Talk:Moses/Archive 5

Lead fails WP:LEAD almost completely and is clearly pov
I won't tag it for the moment, but the lead is supposed to summarise the main points of the article, and this lead fails to do that. It also presents only a religious pov. Doug Weller talk 18:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the first time ever that I've been accused of expressing a religious pov :). I'll keep revising the lead as I go on with revising the article. Thank you for your patience.PiCo (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently it is too short and does not adequately summarise the article. I have added a template to that effect. I'm concerned about the wholesale rewriting of the article. You have removed a lot of valuable information and I'm sure you intend to replace it but perhaps you should focus on rewriting the article in a sandbox first?? -- Hazhk (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the template. Feel free to comment on anything I do, or to amend it. Just one thing: the article is about Moses, not about the exodus, for which we already have quite a developed entry. I want to get away from a description of the exodus (that's done elsewhere) and concentrate on Moses. Partly on the developement of the Moses tradition in Judaism, but even more on the post-biblical tradition - there's an awful lot about his history in medieval Judaism that isn't touched on here.PiCo (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If that's what you have in mind, could you throw in a main article template linking to... Book of Exodus, I guess? The Exodus currently has nothing at all to say about the story itself beyond a paragraph in the lede, it's 100% about origins, historicity, and significance. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled why you want to reinsert the burning bush into the account of Moses' career. It was only one incident out of any, why focus on it? And even more, the important fact wasn't the bush, it was the revelation of God's name. The bush, as distinct from the revelation of the name, belongs in the See Also section IMO.PiCo (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the burning bush is something that a lot of readers are familiar with, and so gives them a sort of guidepost for further reading. I'm in favor of keeping it in, and it hardly takes up much space. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A brief mention of + link to the golden calf might be nice to have, on the same grounds. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just noticed that the current summary of the biblical narrative doesn't have a single mention of tablets or commandments (or mitzvot). Kind of an important part of the story, there! -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get the message. I'll rewrite/expand the Narrative section to take in as many details like that as I can think of.PiCo (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lost interest - this takes too much time. Good luck :) PiCo (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Aw, I liked your rewrite. It's just that there's no way to tell whether something that's removed will ever come back later, and as an IP I can't chip in here except by complaining on the talk page. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pico. I hope you've copied your rewrite. By all means take a break, but when time and interests allows, get back to it. You don't need to take on board requests to include this or that. Just do a version according to your own lights, and let the others expand it.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing problems
While PiCo and others have provided various sources, several statements are still not supported by any sources. Particularly the section in Christianity identifies few primary sources for its conclusions and almost no secondary sources at all. Any ideas on how to improve that section? Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Era
There are about 17 BCEs but only one BC in the article text. Would there be any issues with changing it in line with the others? Michael Glass (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Changed from BC to BCE as per my proposal more than a week ago. Michael Glass (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Including data on 'Film and television' section
On 23rd March 2015 the Rede Record in Brazil premiered the first chapter of a TV series called 'Os 10 Mandamentos' (The 10 Commandments). The show is still ongoing. Pedro Pupak, Enzo Simi, and Guilherme Winter are the actors in the role of Moses through his different ages.

source: http://entretenimento.r7.com/os-dez-mandamentos/capitulos/noticias

In the new movie, Moshe aged approximately 3,300 years old meets with the old farty asses Kings Dudi and Shlomo about 3,000 years old and have an orgy with slut Adimah. They faked their death certificates so their cousins could get like insurance policies. That is why they cannot fly on airlines or enter decent countries anymore. Or any other frauds like them. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.135.86 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Then Abraham, our Father, gives us a lot of money. He is about 4,000 years old and has lots of fake bank accounts in the world proving once and for all how big of a fraud he was, is, and always will be. Good riddance Avi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.81.114 (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving Infobox re striking the rock
The infobox whose content is
 * TEXT= Infobox saint |name=Prophet Moses |feast_day= Orthodox Church & Catholic Church: Sept 4|venerated_in=Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith |image=MosesStrikingTheRock GREBBER.jpg|imagesize=230px |caption=Moses striking the rock |birth_place= Goshen, Lower Egypt |death_place= Mount Nebo, Moab |titles=Prophet, Saint, Seer, Lawgiver, Apostle to Pharaoh, Reformer |attributes= Tablets of the Law
 * TEXT= Infobox saint |name=Prophet Moses |feast_day= Orthodox Church & Catholic Church: Sept 4|venerated_in=Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahá'í Faith |image=MosesStrikingTheRock GREBBER.jpg|imagesize=230px |caption=Moses striking the rock |birth_place= Goshen, Lower Egypt |death_place= Mount Nebo, Moab |titles=Prophet, Saint, Seer, Lawgiver, Apostle to Pharaoh, Reformer |attributes= Tablets of the Law

especially since it refers to
 * feast_day= Orthodox Church & '''Catholic Church

seems more appropriate to the section labeled Christianity, rather than the one called Judaism. Dad7 (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

needs a heading
The following text might better be presented with a heading that can be placed between the section on Judaism and the Christianity section that follows.

Although perhaps Intertestamental period is most appropriate, I leave it to someone else to choose. To not lose track of the text, it is moved here:
 * Ancient sources mention an Assumption of Moses and a Testimony of Moses. A Latin text was found in Milan in the 19th century by Antonio Ceriani who called it the Assumption of Moses, even though it does not refer to an assumption of Moses or contain portions of the Assumption which are cited by ancient authors, and it is apparently actually the Testimony.  The incident which the ancient authors cite is also mentioned in the Epistle of Jude.

