also been proposed, notably those which equate the Exodus story with the expulsion of theHyksos from Egypt c.1540 BCE. (from the original)

2) While many archeologists and historians dispute the authenticity of the Torah account of the Exodus entirely, (undisputed statement of fact)

3) the Egyption record of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt does coincide with many of the facts told in the Torah story. (arguably my opinion based on the facts below. I would be glad to concede this statement. )

4) There is evidence for the earliest appearance of the Hyksos by peaceful migration in the Eleventh dynasty of Egypt, and their departure under adverse circumstances in the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research)

5) This matches the span of time and conditions recorded in the Torah for Joseph's arrival in Egypt and his descendant's departure in the Exodus. (the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

6) The Hyksos rise to power seems to have taken place about the Thirteenth dynasty of Egypt.

(undisputed re statement of accepted research. Although, I could clarify that while Satkir-Har was the first Hyksos ruler, accepted research shows, their ascent to power was slow and preceded him by many years. )

7) These dates also coincide comfortably with the Torah account of the extreme favor of Joseph's clan with a local Egyptian ruler, and then his clan gaining in numbers until finally by the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt, (the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

8) under its last ruler Kamose, the Hyksos fell out of favor with the Egyptians. (undisputed re statement of accepted research. This could be more clear regarding the distinction between the information derived from the Torah and that of accepted research. However, doing so would expand the space given to the Hyksos hypotheses far beyond the space alloted to the other hypothesis, possibly suggesting favor.)

9) One account of this change in Egyptian attitude is found in the Carnarvon Tablet I, which relates the misgivings of the Theban ruler’s council of advisors when Kamose proposed moving against the Hyksos. (undisputed re statement of accepted research)

10) If Kamose was ill intended against the Hyksos but prevented from acting by other Egyptian factions, a theoretical scenario could easily be constructed which suggests factual circumstances consistent with both the Torah passages describing the Egyptian change to a harsh attitude toward the Israelites and the Egyptian record showing growing animosity between the Egyptian's and the Hyksos.

(conclusion drawn from the above facts to clarify to the reader the reason some identify the Hyksos with the Israelites. Arguably, this could labeled as the opinion of myself and others, but if this is disallowed, the reader is left wondering why the position is plausible to some. Explaining different points and presenting accepted research regarding those points of view is exactly Wikipedia's charter)

11) Modern scholarship usually assumes that the Hyksos were mostly Semites who came from Syria or Canaan and fled back after their departure from Egypt. (undisputed re statement of accepted research)

12) If so, this would also match the Torah description of the Israelite's final destination after the Exodus and some time wondering in the wilderness.

(the content of the Hebrew scriptures are not contested regarding the circumstances of Joseph's arrival and his descendant's departure from Egypt)

13) An obvious difference between the Torah account and the Egyptian record is that the Torah claims the Israelites left of their own will, while the Egyptian records claim the Israelites were kicked out, (undisputed re statement of fact for clarity)

14) however, this sort of duality is not uncommon in historical accounts written by opposite sides of the same conflict. (undisputed re statement of fact for clarity)

15) Also, if the Hyksos were in fact the Israelites of the Exodus, this would leave approximately a 250-year gap before the first appearance of proto-Israelite artefacts in the archaeological record. (undisputed re statement of accepted research)

16) Another alternative "late" date links the Exodus with the eruption of the Aegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BCE, on the grounds that it could provide a natural explanation of the Biblical "Plagues of Egypt" and some of the incidents of the Exodus, notably the crossing of the Red Sea. (from the original)

17) This date does coincide with the period of the Hyksos. (opposite the original.

Accepted research places the Hyksos in Egypt between 1900BC and 1500BC, exactly agreeing with the Torah account. Although I did not advance that connection.

I, however, do not comment on the challenges that the timing of the Santorini eruption imposes given the later Hyksos rulers. Perhaps the Santorini theory should be given its own paragraph and that clearly explained. )

18) The dates of the Hyksos do not agree with many contemporary Christian reckonings for the date of the Exodus. (undisputed re statement of fact. I think mentioning this is important, since the only people who are likely to read an article call "The Exodus" in involved in some way, for or against, a religious matter.)

19) However, some Christian academics are warming to the apparent similarities which offer a historical confirmation of the Biblical account. (undisputed re statement of fact)

Jerrywickey

I'm off to bed. I will say that even undisputed statements require citations, and too many of our articles lack them. People need to be able to verify them. Obviously we should mention the Hyksos hypothesis, giving it appropriate weight (read WP:NPOV}. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a reaction do you expect now?

First of all the term Hyksos does not refer to a homogeneous group of people. It is rather the grecianized form for an egyptian word that lumps together various groups of foreigners. So to say that "the" Hyksos came to Egypt in the 11th and left in the 17th dynasty is not very accurate. The rise in asiatic (Aamu) working population in Egypt throughout the 12th and 13th dynasties is due to a economic downturn in the Levant which led many to seek their livings in Egypt. However, this is normally not considered part of the Hyksos era, but actually a time where the Israelites story would fit in. The Hyksos era proper starts with the end of the 13th dynasty when Egypt has again broken apart into petty states that were ruled by various regional pharaohs with limited or no influence beyond their own borders. Then semitic immigrants/invaders (Amalekites?) took advantage of Egypt's weakness and established their rule in the eastern Delta as far as Iunu (Heliopolis), sandwiched between local states in the western Delta and further upstream. Only when a second wave of indoeuropean Hyksos (Caphtorim, Philistines/Pelasgians) came into Egypt they established a rule that had a further-reaching influence, with close trading (and political?) ties to the Aegean. This Greater Hyksos dynasty with the better-known figures such as Khyan, Yanassi, Apepi, and Khamudy also had ties (intermarriage) to the native 17th dynasy at Waset (Thebes). The whole political setup of the proper Hyksos period as well as the following 18th dynasty does in fact leave no room for a large group of Aamu leaving Egypt and establishing a state in Canaan in spite of Egyptian control of the area. To place the Jewish mythology in this particlular timeframe of Egyptian history is not supported by the archaeological and historical record of the time.

My regards, Cush (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a cold thread but the subject is interesting and apparently perennial. I'd just say for our OP, who seems quite polite and quite willing to contribute in a civilised manner, that what he needs to do is find published sources (that's where avoidance of Original Research comes in) for the complete view he's putting (which is the way to avoid the sin of "synthesis", which is the joining together of two well-researched viewpoints into a wholly new viewpoi9nt/theory for which no reliable source can be found).

