Talk:The Exodus/Archive 11

New historicity overview subsection
, I've opened a new subsection for an overview of historicity. You might be able to contribute your views there.PiCo (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My edits which you're objecting to were a restoration of a previous version, which is why there were multiple lines changed in a single edit. Whenever an older version is restored, there will often be more than a single line changed. It's interesting that you then proceeded to add a lot of new material without any discussion whatsoever, even though you object to me changing a few lines without discussion. Do you own this article?
 * And your recent additions are about as partisan as possible, since you dismiss one side as "apologists" while the other side is exalted as "scholars" (only one side's authors are scholars?). That doesn't even make a feeble attempt at balance or objectivity. It's a partisan essay or polemic, not an encyclopedia article. GBRV (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't add, you changed. You changed quite a lot, in multiple sections, which makes it hard to go through and assess each one. I've invited you to do your edits one by one.


 * What I added was a whole new section - Gabby (I think) was saying that Ipuwer should be mentioned, so I obliged by adding it. The adjective "apologist" is exactly the word the source uses to describe itself - "The Apologetics Study Bible for Students". Apologists has a precise meaning in biblical scholarship, it's not a pejorative, and it doesn't mean "to apologise", it means "to explain" - Newman's Apologia Pro Vita Sua is not an apology for his life. If it disturbs you I can take it out. Or you can - you're free to edit, but try to do so in a way that's not so confrontational. PiCo (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know what "apologist" means; but stating that "scholars" take the opposing view is the part I objected to, partly because it makes it sound as if their opponents aren't scholars, and partly because it makes it sound as if ALL scholars take the same viewpoint. GBRV (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Bearing in mind that we're talking specifically about the relevance of the Ipuwer papyrus to the exodus story, yes, the majority of scholars do take the view that it's a generic text with no relevance to any actual events. And no, the Apologetics Study Guide for Students is not a scholarly publication. PiCo (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

GBRV's edits
GBRV has complained about the reversion of his mass-edits and the request that he do them one by one to allow other editors to assess them. Ok, I'm taking the largest segment (I think) of his most recent edit to look at. Please note it wasn't me who reverted it. He wants to replace: with:
 * ''The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus (sourced Meyers|2005|p=5) and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". (sourced Dever|2001|p=99)


 * Most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit", holding that the archaeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus. (same sources)

The difference would introduce a note of tentativity - from a simple statement that the archaeological evidence does not support the Exodus story, to a statement that "most archaeologists" (not used in Meyers) "holding" this. In other words, moving from a fact to a hypothesis.

This isn't what Meyer says. Over two pages she describes the failure of archaeology to substantiate the Exodus story, listing all the things that have not been found, and noting that nothing whatsoever has been found. Meyer is a reliable source.

If GBRV or anyone else can produce some evidence that has been found, then of course we have to reconsider, but as it stands, that edit is introducing weasel-words.