Please note that there is an article covering this topic: Assumption of Moses. Dad7 (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Exodus narrative
I deleted this subsection because it covers the same territory as an existing article, The exodus. This article isn't about the exodus, it's about Moses - a hatnote with a link to the main article would be more appropriate here. PiCo (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

lacks info on archeology
lacks info on archeology of times for proof/disproof Juror1 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Of what exactly? There is archaeological evidence that the pyramids weren't built by slaves. That sort of thing? Doug Weller  talk 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this user is referring to specifics. I searched the page and the most we comment on it is, "Certainly no Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure." I think this user is looking to present specific points instead of just a blanket statement with a citation or two. Is that right, ? BedrockPerson (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I'm trying to think of the sort of evidence that could be used. I do think the slave issue is one. I can't imagine any archaeological evidence that could exist for Moses other than physical inscriptions and they haven't been found. Even if some sort of evidence was found for some sort of migration out of Egypt, it wouldn't prove Moses. Doug Weller  talk 16:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * that would be lack thereof... Juror1 (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * What would be lack of what? PiCo (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017
Not done: Not the standard formatting for an article. This could possibly be useful if done as an image. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

On the "Death Date" for Moses in the infobox
User:BedrockPerson recently changed the death date for Moses (in the infobox) to circa 1300 BCE. Is there any reliable source that supports this date? Alephb (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I should've at least left a summary. Feel free to undo it for now, I'll be back later to rectify it (i.e. fix) properly. Otherwise it just has to be naked for a while, so-to-speak. BedrockPerson (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I really dislike infoboxes that state as fact information about people who might never have existed. I never can understand why they aren't seen as violations of our NPOV policy. Doug Weller  talk 17:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * All right, I'm removed the dates for now. This would all be much easier if the infobox had a note to the effect that this character may or may not have existed. Alephb (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, especially that groups don't necessarily agree on the dates. Even the claimed longevity of Moses contradicts what we know about that of the people of the iron age (an average life expectancy of 26-30 years, possibly up to 57 or so for people who reached 15).  We also know that the Torah was not reliable history, although it could have included some historical mentions.  If using the infobox, in cases where a predominant tradition claims a date, it may perhaps be acceptable, with a note about that it's according to that specific tradition (i.e. 1271BCE (Rabbinical Judaism tradition))?  Even then, some groups will not like that we select the Rabbinical Judaism view for this.
 * Whereas in prose, we can comfortably say: "According to ?  Readers would not find the relevant infobox fields missing, and it would conveniently point to the information...  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 18:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a better understanding of the technical side of userboxes. Is there any way you could mock-up a visual of what you're proposing. By the way, for whatever it's worth, I don't have a problem with rabbinic dates as long as we aren't leading the viewer to think that Wikipedia is endorsing rabbinic dates. For example, the rabbinic system that leads to a 1271 death date for Moses assumes that the first temple is destroyed around 430, if I remember correctly, rather than 586. So, for the 99.9+% of people in the world who aren't Orthodox Jews, the rabbinic dates are a system that is off by at least 150 years even for historically verifiable events, much less for someone like Moses whose historicity is hazier. (And I don't want to make the assumption that all Orthodox Jews consider the traditional chronology absolutely historically accurate, either. My understanding is that such a dating system is controversial within Orthodox Judaism.) So even if we assumed that Moses was historical, and that all the rabbinic chronology between Moses' death and the destruction of the 1st temple is absolutely correct, the 1271 date is still essentially a fictional date for those who don't treat rabbinical Judaism as authoritative above and beyond conventional history. We can't put that entire mini-essay in a userbox, but I'd like us to find some way of not having Wikipedia endorse a religious view on dates followed by 0.1% of the world population and rejected by modern mainstream scholarship. Alephb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I seem to have a working example at sandbox-permlink. Feel free to edit/experiment with it, of course.  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 20:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. Thanks for putting in the work. That would be an improvement over an infobox that gives unsupported dates. Alephb (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm at the Abraham article there was a similar discussion (Talk:Abraham), including the mention of Template:Infobox epic character. The article currently uses Template:Infobox religious biography.  I think that the RfC is not closed yet, so maybe we could see what happens...  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 23:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The Exodus story is pretty much universally regarded as fictional (universally by scholars, that is), likewise the Old Testament chronology before the last few kings of Judah; info-boxes for biblical characters from the the earlier periods should respect the text and use anno mundi dating - those dates counting from the Creation actually have a purpose.PiCo (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alephb, as you probabably guess, math was never my strong point. That reversal of dates thing I once did for the Buddha, in an exam, but the examiner said he understood what I meant to do rather what I did. Very kind of him. Anyway, for the AM dates for Moses, no, they're not given directly in the MT - but the MT rarely gives dates directly. It does give a definite date for the event at Sinai, AM 2666, for which we have reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense). From that it's possible to calculate the 120 year lifespan of Moses, which is explicit - 80 years before Sinai, 40 after. On a quick check I can't any sources addressing Moses' birth and death dates, probably because they're not important in a Biblical sense (the Bible isn't interested in when people are born and die, only in when God appears among Israel, as he does at Sinai). I think overall it would be preferable not to give any dates at all, but I fear readers will demand them. PiCo (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha I gotcha. If you really wanna put the AM dates in there, I won't argue. However, if we do go with AM dates, would it be appropriate if I added a footnote explaining that AM dates reflect the Bible's internal chronology but that there is historical doubt about when a Moses-figure, if he existed at all, would have been born and died? Alephb (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree completely about the need for an explanatory footnote if we go for AM dates - and for that reason alone I'd prefer to avoid them. As for BC dates, they're pretty difficult too - just too many opinions.PiCo (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. For BC dates, in my humble opinion it's not even worth putting them in for anyone before Solomon.Alephb (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Family Tree
Erickmichael21 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Levi comes to Egypt with his father Jacob, at which time there are 70 Israelites, and Moses is his grandson, at which time there are 600,000 young men of fighting age. They sure were fecund!PiCo (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, five an average generation time of 28-30 years, which is typical according to genetics data for ancient people. Let's go with 30. There's 14.3 generations in 430 years, during which time the population has to grow about 8,571-fold. To work out each generation's growth rate, take 8,571^(1/14.3), for a multiplication by 1.88 each generation. That requires 3.76 surviving children, on average, per couple. It's way outside the range of how many children survived in the ancient world, but it's lower than the number of children actually born per couple (5-8 in premodern societies, probably). So to my mind, the problem isn't so much the fecundity as the survival rate. The population growth seems to me one of the smaller issues with the story. Of course, if you take the idea that there were only 2-4 generations as implied by the Bible, and add some large killing off of males, then things do get weird.Alephb (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * According to this family tree there were only 3 generations between Levi and Moses (Levi-Amram-Moses). That's in line with what Exodus says about the pharaohs - there was the pharaoh who welcomed the Israelites, the pharaoh who "knew not Joseph", and the pharaoh of the exodus. There's no way to fit them into 430 years, or 400 years, or even 320 years (is that what the LXX says?) It's also rather hard to square the 600,000 with the two midwives - they must have been very busy! PiCo (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And you're right about all that, no doubt. If I understand the LXX's chronology, the LXX implies a 215-year Exodus. As for the midwives, let's take a society with 2 million people and a crude birth rate of 40 per 1000, a reasonable estimate for a pre-modern society. That's 80,000 births a year; 219 births each day. Let's say each midwife works 16 hours a day and they sleep, relieving each other, in shifts. They've got to handle a birth every 6.5 minutes while the other is asleep. No wonder the babies were born by the time they arrived!Alephb (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