My understanding of the Exodus is that the biblical story has too many weaknesses to be slated to any historical period. There's a biblical chronology which dates it to 480 years before Solomon builds the Temple, but that puts it into a period (c.1440 BC) which is impossible for all sorts of reasons (Egypt too strong, Egyptians in Canaan, no sign of widespread city destruction in Canaan, no trace of huge numbers of people moving through Sinai or at Kadesh Burnea, and on and on). If you abandon the bible's chronology, new problems arise: for the "late" Exodus, still no trace of widespread city destruction in Canaan, still a problem with the Egyptian control of Canaan, and more; for the "early" Exodus, problems with the Hyksos, the manner of who's leaving Egypt wasn't like that described in the bible, and again Canaan, which again was part of the Egyptian empire in 1550 BC.

There are also problems with Genesis/Exodus as literature - pace Kitchen, the Joseph story shows clear sign of having been written in the last half of the 1st millennium (Joseph is sold c.17th century BC for 20 silver shekels, but there were no silver shekels at that time, and he sells grain in Egypt, but grain was never sold in Egypt, which didn't have money of any kind until c.300 BC, and other points too). And in any case, if you decide that one part of the biblical story isn't true - the chronology, say, or the manner in which the ISraelites left Egypt - then where do you stop? PiCo (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, but if is not uncommon for scholars to say silly things because they have no conception of the source material or the general culture. (I am assuming you read this somewhere.) A good example are the footnotes to the standard edition of Josephus. The text (we just read it the morning) does not say shekels. Nor does the story with Joseph talk about coins. You mean to say silver and gold were not used at all in the period? What did they use?77.126.85.23 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Shekel means 'weight' and refers to a standardized unit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.164.64 (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That table

I'm sorry, but I find it very ugly and over-powering. And what's with the red and dark red stuff? I don't think it adds to the article. Dougweller (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

on a second thought, this table (if we are to use it) should go into the article about the biblical book. CUSH 22:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguity

This statement in the intro seems to be ambiguous:

"Biblical scholars almost universally dismiss the historical nature of the Exodus story." Does it mean that a literal interpretation of Exodus that every word in it is a true historical record is almost universally thought of by biblical scholars to be untrue or, that the text possesses any historicity at all, is almost universally dismissed? Most historical records, are not 100% to be relied upon, but that does not mean that they are worthless as sources for history. Even though an historical story accrues legendary accretions, it can have some historical basis. For instance in the English Civil War, Prince Rupert of the Rhine was widely reported to have a diabolical canine familiar, but this does not impact on the historicity of Prince Rupert. In the sources for the medieval period the numbers engaged in battles are routinely widely exaggerated but this does not mean that the battles never occured. And what does "almost universally" mean? 90%, 95%, 99%? Does it refer to views of the historians cited in the references or to their opinions as to the numbers of scholars who dismiss the historicity of Exodus? Does it include historians who have written about the subject after the date of the latest reference (Dever 2002)? Btw one of the refs - Watanabe - says "The scholarly consensus seems to be that the story is a brilliant mix of myth, cultural memories and kernels of historical truth." How can something not be historical if it has "kernels of historical truth"? Maybe a new formulation of this sentence is needed indicating that there may be some history in the Exodus account? Colin4C (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that the biblical scholars of the Oxford History of the Biblical World (1998), The New Cambridge Bible Commentary (2005), and biblical scholar James K Hoffmeier (published by OUP 1997) posit some historical basis to the Exodus story. Colin4C (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the opinion of Biblical scholars contributes to the determination of the historicity of the Exodus anyways. The task of determining historicity is exclusively in the realm of historians and archaeologists. And of course historians and archaeologists universally dismiss the historicity of the Exodus due to the complete absence of evidence, concrete as well as circumstantial. At the moment the only theory that leaves room for a historical Exodus is that of D.Rohl, all others are simply ridiculous in the attempt of rendering a coherent scenario. As I have said many times, nothing in the currently held positions on the Exodus within academia adds up. Nothing. CUSH 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I know all about archaeologists and their claims, being one myself...As such, and after 20 years digging up stuff I would say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...and that the best stuff ends on the spoil heap. But enough about me. There is a classic methodological statement of this by an archaeologist called Clarke who suggests that most ancient material culture didn't get into the archaeological record in the first place, that most of the stuff that did has been eroded away or otherwise destroyed, and that the remnant of the stuff that remains has been mostly missed or misinterpreted by archaeologists. As for history, some of the scholars who argue that biblical history is impossible argue that all history is impossible and that even today its difficult to figure out whats going on (see Grabbe (ed) 1997 Can a History of Israel be Written? "). Anyway if we agreed that the statement "Biblical scholars almost universally dismiss the historical nature of the Exodus story." is irrelevent as well as being ambiguous, misleading and untrue, then we might as well delete it. The alternative would be to engage in some endlessly caveated philosophical discourse on the nature of truth and what history is or is not. Btw I have no problem with a statement to the effect that archaeologists have found no archaeological evidence for the events of Exodus as that is self evidentally true. How that impacts on history is problematic. To my knowlege there is no archaeological evidence for the activities of Lawrence of Arabia in the Middle East but we are sure he existed...didn't he? Maybe he left some camp-fire debris on his wanderings...which would back up his dubious book which alleges he was out there... Colin4C (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course the sentence should read "historians and archaeologists almost universally dismiss the historical nature of the Exodus story." All there is, is the claims made in the holy book of a religious group. There are no traces of anything that the Bible narrates prior to the Divided Monarchy. Not only no archaeological evidence, but also no historical evidence. Nobody narrates what the Bible narrates, no confirmation at all. No sojourn in Egypt, no Exodus, no Conquest of Canaan, no Judges period, no United Monarchy period. The historical and archaeological record is devoid of material that would support any of this. And of course the fantastical stuff from Adam to Abraham is absent from the historical and archaeological record as well. In the current framework of the history of the Middle East is simply no room for the biblical Hebrews and Israelites, at least not in the currently held chronology. CUSH 23:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may two of the sources given to support the statement actually contradict it. Both Watanabe and Dever say in the refs given that there might be some historical basis for the the Exodus story. Dever allows for the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200. Dever is an archaeologist btw. So your above proposed revision is wrong. Only Christian or Jewish fundamentalists insist that every single word of Exodus be true, but they are marginal to historical enquiry. The fundamentalist is a straw man in this argument. In the historical argument as to the historicity of Exodus there are maximalists and minimilists and others in the middle ground. The minimilist position is not the majority view or the concensus view, so the statement is false. Colin4C (talk) 11:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Relevance to history - Yes or No?