And I repeat: it wasn't me who reverted it. PiCo (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * One source (Meyer) doesn't establish something as an indisputable fact that should be stated in Wikipedia's own voice. We can say "Meyer says..." but not state it as a fact. And the main objection to this entire issue is the simple fact that we almost never have archaeological confirmation of something like this and yet historians routinely accept written accounts anyway, which makes Meyer's statements irrelevant. If you're really going to insist that an unusual standard should be used just for this subject, then I'm going to insist that you also apply that standard to all other historical subjects for the sake of consistency, which would require rewriting most of history. Go into an article about Julius Caesar's campaigns and tell everyone that the article needs to be changed because most of the events in Caesar's campaigns aren't confirmed by archaeology, and see what the other editors say. I've covered this issue repeatedly. GBRV (talk) 00:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors don't make the call. Reputable scholars who publish reliable sources make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia editors have to decide which authors to include and which ones represent a dominant view, and you still haven't provided any third-party source to prove that these specific authors are the dominant accepted experts (aside from their own claims). GBRV (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Meyer's statement is one of fact, not opinion: either the archaeological evidence supports the story told in the Book of Exodus, or it does not. I haven't come across a single reliable source that says it does - even Hoffmeier says there's no conclusive archaeological evidence. If you honestly feel there's a problem with this I suggest you take it to DRN.PiCo (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But the dispute doesn't concern whether archaeological evidence exists (both sides agree that it doesn't), but rather whether the lack of archaeological evidence means anything given that the vast majority of historical events described in written sources are not attested by archaeological evidence either, not even many of the major population shifts (the migration of the Helvetii etc mentioned by Julius Caesar, the epidemic which wiped out a third of the Roman Empire's population in the 3rd century, etc). Meyer's statement may be technically accurate as far as it goes, but also misleading and irrelevant because it dodges the point of contention. And I have to wonder whether Meyer also demands archaeological evidence for all these other historical events as well, or just the ones he personally doesn't want to accept. GBRV (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @GBRV, I created that subsection so that you (and Gabby) could have a place to write your concerns into the article. I don't mind that, so long as we make clear the majority view. But sure, why not a discussion of the minorty view, so long as it's kept in proportion. might find this a useful starting point - a better alternative than DRN.PiCo (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Could we expect evidence of the exodus?
Hello. As I stated above, a couple of days ago, in the other section, and Jeppiz has indicated that he has agreed at least to an extent, and he even thanked me for the comment, that Professor Berman should definitely be referenced or mentioned or quoted somewhere in this article, if not Cahill and Wilson. In regards to the old well-known (and clearly established) explanation of at least some reputable scholars and historians, (past and present), of why no written documentation (and even little to no archaeological evidence) for the exodus. The Berman quote and the statement above is very powerful and confirming of the point. It would be amiss for an article like this to totally intentionally leave out even a hint of any of that stuff, as far as "why didn't the Egyptians record the tragedy and exodus?" matter. It's a minority view here (as far as why it's not recorded) but definitely a scholar-sourced view, and as I pointed out about 2 weeks ago, WP policy is NOT to completely shut out minority expert opinion, but simply "not to mention as much" of it. (See Neutral point of view.) But, frankly speaking, Pico, sir, I gotta say (and as I said, even Jeppiz, who I appreciate, has seemed to at least somewhat agree), this article would be incomplete if none of that was ever mentioned or at least referenced (even in a footnote maybe) in this article. And it would violate WP standards. Minority expert view is never to be completely 100% shut out and un-mentioned. Read my WP quotes above from almost 2 weeks ago, proving that. And Professor Joshua Berman is, without question, a "reliable source". Because if stuff like that keeps getting shut down, shut out, censored, and reverted, etc, it becomes obvious that it then becomes an "I don't like" and a pet bias issue, and Wikipedia (which already suffers from bad reps unfortunately) becomes, in many people's minds, only just a little better than "Rational Wiki" or "Conservapedia" or "Creation Wiki"...which are obvious biased encyclopedias. (Though having some worth and sourced info too.) Some liberals have complained that Wikipedia devotes too much mention to "conservative" views and refs (whatever that means), and many conservatives (of course) have complained that Wikipedia has too much of a liberal slant and gate-keeping. Hence why we have "Conservapedia" (for conservs), and "Rational Wiki" (for libs) and etc. Wikipedia is not supposed to be just a little better than those websites, but MUCH better and much more neutral, objective, honest, complete, careful, thorough, and unbiased, and NPOV. Cutting out Professor Berman (if Cahill and Wilson are shut out) from this article is not true and thorough presentation of what's going on and what's been put forth, by scholars. Berman is RS, no question, and his statements (regarding both written records and archaeology) need to be in this article, at least in some way, to some degree. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Gabby. I created that section for GBRV to explain why I and several others have been reverting his edits - since yours is a new and distinct subject, and as he might want to reply, I've hived yours off into a new section. Hope you don't mind. PiCo (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Redford (in the previously mentioned documentary), Pithom was build around 600 BC and the geography known to the author dates from 7th or 6th century BC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's pretty much the mainstream view - the written exodus story dates from around 500-450 BCE and the details relate to a slightly earlier period with nothing prior to about 800 BCE. There are plenty of sources for that, and we already reference quite a few of them. My problem with talking about Berman is that he represents the minority view - do we really have room for it? Maybe if we cut back the length of the Historicity section - but in any case we have to make it clear that Berman's view (the Egyptians didn't write about the Exodus because it was embarrassing) is not widely held.