"That's in line with what Exodus says about the pharaohs - there was the pharaoh who welcomed the Israelites, the pharaoh who "knew not Joseph", and the pharaoh of the exodus."

The Pharaohs in both the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus are essentially nameless characters. There is little effort to distinguish between them, to give them individual traits, or to place them in a historical context. Our article on the Pharaohs in the Bible makes various attempts to identify them with historical figures, but it is mostly a game of guesswork with very little clues.

The same narrative manages to name the two midwives (Shiphrah and Puah) despite of their relatively minor role in the tale. But Mose's adoptive mother is not named. The narrative then manages to skip ahead from Moses as a baby to his adulthood, when he commits his first murder: "He looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no one, he killed the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand."

Frankly, the narrative does not make much sense, the characters are poorly defined, and their actions are at best peculiar. For another example, Moses flees Egypt for Midian, trying to escape punishment for a crime. His "secret" crime turned out to be known to everyone from slaves to the Pharaoh. After hiding for a while, Moses returns to Egypt and meets the Pharaoh (possibly a different Pharaoh) in person. No consequences for past actions, and nobody seems to remember him. While the Pharaoh soon gets angry with his requests, he does not attempt to harm him at all. He is pretty much free to come and go as he pleases. Why? Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2017
Please amend: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[8]"

as follows: "Scholarly consensus in 1993 saw Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[8]"

The reference is 25 years old, most of those scholars invoked in reference 8 have probably retired or are dead, so it is misleading to use the present tense. Ideally of course we should scrap reference 8 and find a more up-to-date reference. So changing the tense is a necessary but temporary fix.86.170.121.156 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's been no pro-Moses move in the scholarly consensus since 1993. Adding "1993" to the sentence would produce the misleading impression that there has been such a move. In the absence of any references since 1993 that say the consensus has changed, there should be no problem using a 1993 reference. Alephb (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded. — Paleo  Neonate  — 18:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have a reference proving your claim (that the new generation of scholars share the view of the dead and retired scholars from the previous generation), please provide a reference. It is not good enough to cite dead/retired scholars and to speculate they represent the current consensus. If you do not have such a reference (and I suspect you do not), then change to past tense please. 86.170.121.156 (talk) 20:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that claims otherwise? Not necessarily only scholars, but the article points to some writings from archaeologists that are more recent than 1993.  It would be surprising for most scholars to suddenly begin to ignore previously discovered evidence...  —  Paleo  Neonate  · 20:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I do not have any modern reference stating what the modern consensus is. And neither do you by the sound of it. But back to the point: what you find surprising or not is your personal opinion and has no place on Wikipedia. Therefore please change the 1993 statement to past tense until some expert Wikipedian identifies a reliable modern source. 86.170.121.156 (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPA and Book_of_Genesis (some sources there are also as recent as 2000). Thanks, — Paleo  Neonate · 21:16, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. So all you need to do now is to remove the 1993 reference and exchange for your more recent reference from 2000. 86.170.121.156 (talk) 21:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is all silliness. You could just as easily protest that a reference from 2000 is too old as well. Heck, we had a guy claiming not long ago that a reference on Deuteronomy was too old because it was written six years ago. In the absence of any source claiming the consensus has changed, a 1993 reference should be fine. There's nothing wrong with using a source that was written in the past. You've already said you don't have any source suggesting a shift since then, so this is just nit-picking. Alephb (talk) 03:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * PaleoNeonate is not being "silly". He has kindly researched and offered a more up-to-date reference from 2000. So be constructive and just implement it. Or if you have a problem with Paleonate's reference, then explain. 86.170.123.33 (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not PaleoNeonate I'm referring to. I have no problem with PaleoNeonate's reference. I object to the strange request you're making on the theory that somehow a 1993 reference, which you've given us no reason to doubt, is not useable, while a reference from 2000 somehow is good enough. Unless you have some good reason to call the 1993 reference into question -- and you certainly haven't offered one yet, just a series of commands -- there's no point in us playing along. If someone else wants to make these edits for you, they can have at it. But I have no intention of doing it. And of course, you're always free to get yourself a login and do it yourself. Alephb (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent - you "have no problem" with Palaeoneonate's 2000 reference. Moreover you are indeed neither willing nor required to participate further, so let us give PalaeoNeonate a chance to implement his suggested reference in the course of today, before deciding to call upon mediation. 86.170.123.33 (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Third...ed? BedrockPerson (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think the reference needs a replacement. We could add another one perhaps, but it's still unnecessary (I'm still not the requested third editor :).  — Paleo  Neonate · 18:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Done 2005 source added, 1993 source preserved. — Paleo Neonate  - 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moses. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101001/http://libraryminyan.org/divreitorah/Jole%20Grossman%20-%20Matot.htm to http://libraryminyan.org/divreitorah/Jole%20Grossman%20-%20Matot.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2017
There are actually two errors in the introductory sentence. I should have read it to the end before commenting.