The material below was deleted with the rationale that it should not include "what you think about its impact on US history." There are two questions this brings up: 1. Whether the well-documented facts that Moses has been an important symbol in U.S. history are valuable and relevant to this article; and 2, if the only reasonable conclusion is that scholars "universally dismiss the historical nature of the Exodus story," then why have it as an article at all? If, as most agree, its real significance is as a story, then mention of its symbolic importance to people throughout history is obviously notable. Few people, it seems, read the Bible as a purely abstract document with no relevance to the modern world.

"Although biblical scholars agree that the story is not to be taken literally, the Exodus and the prophet Moses has been an important symbol and inspiration for the creation of democracy, especially for American leaders from the Puritans up to recent presidents. The story gave meaning and hope to the lives of Pilgrims seeking religious and personal freedom, and inspired America’s founding fathers during the American Revolution and when they created their Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The story of Moses was quoted by Abraham Lincoln to help justify the Civil War, and in modern times has helped unify the civil rights movement."

In any case, as the cited article has numerous sources, it would be simple to add some. If you had read it, Cush, you would have seen that the added text has little to do with what I personally "think about its impact on US history." Maybe some others will comment on whether this material should be included.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Material culture" and Interpretation section

Two problems I spotted in the article. First, the phrase "material culture" is used throughout the article, without ever explaining what it means. Most commonly it is used in the form "proto-Israelite material culture". Without a clear definition lines like the following one from the Interpretation section would leave many scratching their heads:

• It would appear we have what may reasonably be described as proto-Israelite material culture transitions which can be dated with reasonable accuracy, and occur at unexpectedly late dates.

Based on the comments here it I'd hazard a guess that the phrase comes from edits by ThaThinker (talk). Perhaps he or someone else could convert the phrase into something less "jargony" per Wikipedia:Explain jargon. I note that material culture actually redirects to the Archaeological culture article, which seems to be a clearer phrase to me, however the article itself actually muddies the water for me on whether we should be using the term at all. I think the phrase needs to be changed, but I don't know how.

Also, "It would appear we have" and "what may reasonably be described as" seem to be redundant phrases that both serve the same purpose in the line above; to weaken the assertion that follows. There is no citation for that paragraph, so it's not clear where this came from, or if it is original research or a case of synthesis, neither of which would be good. Furthermore the Interpretation section is loaded with weasel words that need sources and some other unsourced claims. I have marked a number of items there with "fact" and "views needing attribution" tags.

This doesn't seem to be a hot issue of debate, but a good definition of material culture: material culture is the artifacts, both portable and non-portable, that are identified with a given archaeological site and stratum. The relationship between material culture and ethnicity or social culture is not always clear or easy to define. In modern Hebrew material culture is used and an exact translation of the English phrase: תרבות חומרית Material culture is the term generally used in archaeological literature. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the "Interpretations" section just be deleted? As noted above, there's a distinct lack of citations, and doesn't seem particularly neutral. The third paragraph is definitely the worst, as it constantly uses "we" in a strange fashion. Lord Seth (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think deleting is the way to go here. It doesn't say anything new, rather it seems like a last ditch effort for the author to plug his/her opinions once again. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I deleted the aforementioned "third paragraph". The Interpretations section probably still needs attention but I got rid of the worst of it. Lord Seth (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We still have "Most archaeologists working on the territories of ancient Israel now support chronologies differing from the biblical Conquest of Canaan by some centuries, and if it turns out they are right, we may have to revise our historical view of the Exodus accordingly. In spite of what appears to be a discrepancy of archaeology with the Bible, the work of archaeologists does suggest the reality of the overall 'sweep of events' - e.g. an arrival in Canaan by this proto-Israelite material culture some centuries before the time that Solomon and David are believed to have lived, and Egypt had been known to enslave Semites." etc which is simply an editor's OR or maybe WP:SYN and certainly not encyclopedic, I'll delete that now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of controversial over what constitutes slavery, in general, and what constituted slavery in Egypt, in particular. Some have proposed that there were hereditary (ethnic) gangs/unions of workers who worked on a contract basis for the Egyptian hierarchy. They came in off the desert and were happy to take work, and were able to negotiate many of their terms, although there was definitely some "company store" type of debt arrangement that made it hard for these groups to leave again without having completed whatever enormous multi-generational project they were assigned to. At any rate, I'd be careful about using the word "slave" here unless you can demonstrate that people were actually bought and sold, either as groups or as individuals.LeValley 20:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Dating the Exodus section

I reorganised the material in this section wi9th the aim of making it flow better - no major changes to content. One thing I noticed is that it talks about the problems with identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, but never describes that theory. I think it should. PiCo (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this "theory" should not be elaborated on overmuch. The fact that James Cameron made a documentary about it does not change the fact that it is the least probable version of all. The Hyksos rulers were not Semites but Pelasgians (Greeks/Indoeuropeans), and the whole Hyksos story has nothing in common with the biblical Israelite Sojourn-in-Egypt story whatsoever. · CUSH · 07:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this page is often edited by "literalist" Christians, and many of the web citations seem to be "fundamentalist"-type material. I don't think that most scholars accept the "early" date at all. If one looks in most reference works, dates in the 1200-1300 range are preferred. I note this site uses the "1300-1200" range: The Exodus, 1300-1200 BCE Ryoung122 07:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Eating Unleavened Bread

In the Cultural Significance section it says: "On that night, the Israelites were instructed only to eat unleavened bread as they would be leaving in haste."

I'm certainly no expert, but I thought that the unleavened bread was eaten as they were fleeing. Maybe it was '...prepare unleavened bread...'? Glkanter (talk) 06:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ex.12:8 says "eat". PiCo (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of Exodus moved from Moses

This section is quite large and was in the article on Moses. I am moving it here for possible clipping into this article. There is now a link back to this article's sub-section on the date of the Exodus from Moses. Hope the move is OK. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Date of the Exodus

Main article: Dating the Exodus

There is a large variety of estimates as to the supposed date of the Exodus, with suggestions ranging from the 17th to 13th centuries BCE.