Please amend: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[8] but some scholars..."

as follows: "Scholarly majority opinion in 1993 saw Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[8] but some scholars..."

or alternatively: "Scholars have tended to see Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person,[8] but some scholars..."

The first error is to use the present tense for a 1993 work and grammatically to imply that the conclusions are valid for 2017. That is illicit original research. The second, more blatant error, is to claim that there is/was a "consensus" whereas in fact the end of the sentence explicitly quotes two dissenters (refs 9 and 10, not copied here). The author of this unfortunate sentence has evidently confused the word consensus (Webster: "general agreement, unanimity") with the appropriate term majority opinion. 86.170.123.33 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * All of this is an attempt to nit-pick away the fact that modern scholarship treats the whole Exodus myth, including the Moses figure, as a myth. This horse has already been flogged to death on various talk pages on Exodus-related topics. This is not a substantially different suggested than the previous request, which no editor has seen fit to carry out. Alephb (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Only using a very recent source may indeed be to suggest that this consensus might be a very recent event. Since most scholars since the 19th century considered this to be a myth, it is adequate for Wikipedia to simply state this without needing to justify every year this has been the case.  In this case it even has a source with a very handy quote to support it.  I have added a 2005 source for now, but would like the 1993 one to remain. — Paleo  Neonate  - 02:48, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Done Duplicate of previous request. — Paleo Neonate  - 02:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks PalaeoNeonate, you are being really professional and I appreciate it (Alephb, take note). I still strongly suspect however that "consensus" is the wrong word here. First of all, in English, "consensus" means there are no dissenters, which is clearly not the case given the second half of the sentence which expicitly cites dissenters. You need a different word here. See my suggestions above.

Secondly, I am unable to access the entire Myers book, but from the excerpts available to me via Google, a quick scan so far does not tell me that Myers has really conducted an opinion poll of scholars or a quantitative assessment of publications to arrive at the conclusion of a "consensus". Thus, please provide the page number where Carol Myers makes the statement regarding "consensus". And please the page number for the "consensus" statement also for the 1993 book, if you have it at hand.

And let me motivate you: if true, then I am strongly in favour of mentioning that some/many scholars stick their necks out to judge whether or not a person existed 3000 years ago. Because it is counterintuitive and fascinating to me as a layperson that any scholar should wish to make such extraordinary claims. How on earth can they be certain either way? If this intellectual arrogance exists, as the Wikipedia article seems to imply (but personally I doubt it), then it must be more carefully worded, referenced and explained than at present. That is where I am heading. 86.170.123.30 (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * You keep using that word "consensus", but it doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:CONSENSUS does a good job of explaining how Wikipedia defines consensus. It doesn't mean there's nobody disagreeing out there. And here's a definition of consensus from Merriam-Webster: "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned." Alephb (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * And the page numbers you're asking for are already in the references provided in the article. You can read the article; no need for us to copy the page numbers for you here on the talk page. Alephb (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Good morning Alephb. It is good to see that you are beginning to engage. "Consensus" is not the appropriate word here. The Mirriam-Webster says the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. E.g. the consensus was to go ahead. The implication is that there is a general agreement in the form of a judgement, even though individuals may have raised concerns. In the case of Moses however, there is no judgement or general agreement how to proceed. Instead you have two factions who flatly contradict each other: one faction is smaller, one faction is larger, but there is no agreement with the minority saying, "OK, you win, we protest, but let us issue this consensus statement on Moses". There is no such consensus statement on Moses. Is the problem clear now? (And yes, I suspect you have been misled by the untidy Wikipedia usage - that also needs fixing. The correct Wiki definition is here: Consensus decision-making.


 * Page numbers: you are right, they are provided, sorry. Looking at the passage, William Dever has used an unfortunate wording when speaking of an "overwhelming consensus". You can have an "overwhelming majority", but a consensus either exists or it does not exist. Try googling for "overwhelming consensus" - you will hardly get any relevant hits, except for editing comments by sloppy Wikipedia enthusiasts. 86.170.123.30 (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Scholarly consensus is not about public opinion polls, it's about what recknowned experts report. WP:CONSENSUS is about another type of consensus, those of editors (through the use of reliable sources and guided by policies); the current one appears to be that the existing references are satisfying.  The realization that an iron age national mythic epic figure may not have existed (and most importantly, the surrounding supernatural events) is hardly a personal judgment, especially considering the knowledge we have today about literary styles and traditions, their role, their development, selection and compilations, borrowings from older traditions, the contraditing archaeological data we have discovered, modern scientific developments vs the vision of the world at the epoch (also see related Biblical cosmology), etc.  But since this talk page is not a forum, I digress; if you really have an interest in the topic I suggest reading on it.  Alephb may have been right about the nit-picking as this is still ongoing...  — Paleo  Neonate  - 16:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you do digress. This is about a simple language error. You cannot say in the first half of the sentence there is a consensus, only to write in the second half there are dissenters. I have suggested two fixes. If you have a better idea how to fix the language problem, let us hear it.


 * And as concerns your digression on the iron age etc: if you wish people to take a theory seriously, you need to get the language right. You would not deposit your money in a bank where the roof is leaking and the employees are wearing dirty jeans. If the bank cannot even get that right, then why trust your money to the bank? In the same manner, if you wish to convince someone with your agenda, you need to get the language right - if you cannot write in correct English even in the introduction, why would we trust your biblical scholarship? And that would be a pity, because you seem to be a constructive chap with a lot to contribute. Think about it. I have made my point and I am signing off now.  86.170.123.30 (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Please do not contact me on my talk page again, 86.170.123.30. If you want to discuss your proposed edit to Moses, or your personal definition of consensus, the place for that is here. It would be unproductive to start having the same discussion in more than one location. Alephb (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe worth noting that Moses isn't mentioned until the post-exilic period? Means he seems to have been invented then.PiCo (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello, I just made an account so I can address some of these matters. I hope this is the appropriate place and way to do this -- if not, please let me know how and where I should.


 * There are two general problems here: one of sources, the other of the strength of the claims made. As it stands, it is my professional opinion that this Wiki article is unreliable: one source does not a scholarly consensus make.


 * One problem here is that unless the work cited is a lit-review, which it doesn't appear to be, then it makes little sense to cite it alone as evidence of a consensus or majority opinion -- whatever the date is. If Alephb is right that there is a consensus or a majority opinion (which are indeed very different things), then there should be many more sources to back this claim up.  Which is fine: such things, in the age of Google Scholar, are easy to track down.


 * A further problem: whether or not Moses wrote the Torah/Pentateuch, and whether or not an historical Moses existed, are two questions that are at times conflated in the discussion here. I think PaleoNeonate brings this up: the point is correct.


 * I do not have access to my university library right now, because it is the holidays. But I will be following up on this when I get back.  I also know a few biblical scholars whom I can consult with.  In the meantime, here is a relevant (peer-reviewed) source that should be added: http://www.oxfordbiblicalstudies.com/article/opr/t94/e1284  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Faraday (talk • contribs) 22:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017
Revert the edit by Ghijk777777799999 because he is  a vandal. 2602:306:3357:BA0:118:B2E3:C8D9:41C6 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done by . Please observe that the change in question did not constitute vandalism as defined by WP:Vandalism. Favonian (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

In popular culture
Awhile back I changed the heading "In popular culture" to "Cultural portrayals and references" (stole it from Cain and Abel). I was reverted by, but I think it´s a better fit, the content is broader than "popular culture". Opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "In popular culture" is the standard Wikipedia header, used in many hundreds of articles. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And in many hundreds of articles, the section name used to be "Trivia", and I have observed this change gradually to "In popular culture" in an effort to make the section seem less... well, trivial. Many editors here view the heading "In popular culture" as merely a synonym for a trivia section. If that's not actually what it is, then "Cultural portrayals and references" might actually be more desirable, once that trivial mostly-unreferenced "film" section is cut way back. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * "In popular culture" is common but far from the only alternative, and sometimes it fits poorly (sometimes not, Donald Trump in popular culture is pretty spot-on). In this article there's obviously popular culture in it, but there's also Freud, Michelangelo, Thomas Paine etc. For some other stuff that exists apart from Cain and Able, see for example
 * David
 * Parasitoid
 * Puck_(A_Midsummer_Night%27s_Dream)
 * Otto_Skorzeny
 * And agree on pruning the filmsection, I might do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tharbis is said to be Cushite wife of Moses by Josephus.
A link to the Tharbis article should be somewhere in the Moses article. Geo8rge (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I didn't know we had that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018
(Aramaic/Syriac: ܡܘܼܫܹܐ mushe) Alexappachan (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