• Some historiographers have suggested the Hyksos era (1648–1540 BCE), as mentioned above;

• Others suggest 1444 BCE in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt, extrapolated from the Biblical assertion that King Solomon commenced work on the temple in the fourth year of his reign 480 years after the Exodus took place.
• Yet others place it around 1400s BCE, since the Amarna letters, written ca. forty years later to Pharaohs Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) indicate that Canaan was being invaded by the "Habiru" — whom some scholars in the 1950s to 1970s interpret to mean "Hebrews". However, the Hebrew patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are also recorded as having conducted military activities in Canaan some centuries before the Exodus.
• A frequent suggestion is the Egyptian Empire period, in particular the 13th century BCE, as the pharaoh of that time, Ramesses II, is commonly considered to be the pharaoh with whom Moses squabbled — either as the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus' himself, or the preceding 'Pharaoh of the Oppression', who is said to have commissioned the Hebrews to "(build) for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses." These cities are known to have been built under both Seti I and Rameses II, thus possibly making his successor Merneptah the 'Pharaoh of the Exodus.' This is considered plausible by those who view the famous claim of the Year 5 Merneptah Stele (ca. 1208 BCE) that "Israel is wasted, bare of seed," as propaganda to cover up this king's own loss of an army in the Red Sea. Taken at face value, however, the primary intent of the stela was clearly to commemorate Merneptah's victory over the Libyans and their Sea People allies. The reference to Canaan occurs only in the final lines of the document where Israel is mentioned after the city states of Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam perhaps to signal Merneptah's disdain or contempt for this new entity. In Exodus, the Pharaoh of the Exodus did not cross into Canaan since his Army was destroyed at the Red Sea. Hence, the traditional view that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of either the Oppression or the Exodus is affirmed by the basic contents of the Merneptah Stele. Under this scenario, the Israelites would have been a nation without a state of their own who existed on the fringes of Canaan in Year 5 of Merneptah. This is suggested by the determinative sign written in the stela for Israel — "a throw stick plus a man and a woman over the three vertical plural lines" — which was "typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic groups or peoples without a fixed city-state," such as the Hebrew's previous life in Goshen.
• An unverified theory places the birth and/or adoption of Moses during a minor oppression in the reign of Amenhotep III, which was soon lifted, and claims that the more well-known oppression occurred during the reign of Horemheb, followed by the Exodus itself during the reign of Ramesses I. This is supported by the Haggadah of Pesach, which suggests that they were oppressed and then re-oppressed quite a few years later by Pharaoh. The Bible and Haggada suggest that the Pharaoh of the Exodus died in year 2 of his reign, matching Ramses I. The fact that Pi-Tum and Raamses were built during the reign of Ramses I also supports this view. Seti I records that during his reign the Shasu warred with each other, which some see as a reference to the Midyan and Moab wars. Seti's campaigns with the Shasu have also been compared with Balaam's exploits.
• A more recent and non-Biblical view places Moses as a noble in the court of the Pharaoh Akhenaten (See below). A significant number of scholars, from Sigmund Freud to Joseph Campbell, suggest that Moses may have fled Egypt after Akhenaten's death (ca. 1334 BCE) when many of the pharaoh's monotheistic reforms were being violently reversed. The principal ideas behind this theory are: the monotheistic religion of Akhenaten being a possible predecessor to Moses' monotheism, and the "Amarna letters", written by nobles to Akhenaten, which describe raiding bands of "Habiru" attacking the Egyptian territories in Mesopotamia.
• David Rohl, a British historian and archaeologist, author of the book "A Test of Time", places the birth of Moses during the reign of Pharaoh Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV of the 13th Egyptian Dynasty, and the Exodus during the reign of Pharaoh Dudimose (accession to the throne around 1457–1444), when according to Manetho "a blast from God smote the Egyptians".

I'm moving all this to Pharaohs in the bible

Latest Archaeological Finds

An article from the Supreme Council of Antiquities discusses the latest finds here. They confirm the accounts of the pharaohs and leave no room for the Exodus to have happened before the reign of Ramesses II. The archaeological evidence seems to support the Exodus being based on the expulsion of the Hyksos. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know French. This is English Wikipedia. Could you give a brief explanation of why there's "no room" for the Exodus to have happened before the reign of Ramesses II? For example, why could it not have happened at the end of the 6th Dynasty? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry. Go to this site and copy/paste the url. You get a reasonable translation of the page. I'm not saying Zahi Hawass is right, but he is credible and represents the current state of knowledge. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But that's entirely based on the idea that Thera had something to do with the Exodus. Which is sort of circular reasoning. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything about the current dating of the Exodus is circular reasoning. And the absence of Hebrews in Egypt except in the 12th and 13th Dynasties seems to be no problem for the folks conducting the reasoning. Neither the Hyksos period nor the following dynasties (18+19) had any relevant numbers of Aamu dwelling in Egypt (and the Hyksos elite themselves were mainly Indo-Europeans and not Semites).Cush (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

I moved a direct quote out of the lede and into the reference; I don't think a direct quotes should be part of the lede. Flash 04:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Well I won't object, but it's lost in a footnote - I'll make an indirect paraphrase in the lead and move it into the body of the article. PiCo (talk) 04:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Reaver, I reverted your most recent edit: you wanted to reference Kitchens as a conservative scholar who believes in Mosaic authorship: but he's only one such (there are, e.g., Hoffmeier, Provans, and others), so that you are in effect narrrowing down the sources to just one. And the sense of the original version i9s exactly the same in any case. Better therefore to use the Oxford Commentary, which is a tertiary source from a mainstream publisher - nobody can argue with it. PiCo (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

in my opinion, the viewpoint that some scholars view the narrative as historical should be mentioned. Flash 03:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I made a mistake: I see now that your edit is about both Mosaic authorship AND the literal reality of the story. I wonder though whether Kitchen actually does believe that everything happened as described - that the water of the Red Sea parted into two walls, for example: because what he says is this: "...after crossing the lakes section of yam suph the Hebrews headed..." (i.e., he argues that the Israelites crossed a lake, not a sea, implying that the image of two walls of water is incorrect, although in fact that's literally what the bible says). This is on page 263 of Reliability. As for how the Israelites crossed the lake, Kitchen suggests elsewhere that this was due to wind blowing the lake waters back - there's biblical backing for this, but it can't account for the explicit description of a wall of water on each side. And the plagues: on page 251 Kitchen gives a table suggesting various natural causes. Without going any further, it seems to me that Kitchen is arguing that there are natural explanations for everything in the Exodus story. This is exactly what the Oxford authors are warning against - if you remove the miracles, you remove God, and the bible ceases to have any meaning. Anyway, I'll have a go at accommodating the Kitchen pov. PiCo (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Anachronism Errors

I haven't taken the time to read the books cited for the "Anachronism" section, but it is clear that the editor either misinterpreted the authors' meanings, or the sources cited are not reliable. The assertion that there were no enemies for a Pharoah of Egypt to fear at the time is ludicrous! Has the author never heard of the Hittites or the Sea Peoples? And the idea that Ramesses (almost universally accepted to represent Pi-Ramesses) is more consistent with 1st Millenium BCE geography is totally wrong, given that the city was abandoned at the end of the 2nd Millenium! (If the Book of Exodus was written at a late date, it would be most unusual for the Hebrew writer to include a city that had fallen into historical obscurity centuries before!)

Before I remove the section and its specious claims, I'd like to give other editors a chance to voice their opinions or defend the section. DoctorEric (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do take time to read the books cited - the authors are probably more knowledgeable than you are. If, however, they've been misinterpreted or misquoted, then feel free to edit. PiCo (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that, regardless of what the source's authors may (or may not) have said, the information in this section of the Wikipedia article is patently inaccurate. (Please see the links I included above that support my position.) If anachronisms are to be identified, they have to be real! DoctorEric (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The links you give are just other Wikipedia articles. You need scholarly sources. Soggin and Thompson are leading scholars, and the third source is a BASOR article. Please read them. PiCo (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I read two of the cited sources, and I believe more than ever that the section needs work. Gary Practico's article admits that the identification of Tell el- Kheleifeh with biblical Ezion-geber is far from certain, as well as stating that the dates of the earliest portions of the settlement aren't known. Such a shaky foundation makes for a poor argument, and to include it as evidence of a clear anachronism is misleading at best. John Van Seters' essay is a better source, although not an unbiased one. The author seems to trumpet evidence supporting his position, while ignoring inconvenient evidence (no mention of the monolith to Ramesses II, for example); and he will admit that the meaning of a Hebrew phrase is uncertain, then launch into a criticism of a common interpretation as if it is the only one. I think the "anachronisms" cited in this article are adequately defended to remain, although giving answer to them is probably also warranted. I haven't been able to locate a copy of Soggin's book yet, and I trust you when you say he's an expert. Still, I wonder (in light of the objections I raised earlier) if he was misquoted or taken out of context by the previous editor. It won't be first on my list of needed edits, but I think the Anachronism section lacks neutrality, and disputable claims ought to be answered. DoctorEric (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On the amounts of people mentioned in Exodus and Numbers

I would like to point out that the word for 'thousand' in very ancient Hebrew has gone through an evolution; it evolved into '1000' whereas before, it originally meant 'ox' (one ox). alef/aleph later on evolved into representing group/family group, as in 'extended family', and only very later on came to represent 'thousand'. Thus, if we see the number of each individual tribe counted, these should not be translated as 'thousands' but as 'families'. Then we get a far more down to earth estimate, and it also explains the number of able bodied men, ready to fight. So, for example in Numbers 1:39, we find NOT '62 thousand and 7 hundred', but we find '62 family groups having 700 able bodied men' Interestingly, we can then date later additions to the text which seem to add up the mistranslated numbers. If one adds 62 families and 700 men, from one tribe, and then a dds 40 families and 500 men (Numbers 1:33), a person who lived in the time of the original text would add up '102 families and 1200 men'...whereas a person living 500 years later, and only familiar with the meaning '1000' for alef/aleph, would add them up as '63.200 men'. This alone gives us ample proof of the mosaic peculiarity of the texts...one part is very old, and the next part can easily be written hundreds of years later.82.168.5.144 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The mistranslation of "eleph" is given brief mention in the article already, but given that there have been numerous scholars to address the issue (even if they sometimes come up with different estimates of the Israelite population), I agree that it needs more than half a sentence. When I have more time (and references in front of me) I'll edit the section to better reflect this interpretation. DoctorEric (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As promised, I have edited the section as proposed. Before making changes to the current version, please discuss here. DoctorEric (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

My changes were very minor - deleted a non-reliable source (which wasn't essential to the information added) and rearranged material for better fluency.PiCo (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain further my changes to your edit on numerology: the basic facts of ancient Hebrew numerological beliefs (Babylonian/Persian to Hellenistic) are well established - that specific numbers held specific meanings is not controverted, and there is thus no need to use qualifiers such as "might". This is a rather abstruse area of course and the sources are not immediately available, but they may be in some of the better tertiary sources such as the Anchor series or even Mercer. The question of why certain numbers held certain meanings is rather less settled - the number 7, for example, indicates divine completion, but just why it does so is not known. Similarly 6 indicates impending destruction. Guillaume's work is the place to start, but see also Barr.PiCo (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I am not passionate about that last bit on the numerology. Rather, I was restoring some of the material you had edited out (of someone else's contribution) when you made your recent edit. I think that it became confusing when you removed the reference to numerology, since the way it is currently written (s/p your edit) makes it seem like the two parts of the sentence are referring to the same "code" in the text, which they are not - as evidenced by two separate citations. As before, I'm not passionate about it, so I'll leave it up to you to improve it, if you think that more accuracy is desirable on such a minor point.

I do have to take you to task on your editing of the "eleph" translation portion. The whole reason the 1st editor started this thread was that the subject was inadequately explained, and you'll see that I posted a month ago my agreement with him and my intent to expand the subject beyond the half-a-sentence that it had received. After I did so, you edited it back down to a fragment of a run-on sentence. While I can shorten-up a bit the portion that I had added, it clearly needs more than you left to be both clear and complete; the "better fluency" that you desire should not come at the cost of content. Finally, POV neutrality is best served by listing the mainstream view first (and identifying it as such), then listing another (well-documented, and not contradictory to the 1st) view second, and then the more obscure views last.

(BTW, I agree with you in retrospect that the one reference you removed does not fit the definition of a "reliable source." I did like it, though, since it was well-written in layman's terms, and well-referenced itself. It would have been a great resource for less-academic sorts who wanted to learn more about the subject without digging into Humphreys or the others who have written about it in (often dry) scholarly journals over the years. Do you think adding that link into the "See Also" section of the page would be reasonable?) DoctorEric (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One of my major concerns has been to prevent this whole section (and not just the "numbers" part of it) from expanding out of all proportion. this might lie behind many of my edits. If you feel the various explanations of "eleph" and of the gematria/numerology distinction needs more detail, the answer might be to move it down to a footnote. (Yes, you're right of course, the explanation of the very precise figure in Numbers is a gematria, and the explanation of the rounded figure in Exodus is a numerology, and they're two different things).