holy books
I don't know when this happened, but now we have "according to their holy books" in the lead, this is not good. I prefer "According to the Hebrew Bible" in this version:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It was a drive-by edit by a new user earlier in April, it looks like. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Finding Moses
Yesterday I removed one of the two "Finding Moses" paintings from the article (among other things). I left the one I like better, by Nicolas Poussin, apparently prefers Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema. Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Legacy-section
This section is strikingly US-centric. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, absurdly so. I've added a "globalize" tag, not that this will achieve anything. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That section is extraordinary. American exceptionalism clearly lives on. And they don't read Talk pages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 30 June 2018
According to Islam Mosses is the only prophet who was chosen by God for direct conversation without any angel. According to Quran Mosses requested God to see him but God refused saying that Mosses was not able to bear the sight of God but he was chosen for conversation. Mosses is termed as "Kaleem-Ullah" (Person Who can talk to God) in Quran.Abdul.saboor92 (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash;  LeoFrank  Talk 18:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2018
Moses : 1200 BC, Egypt and Palestine Prophet and religious leader of Hebrew origin who was raised as an Egyptian prince by the Pharaohs Daughter. Appalled by the treatment of Hebrew Slaves, he ran away and encountered a burning bush where he was instructed by god to return to Egypt and lead the Hebrews out of their slavery. For forty years they wandered the desert while Moses struggled to correct their immorality and imbalances.While on Mount Sinai ,he recived the Ten Commandments directly from god Recognized as a great prophet in Judaism ,Christianity, and Islam. Very Very Important : you shall therefore keep all the commandments ,which i command you this day ,that you may be Strong ( Moses) Brother sergey (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Spelling Error in "Historicity" Section
It appears that, in looking at the context of the "Historicity" section that the intended word before the sentence which refers to footnote 41 and 43 that the word "reductional" should actually be "redactional." The page is locked, though, so I wasn't able to edit that particular sentence.

Br. Timothy Kalange, O.S.B. (talk) 14:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2019
I've been looking in the web for citation number 3 and I couldn't found it. I think it should be good to ask the person who added that to upload the original.

3. William G. Dever "What Remains of the House That Albright Built?". The Biblical Archaeologist, American Schools of Oriental Research, Scholars Press, Vol. 56, No 1, 2 March 1993 pp. 25–35 [33]: "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure."

Abrahamramirez10 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Abrahamramirez10 (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very clear. He/she is pointing that one of the sources cited can not be located, or verified. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What edit they want us to do with that information though? Remove it? Provide an alternative source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they didn't look very hard. The first hit I saw was a copy which I won't link to as it may be copyvio. A search on Google scholar found it immediately. It can't be uploaded without violating copyright and in any case it's not something we do. In any case, the quotation is in the source. Doug Weller  talk 15:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"according to their holy books"
I see this phrasing is back in the lead. I don't think we should use it, commented on it here: Talk:Moses/Archive_5. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There are no holy books. State which text or texts are specifically cited. Dimadick (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I tried something different here just now to get rid of the "holy books" wording. If you folks don't like it, go ahead and change it. I'm not particularly attached to it. Alephb (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Legendary character
We're not interested in what you think, we're interested in WP:RS/AC, that's the germane WP:PAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * And I'm not interested in what you think. Where is your sense of decency in justification? How is the contention of one scholar equivalent to the consensus of many scholars? I am astounded by your behavior, you, the Wikipedia addict should know better. Have you even read the source material which you defend? eyeoftheday 07:22, 12 February 2019 (EST)


 * The one who needs to read is you. What you need to read is WP:RS/AC. It is part of our WP:RULES: our house, our rules, you have to obey our rules, else you get blocked or banned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding Eyeoftheday's point, this is not the view of just one scholar. Although I'm not an expert on biblical archaeology, I do have two books that are explicitly designed to reflect the opinion of the majority (1 2) as well as a multiple-author volume dedicated entirely to analyzing the Exodus tradition (3). I think the relevant section in the article body—Moses—conveys the scholarly consensus better than the statement in the lead that Eyeoftheday keeps removing, but the overwhelming majority of scholars treat the Exodus tradition as a legend that, at best, very dimly reflects real events. Some think it's based on migrations of small groups of Semitic peoples out of the Nile Delta into Canaan (not a massive exodus of a coherent group of people calling themselves Israelites) while others think it's simply based on Egypt's influence in Canaan/Israel/Judah itself. Where does that leave Moses? Well, his name and those of some of his Levite relatives have Egyptian etymologies, which suggests that there might have been founding figures by those names who came from Egyptian backgrounds and to whom legends were later attached. But most scholars agree that the Exodus did not happen in anything like the way it's described, and thus the Moses of the Bible is a figure of legend and not history. A. Parrot (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be more intellectually honest to keep this point of contention further down in the article within its own section, since its an area of debate, instead of placing it smack dab right in the opening paragraph regarding Moses, as if its a major proven fact! But you guys do what you like, it's your house. Tyrants. The entire scholarly consensus you cite is based on an absence of evidence being evidence, hence it being an on going debate. 4:05 PM, 12 February (EST)
 * It is not a point of debate. The consensus is against a historical Moses.Dimadick (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I do think the lead should state this point a little less definitively than it does. Some figure who bore Moses's name and who came to be seen as a founder figure may have existed. The article body is less definitive in its claims than the pronouncement in the lead sentence now is. But the question of historicity is a major aspect of the article and should not be left out of the lead, and it's not merely absence of evidence that leads biblical scholars to doubt the biblical narrative. Parts of it, especially the conquest of Canaan, actually clash with the archaeological evidence, and numerous characteristics of the story suggest that it is legend written centuries after the fact, whatever historical elements it may contain. A. Parrot (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * "Parts of it, especially the conquest of Canaan, actually clash with the archaeological evidence" Wrong article. Moses did not take part in any conquest of Canaan. The figure who supposedly led the invading Israelites was Joshua, and the mythical conquest is described in the Book of Joshua. The setting is after Moses' death. Dimadick (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * True. I was talking about the narrative of which Moses is a part—Deuteronomy and Joshua were probably conjoined at some point and may even have originated as a single work. The point is that the exodus/conquest narrative is legend, and the biblical figure of Moses is inseparable from that legend even if he did have a historical precursor. A. Parrot (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Our task is to render to the best of our abilities what full professors teach at WP:CHOPSY. That is, hard-core Bible scholarship, we don't pander to bigotry. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there could have been a Moses whose name wasn't Moses and who did not lead the Exodus. But the existence of such Moses is unfalsifiable, therefore mythical (mythical simply means unproven). So, yeah, mythicism in this case means that Moses either did not exist or he did not have virtually anything to do with the events related by the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Unlock please
It's clear there is still healthy debate on the content of this page, so I see no reason why it should be locked in it's current state- it needs to be moved back to a neutral point of view, as it is currently advocating a legendary Moses which is hardly a neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.224.13 (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Neutral has many meanings depending on context. Regarding a WP-article, the meaning is WP:NEUTRAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Better explained at WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Gods revelation on Mt. Sinai
You forgot to mention that the Torah states that God revealed himself to the entire jewish people. Unlike all other religions who claim that "their god" revealed himself to one person and that one person shared it with many other people, which is very easy. No other religion claims that God revealed himself to all the people since that's too hard to make up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:6500:A041:5899:1B2:7259:4D0D:B01A (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in your sources that say all other religions claim "their god" revealed himself to one person. Especially as a lot of religions have had more than one god. I know some religions have claimed intermediaries, but all? Who was the single person for Hinduism? Doug Weller  talk 13:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in the source that says YHWH revealed himself to all the Jewish people at Sinai. As I recall, they saw a cloud on the mountain and heard thunder, but they didn't see YHWH. Moses alone saw him. (Or Moses and the elders - the Book of Exodus contradicts itself on that point).PiCo (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Shalom, The Ten Commandments are the Teachings of Moses when he was speaking as himself, BUT, they are not the Commandments of the Covenant that made the Israelis the Chosen People of God.The Covenant has THREE Commandments when Moses was speaking as God.