Frankly, I don't like the entire section. I'd like to replace it with a new approach reviewing some of the major contemporary scholarship. There's a lot of interesting work out there, and this obsession with bible-as-history gets us heading in the wrong direction - as Carol Meyers says (not sure we actually quote her, but she wrote an important recent commentary on Exodus). PiCo (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of the Biblical text

This article is very paradoxical. It seems to set up the straw man that Exodus is a work of history which is 100% true in order to knock it down again and inter alia bait unwary fundamentalists who venture here. Reading Exodus as a literal history which is either 100% true or 100% false is a nonsense. Almost all documents that historians study are not guaranteed 100% true in every respect, but this does not invalidate them as historical sources. Exodus contains myth and poetry and injunctions and stories as well as historical bits. Positing that it was written as a history, (based on extensive research into the Egyptian archives?) is just one (bizarre) interpretation. Also, in the ancient world, events which happened long ago were half-remembered in collective memory transmitted in legend and song. Such "mnemohistory" is an active area of research by biblical historians and scholars. It's not a case of a binary "Absolutely True" or "Absolutely False" judgement. Colin4C (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is not about the biblical Book of Exodus. It is about the alleged event described therein, and about the case for or against the historical reality of the event. What exact percentage of the narrative is accurate or fictitious is unimportant. CUSH 18:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Which "alleged event" are you talking about? Exodus is a very long book containing lots of "events". Is it your idea that Exodus was deliberately written as a history but that the author got his "facts" wrong in the light of the methodology of modern archaeology and science? If that case almost all ancient texts fail the test. The author was not a 21st century historian, so it is no big deal that he "fails" to provide adequate proof. Or is your idea of giving a modern historical reading of reading a book written for whatever reason: historical, moralistic, legal, mythological? Just because an ancient text does not have the standards of proof required by 21st century archaeology and history does not mean it is "untrue". There was a strong oral culture in those days, with traditions handed down from generation to generation, forming legends, which were often were based on something which actually happened. This article sets up a straw man that only naive fundamentalists believe in and then knocking it down in the name of "history" and "archaeology". As such it is a redundant POV philosophical polemic. Colin4C (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cush, I think Colin4C is agreeing with yuou - he's saying that the Book of Exodus isn't history. My own impression is that this article goes into far too much detail trying to demonstrate that point - all the stuff about the date of this fictional event is pointless. But there's a great deal to be said about what the last four books of the Torah are actually doing. PiCo (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely an "absence of evidence" thing. There's no strong evidence for the Exodus now, but if something was discovered tomorrow, it wouldn't contradict anything we know. Not much -- whether written or archaeological -- survives 3400 years. 165.91.172.194 (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this is an "evidence for something else" thing. We do have 3400 years old material. But there is no trace of the biblical Exodus in the archaeological and historical record of the time frame in question according to the conventional chronology of Egypt and the Levant. Rather, there is evidence for a sequence of events and periods that are different from the biblical tale. · CUSH · 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What exactly IS the time frame in question? And what sequence of events is there evidence for, and what is the evidence involved? And how do we know this isn't a "Hebrews said vs. Pharaoh said" thing? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hebrews said vs. Pharaoh said" ??? Are you trying to be funny? Just read up on Egyptian history of the 14th to 20th Dynasty and then we'll talk. Even this very article holds more info on the issue than you seem to know. · CUSH · 18:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The point of the section headed "Dating the Exodus" is that it's proven impossible to find a time-frame that would fit the biblical story. The bible itself suggests a date around 1440 BC for leaving Egypt, with 1400 BC for the arrival in Canaan - but there's no archaeological evidence to support this idea. Albright, who was no idiot, accepted this and thought he'd found archaeological evidence for a departure/arrival around 1240-1200, although he wasn't arguing for exact dates - but his evidence has since been shown to be full of faults. Nowdays the vast majority of archaeologists and textual scholars (those who study the textual history of the bible) regard the Exodus as a fiction, with perhaps some small germ of truth at the most, and the theories about the Hyksos, or a volcanic eruption, or whatever, are very much restricted to the level of Discovery Channel. PiCo (talk) 04:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no question that the Egyptian history is not thorough. For example, Egyptians deified the sun. Nevertheless, their history never mentions that their sun-god was eclipsed by the moon. Why? We cannot be sure, but an interesting theory would be that the Egyptians did record their eclipses, but that all references were stored in the Library at Alexandria. If so, we can easily hold that the Egyptians also recorded the Exodus but that it was all burned in Alexandria. In short, Egyptian history very sparse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.52.10 (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow this article is far from being POV neutral

How are phrases such as "it's inappropriate" to hold Exodus as an historical event or "only conservative scholars" believe Exodus actually happened POV neutral? Last time I checked 1.5 billion+ Christians, 1.2 billion+ Muslims, and religious Jews, hold the story to be true - or at least plausible. Furthermore, there are actually a lot of legitimate historical scholars that debate over whether something like the Exodus (minus perhaps the miracles) actually happened. To state that it is inappropriate to consider miracles as historical presupposes that miracles do not exist - which is far from POV neutral. Furthermore to presuppose that only a few "conservative scholars" hold the Exodus to be an historical event is far from true. Now perhaps not all of the 2.5+ billion Abrahamic religious adherents believe the Exodus to be historical, there is a significant number who do. I would dare say that the 35%+ of the American public (population 300 million+) that believe the bible is the true word of God, along with plenty of devout followers in Central and South America, would state that they believed the Exodus to be true. I am not saying that the article should come from the point of view that the Exodus did indeed occur - for that too would be inappropriate as plenty of people disagree with this - but it is equally inappropriate to dismiss the belief in the Exodus as being only held by a few "conservative scholars" and the belief in the Exodus as actual history to be "inappropriate." Unless there is objection, I'll be making a few edits to at least the introduction of the article to indicate that there is a legitimate debate on the issue (with cites of course), that there is nothing "inappropriate" about believing in the Exodus (simply by removing the POV phrase in question) and indicate that adherents (i.e. those who are actually believers) to the Abrahamic religions, believe that there is at least some of the Exodus is historical. 68.49.150.115 (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase "scholars agree" at the top of the article pretty much covers your objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.60.241.209 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, Wikipedia attracts people with agendas. I think the best approach is NOT to remove the sections that you find biased or engage in an edit-war, but to temper them by changing language that is absolute (e.g. replace "only conservative scholars believe" with "believed primarily by conservative scholars", or something similar; instead of "modern scholars believe," use "many modern scholars believe;" etc.). Also, adding opposing viewpoints is appropriate, as long as they are A) well supported by reliable sources you site, and B) you don't employ the exclusive language you oppose (so you might add a paragraph that starts, "Critics of this viewpoint point out that...") DoctorEric (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

45% of the American population doesn't accept the Theory of Evolution; that doesn't meant that it is appropriate to do so. I agree with Eric that softening the language is fine, but we really shouldn't be worried about expressing the fact that taking the Exodus as a real, historical event isn't taken seriously by archaeologists and the like, just as we shouldn't be worried about expressing the fact that taking the moon landing as a hoax isn't taken seriously by cosmologists, etcSuperAtheist (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag & NPOV

I've inserted a pov tag. The last paragraph of the intro is far from NPOV, it presents the view of an essay as fact. For example, there are some scholars who view the exodus as historical, and yet the POV that the exodus is not historical is presented as fact. Flash 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. To make discussion easier I'll paste that sentence here:

While the form of the story is historical, it is best seen as theology set in a narrative framework, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Israelites; it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as history.{REF: Carol A. Redmount, Bitter Lives: Israel In And Out of Egypt, in "The Oxford History of the Biblical World" (ed. Michael D. Coogan, OUP, 1998), p.64 (see full argument on pp. 63-64) END REF}

I think you're misreading what the sentence says - it's saying that the burning bush and such aren't historical, but it's not saying that no Exodus occurred - in fact Redmount believes the exact opposite on that score.PiCo (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The problems I see with the paragraph is that it presents the view of one person's essay as fact. Opinions are not attributed, but simply stated as fact. For instance, "it is best seen as theology set in a narrative framework", and "inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as history". I suspect there are scholars who would dispute that. And saying that it is inappropriate to treat it as history implies that it never happened. Flash 15:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford History isn't "one person" as you say, it's the scholarly mainstream, which is why it's presented as it is. But what contrary sources can you give us? PiCo (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The source is an essay by Carol A. Redmount. Oxford history is a nice source to have, but why should its opinion be cited as fact? I found this source: The Exodus Case: New Discoveries Confirm the Historical Exodus, and I'm sure Hoffmeier and Kitchen also believe the narratives to be historical. The oxford source even says "conservative scholars" accept the historicity of Exodus. Flash 01:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look As for Hoffmeier and Kitchen, yes, they do believe that the Exodus happened, but so does Redmount in the Oxford History. That's not what she's writing about. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok I found the book on Amazon. Naturally I haven't read it. But just as an initial reaction, I see that the author is a "a research scientist in the field of medicine and DNA-research." In other words, he has no qualifications as an archaeologist or biblical scholar. Since these are the two ways of approaching the subject as a specialist, he's not really a reliable source. You'd be better sticking to Hoffmeier and Kitchen, who are genuine and respected archaeologists, and for biblical scholars people like Provan and Tremper. PiCo (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, he does not seem to be qualified or a suitable source when there are biblical scholars and archaeologists who can be cited. Carol seems to be saying that the Exodus cannot be viewed as history, which to me is another way of saying it never happened. Flash 01:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Redmount says explicitly that something did happen, to give rise to the Exodus story. She puts the original event in the 13th century BC, I think. PiCo (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

But she does not believe the Exodus narrative itself to be historical, does she? That's a different view from Hoffmeier and Kitchen. Flash 11:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Her concern is with the way the miraculous elements are meant to be read - she says they're not history, but meant to show the strength of the God of Israel. Kitchen agrees that they're not historical, but he looks for natural explanations (so that in a sense they really did happen, but were misunderstood). For a good history of the Exodus from an Evangelical point of view, you can't do better than Provan's History of Israel. Getting to you central point, Redmount thinks that there really was some movement of Semitic peoples from Egypt to Palestine, and that they may well have experienced oppression in Egypt, may have been led by a law-giving prophet, and so on before entering Israel at around the Late Bronze collapse. That's also the view (so far as I can put it together) off William Dever, who bases it on archaeology rather on biblical study (though that's not quite accurate - both Redmount and Dever use both approaches). This second view, the Redmount-Dever one, is the mainstream. The Evangelical view of Kitchen and Provan is in a distinct minority. The Evangelical view holds that the Exodus happened pretty much as described, but it tries to explain away the miracles as natural events. The third view, that not only is the Exodus story an accurate record but the miracles are true, is outside of serious scholarship - it's associated with people like Ron Wyatt. There's also a fourth possible view, that the Exodus never happened at all - this has quite a few followers, about the same number as the Evangelical, but has trouble explaining the Exodus references found elsewhere in the bible, in the early prophets.PiCo (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Is there perhaps a tertiary source which can be cited that says Carol's POV is mainstream? Right now, the lead just cites the Carol oxford source as fact. As for the miracle sentence, the lead currently says that it is inappropriate to treat it as history, which implies that it is inappropriate to believe it happened. Is it the view of Hoffmeier/Kitchen that the miracles did not happen? Flash 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find what you ask for, i.e. a statement in a reliable tertiary source saying that such-and-such is the majority view. I'll set out here summaries of the way three good tertiary sources deal with the questions of the nature of the Exodus story (history or theology), and the way the miraculous elements are to be read.

The Mercer Commentary on the Bible is an Evangelical source, and quite well-known. It says: (a) Exodus "is neither a unity nor in any sense a composition of Moses (p.68 - which means it wasn't written by an eyewitness); (b) "The historicity of the events in Exodus...is hardly to be doubted" (p.69 - so are we to regard the miracles? read on...); (c) "Every piece of the book a single theological assertion: that God comes to his people and rescues and guides them." (p.70, and exactly what Redmount says, but no specific answer to the question of whether the miracles are historical facts).

The Oxford Bible Commentary is not Evangelical. The entry on Exodus is by Walter Houston. (a) Is Exodus a work of history? Answer: Exodus "portrays the entire sweep of events as the direct result of the purpose and intervention of God" (p.67 - the Mercer author and Redmount wouldn't disagree); (b) How about the miracles? "Although people have sometimes tried to understand parts of the story as heightened accounts of natural sequences of events...this flies in the face of the basic intention of the text, which is to relate the glorious works of God" (p.70 - same as Redmount, but the Mercer didn't directly confront this issue).