1. Thou shall NOT sacrifice a Cow OR eat Beef. 2. Thou shall NOT make Demi-gods(Religious books/Religious persons). 3. Thou shall ONLY worship the Manifest God (Moses and his Teachings).

Jai Sri Krishna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.50.211.174 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ramen to that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2019
"Unlike other religious figures such as Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad, whose historical existences are well documented" Comment: Neither Buddha nor Jesus are historical figures as there is no historical or archaelogical evidence to verify their existence unlike Muhammad whose life has been historically documented. Menifo (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per Gautama_Buddha and Historical Jesus the general scholarly view is that yes, they existed. They may not base this view on what you would consider historical evidence, but it's the view they have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2019
Please change: "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially called Mormons) generally view Moses in the same way that other Christians do" to "Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (colloquially called Mormons) generally view Moses in the same way that Christians do"

Reason for change: Mormons are not considered christians by the majority of christian churches. MusikB (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)


 * They are considered Christians by Mormons though. What do Muslims think? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --MrClog (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find the scholarly consensus for a Moses-like figure
Ok, Dever says it, but scholarly consensus? Doug Weller talk 19:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Meyers also says something similar, as does Finkelstein, but with greater attribution to the level of historicity of a Moses figure than Dever gives. The original statement itself uses only Dever as the source for its claim of "scholarly consensus". Epf2018 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The WP:RS/AC is that either Moses did not exist, or, if he existed, we could know virtually nothing about him (he is irretrievably lost to history). Assuming that Moses lived, in which century (or centuries) did he live? This question does not have a straightforward historical answer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I can't find Dever saying there's such a consensus. He does say that a Moses-like figure may have existed, but he doesn't say it's a consensus. PiCo (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Finkelstein granted that Moses could have existed, but he is irretrievably lost to archaeology, Finkelstein says that, I guess, on the documentary about his book. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Visiting Moses
Back in the 70's while doing some historical research I was invited to a local Jewish library. Material on Moses was in the fiction section. I found this very interesting since Christians stress Moses as a historical figure. This has always struck me as being a bit ODD: Moses' staff (obviously a magic wand), the 7 or 10 plagues, the parting of the red or reed sea, (My favorite OVERLOOKED version of this story is the one where the Egyptians troops pursue the Moses escapees in BOATS! See: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the history and the religion of Israel by Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University Press, 1973), the receiving of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:2-17), their destruction (Exodus 32:19), and REVISION usually NOT accepted (Exodus 34:1-26) and the STRANGE time line of taking 40 YEARS to cross the Sinai desert when Yahweh is GUIDING them with divine signs both day and night. DUH!! Miistermagico (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you find the detail that Moses was 120-years-old at the time of death, and was apparently in his 80s at the time of the Exodus particularly believable?