The Eerdman's Bible Commentary is a respectable, scholarly publication using big-name contributors, tho I have to confess I've never heard of William D. Johnstone, who wrote the entry on Exodus. He says that a "strong case" can be made for Exodus being composed in the 6th century (p.72 - therefore not by an eyewitness and in fact composed long after the events); he never explicitly explains how the miracles are to be regarded, but his approach is clear: the pillars of cloud and fire, for example, may be visual signs of the presence of God, or they may be cultic, the accompaniment of the incense burnt before Yahweh, but he doesn't suggest that they might be exactly what the bible describes (p.87). All in all he agrees with Redmount.

So to sum up, all three say that Exodus is primarily theology, written as history - which is what out article says, quoting Redmount. The Evangelical one says explicitly that everything is true, but doesn't directly confront the question of whether the miracles are historically as well as theologically true (it seems to me that the author has sensed a contradiction and is unwilling to come to terms with it - if Exodus was not written by Moses, and is not a unity, then how do we know that the events are historically, rather than theologically, true?)

Doing this research, it occurs to me that this sort of approach might be useful in the article - canvassing various approaches to the Exodus. It could replace the long section on historicity, which is a bit overbearingly one-sided. PiCo (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I just realised that I didn't answer your question about whether Kitchen and Hoffmeier interpret the miracles. I can't find any mention of the miracles in Hoffmeier - he concentrates on evidence that the Israelites were really in Egypt as the bible describes (i.e., his concern is historicity of the wider tradition). Kitchen also largely ignores the miracles, but: (a) he plumps for interpreting the Red Sea as meaning a lake, which implies that he rules out the two-walls-of-water image which is quite explicit in the text; (b) he implicitly interprets the Rock of Meribah incident, where Moses brought forth water by striking the rock, and the miraculous quail in the wilderness, as natural phenomena (p.273 of "Reliability"). PiCo (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to find all those sources. I've found a source which summarizes the main theories regarding Exodus : [2]. The article currently says that the book of Exodus is theology rather than history; I must admit I'm still unsure about what this means, would there be a simpler way of saying it?

The source that I've found says: "some scholars credit Moses with writing the book. Some think it is put together centuries after." (page 454) The historicity of Exodus is said to be a "complex issue" (page 459)

As for the miracles sentence, "it is inappropriate to approach it as history", does it mean it is inappropriate to believe these actually happened? Flash 17:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

James Hoffmeier (Ancient Israel in Sinai, 2005) states on page 108-109: "From a phenomenological perspective, the evidence adduced here demonstrates that the theophany of the sea crossing occurred in a specific geographical location and at a particular time in history. Neither the phenomenologist of religion, nor anyone else for that matter, is equipped to explain how the event happened or what might be the source behind it. Here people are welcomed to speculate. However, I do not think they are free to banish the event from the realm of history because the nature of the event cannot be explained to fit a modern or postmodern worldview." My take on the meaning of that quotation is that Hoffmeier believes the sea crossing happened and it was a miracle. --CarlDrews (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(Moved CarlDrews's post down because it interrupted the post by Flash ). CarlDrews, that's a useful quote from Hoffmeier. Apparently there is such a thing as Phenomenology (archaeology), although I'm not sure he's using the word in that sense - I think he simply means that he's presented material evidence from archaeology that supports the reality of a historical Exodus - specifically, he believes he's identified the place where the Red Sea crossing occurred. Flash , the Tyndale is an Evangelical source, and very conservative - but yes, the statement that some scholars think the Torah was written by Moses and some don't, is on the money - but the majority is with the "not by Moses" side. As for miracles, I think Carol Redmount is saying that they're a matter of faith - they don't leave traces in the archaeological record (which is pretty much what Hoffmeier is saying). PiCo (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

My Vote: Regardless of discussion above, the introduction to current article (beginning "With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct,...") seems clearly to be biased towards wiki-author's belief; i.e. not neutral.

Furthermore, _plagiarizing_ Carol Redmount's claim that [unnamed and unreferenced] "scholars of all critical schools agree" on one interpretation ( (implying "all scholars"), and listing _only that essay as a reference_, hardly makes a defensible Encyclopedic statement of verifiable 'fact'. (The essay itself is undermined by its own presentation; e.g. Redmount mentions a 'dissonance of scholarly opinion', then immediately goes on to make opinionated claims in authoritative tones...) The fact is that some people (unknown number) choose to believe in the technique of literary deconstruction, while others (unknown number, but not just 'conservative scholars') choose to believe that a culture's historical record is more likely than not to be true.

Even Redmount concludes that 'belief or disbelief in [the historical truth] of the Exodus narrative [comes down to] a matter of faith." -Libertas (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Libertas for your contribution. Just a few points: (1)The introductory sentence points out that a majority of scholars believe that the Exodus story in the bible is not historical, and a minority believe that it is - this is supported by a highly reputable tertiary source; (b)plagiarism is the use of material without attribution - obviously the material from Redmount is attributed; (c)while I don't doubt your sincerity, you should consider whether you're perhaps reacting to a statement which offends your personal belief system.PiCo (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which tertiary source are you talking about? Furthermore, the paragraph is referenced, but NOT attributed. Carol's viewpoint is presented as fact. Flash 17:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Libertas that the opening sentence is not POV neutral, but PiCo is absolutely correct that the concensus opinion favors the composite theory. Here's a proposed rephrasing of that 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph that would make it sound a little less biased:

"Most modern scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence, the primary exception being those conservative scholars who believe in Mosaic authorship of the Torah."

Just a thought on another point touched on above, regarding miracles: While I don't know his personal theology, it is interesting that some categorize Prof. Kitchen as an "evangelical" scholar, given (as PiCo points out) that he tends to explain miracles in terms of natural events. In Kitchen's defence, he does make a good argument that ascribing to a diety responsibility for an event needn't in any way call into question the event's historicity. It was common in the ancient Near East to give credit to gods (whether Amun, Baal, Yaweh, or El) for everything from victory in battle to the plagues of Egypt; and it is not uncommon in religious circles today (eg, the fact that Bin Laden gave credit to Allah for success of the Sept 11 attacks on America doesn't mean that they didn't happen!) DoctorEric (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Dr Eric, I can't see a lot of difference between the two versions - but just want to to point out that the conservative scholars who hold to Mosaic authorship aren't the primary exception, they're the only exception. I don't doubt the good intentions of your proposal, but I can't see that it really changes anything. PiCo (talk) 05:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I moved quotes from Carol A. Redmount into the body. The lead should summarize opinions, not quote individual ones. Flash 16:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. If you're happy with it now, you might like to remove the dispute tag. PiCo (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed dispute tag. Flash 23:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)