The narrative of the Exodus is clearly mythical. Whether there was a historical background to this narrative, we can only guess. Dimadick (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dimadick, I prefer fantasy rather than myth. The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night A.K.A. The Arabian Nights Entertainments contain a few stories that are also in the Bible. Theology is a firm foundation in both collections. It is odd this is not frequently recognized by inquiring readers as both originated as oral traditions to teach life lessons while enchanting the listener as was observed by the famous adventurer Richard F. Burton. I have always cherished a wondrous story and its effect on the human mind and heart. Miistermagico (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Myths "explain how a society's customs, institutions and taboos were established and sanctified." They are supposed to impart lessons to their audience. Dimadick (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear Dimadick, The arts power imagination, fuel creativity, and honor inspiration. Miistermagico (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2019
Change "able achieve" to "able to achieve" William Henry Turner (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you for pointing this out, . A. Parrot (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person" - Atheist bias
MODERATOR - This article begins with a very strong statement that conflicts with 2,400 years of how Moses has been depicted among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a legendary figure and not a historical person." Bullsh-t. This conclusion is only achieved by dismissing the Bible and Qur'an as being legitimate accounts of the Hebrews' history. And anyone doing so is an atheist. Wikipedia has several atheist moderators each with an agenda. Wikipedia articles should NOT have an atheist agenda or any agenda but the truth. This "scholarly consensus" from two atheist guys is a HUGE pile of stinking crap and should be removed from the article! 73.85.201.92 (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The scholarly consensus is most assuredly held by more than two people. It includes scholars such as Israel Finkelstein, William G. Dever, Donald B. Redford, Lester Grabbe, Amihai Mazar, and Mario Liverani, among many others, who often disagree vociferously with each other on other subjects but agree that the Exodus story, and thus Moses, is largely legend. The only qualified, living scholars I'm aware of who fully defend the historicity of the Exodus story are James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen. Wikipedia's policies require that our articles reflect the consensus as accurately as possible. Your assertion that "anyone doing so is an atheist" is blatantly untrue. Not only does it ignore theists (e.g., Hindus) who do not believe in the Abrahamic god; it ignores many, many Jews and Christians who reject biblical inerrancy while still regarding the Bible as inspired by the Abrahamic god. Many ancient texts describe events that happened centuries before they were written, which incorporate memories of genuine events along with legends. For instance, there really was some kind of attack on Troy in the 12th century BC, but people don't generally go looking for a historical Achilles. Scholars use the same criteria for analyzing the Bible that they use for these other ancient texts. To do otherwise would introduce bias by privileging the Bible above other ancient texts, including those that are held sacred by living religions today (e.g., the Mahabharata).


 * Personally, I think anyone defending the accuracy of the early biblical books should read the Nibelungenlied and the Arthurian sections of Historia Regum Britanniae and compare them with what actually happened in northern Europe during the fifth century AD. Like those texts, the early biblical books represent a centuries-later understanding of a period of disorder and societal breakdown: the fall of the West Roman Empire in one case and the Bronze Age Collapse in the other. The difference is that medieval Europeans at least theoretically had access to texts recording what had actually happened during and after the fall of the empire, whereas the Syria–Canaan region suffered a complete breakdown of literacy in the wake of the collapse. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, the IP seems to think that the historical method is the most pestilential doctrine ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. Sorry, we cannot turn back the clock several centuries! Hoffmeier and Kitchen don't say "the Exodus has been proven true", but "it has not been proven false". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * True; I misspoke. There is no evidence proving the Exodus true, so "It has not been proven false" is all they can say while retaining any scholarly credibility. A. Parrot (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * As Neil Asher Silberman stated, what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So atheists are now the Bible authorities. How could anything go wrong? I am not a Christian, but something doesn't seem right.124.123.106.28 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Tgeorgescu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's very likely that there are atheists that are Bible authorities, yes. I don't see anything wrong in that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO, atheists would be the most balanced Bible authorities. Believers could not possibly read it objectively. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Believers are untrustworthy. Reliable sources is quite cleare on the subject. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Believers do no fact-checking and are mostly inaccurate as sources. Dimadick (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Except that the vast majority of mainstream Bible scholars are either Christian or Jewish. Simply having a religion is no reason to assume they would be biased hacks who cannot tell the truth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are Christian scholars who agree with pretty much everything that the atheist scholar Bart Ehrman writes in his trade books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no atheist agenda in pointing out the current scholarly consensus relevant to the religious beliefs mentioned in the preceding sentence. Wikipedia is trying to report an objective fact: "Religious belief is x. The scholarly consensus is y. (see references z1 and z2)". I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the scholarly consensus just because the scholarly consensus conflicts with IP's religious beliefs. I would say that the IP should find out if there are sources that support the notion that the scholarly consensus is not what the cited sources say it is. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's Erhman (I myself don’t think there *was* a Moses) Robert M. Price (There was no Moses) Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Price is a fringe Jesus myth theory scholar. Ehrman of course is a real scholar, but hes no specialist in the old testament. Just to clarify, I'm not challenging the article's position on Moses (though I do suspect it's giving speculations about an actual historical figure who inspired the biblical short shrift). It's just we should rely on actual experts.--Ermenrich (talk)
 * John Van Seters and Israel Finkelstein from stated:


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about his speculation concerning Jesus, this is about Moses- Price may support some fringe theories, but he seems to be mainstream in this area as far as I can see. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How about this. We have a source that says there is an overwhelming scholarly consensus that Moses is a myth. Can we get a second source that says the same kind of thing? How long has the scholarly consensus existed? We are not asking the question whether or Moses existed: we are asking, does the scholarly consensus exist, says who, since when etc. More sources about the nature of the consensus would be useful. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If by myth you mean "the existence of Moses is unfalsifiable", you're right, it is a myth according to the academic consensus. It's like the legend of King Arthur: maybe there was a real guy who has inspired the legend. You never know. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Too complicated for me! I'm out of here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)