 * Just a brief note on why it's not widely held: you're supposed to have a million or so Hebrew slaves building cities in the Eastern Delta, which means massive supplies of food etc, but there are no records; there should be a million or two slaves escaping past the border fortresses in a movement of people that would have taken weeks, but no records; there should be 2 million people, plus livestock, living at Kadesh Burnea for 38 years and dying there as well (this was the generation that perished without seeing Canaan), but no hearths, no walls, no graves, nothing until the 9th century. And so on. If this goes in the article we need to explain also why scholars at large don't accept it.PiCo (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since the Egyptian government NEVER mentioned any setbacks, why would you expect them to mention this one? And since 99% of Egyptian records have been lost (papyrus doesn't last for thousands of years), why would you expect other written records for this? And even if you interpret the Biblical number as a literal population figure even though it can be converted to a Hebrew phrase that makes sense in context, even the literal number wouldn't be much different than the huge numbers which Julius Caesar gives for the migration of the Helvetii and related tribes, so why is the large number a problem with one but not the other?  And since the Hebrews were nomads living in tents, why would you expect to find walls and other permanent structures? GBRV (talk) 00:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, make it clear, even super-clear, that Professor Berman's explanation is "not widely held" by most other scholars and historians, but it should be noted that it is in fact a view and explanation that's been put forth (for a while now even), by some reputable and qualified scholars. And frankly, almost 2 weeks ago, contributor Tgeorgescu did in fact nicely make that clear (but in regards to Cahill and Wilson at the time).   Because (again) Wikipedia policy is to not completely shut out "minority" expert view, but that it should not be mentioned "as much" and also can be made clear that it's not the general majority view.   But to leave an article like this incomplete, and leave out these pointed positions by clearly qualified scholars and experts would be wrong, amiss, and against WP standards.  So let Tgeorgescu and/or me and you put in Berman's statement (in some measure) with carefully-crafted wording and that it's not the majority view obviously.    But readers of Wikipedia should not be lacking in knowledge and information on the minority scholar position and statements on this matter either.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What I pointed before is that there are scholars such as Kitchen and Hoffmeier who argue that the Exodus is not impossible. They don't say there is evidence for it. I did not read their books, so I don't know if their solutions actually make Bible believing Christians any happier (not all people would gladly accept the downsizing of two million souls to a couple of thousands). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's put it in already, in careful NPOV wording, making the point clear that it's not the majority view though. Maybe Kitchen, Hoffmeier, but definitely Professor Berman, etc.  They're RS, and the matter is sourced.  WP should not be missing this stuff.   The article should have that.Gabby Merger (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gabby Merger, you're welcome to do some editing yourself. I suggest you use this source, not Berman, as it's a relaible academic source and can't challenged (Berman's article can - but Berman is drawing on things like this). Use the Overview subsection of the Historicity section, and try to keep it brief - this article is getting bloated. PiCo (talk) 00:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gabby Merger, thank you for your addition to the article. I made a change to the way you refenced your source (Moore/Kelle) as sfn takes up less room. I also moved it up to the Overview section since it doesn't fit naturally into the section on numbers and logistics. Would you mind if I edited it a little more? I think it needs some form of intro sentence as it stands.PiCo (talk) 00:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gabby Merger, I've edited your entry a bit more, for various reasons. One, I thought it was a bit long. Two, and more important, it was saying things and ascribing them to Moore and Kelle when they're not actually in that book - MK never mentions Kitchen and Hoffmeier in connection with the suppression of records etc. That's in Berman, so I've ascribed it there. I've also emphasised more that these arguments have no traction in scholarship in general - MK actually say that Kitchen and Hoffmeier's work is ignored. I might also note that Berman isn't arguing that the exodus took place as described in the Bible - he says that the "crossing the Red Sea" story was taken over by the Hebrews from an Egyptian literary work describing Egypt's defeat of the Hittites. He's not the best choice for someone supporting the historicity of the bible.PiCo (talk) 08:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello.  Thanks for fixing and making clearer the Kitchen and Hoffmeier matter.  I agree regarding re-editing that but not the total removal of Prof Berman, as he is RS and did make the statement regarding exodus specifically in the matter of Egyptian record-keeping, so restored that portion and sourced quote... It should not be just in an obscure bibliography.  His remarks are straightforward and make the point clear.   Gabby Merger (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Starting the Overview section with the statement that "there is no archaeological evidence" is badly misleading, because the same is true of so many other historical events. Would it make sense to have a statement like that in most other history articles? GBRV (talk) 03:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's called begging the question, it starts by assuming this was an historical event. It would make sense to say that for articles on alleged events who historicity is seriously challenged - such articles should not call the alleged event historical. Doug Weller (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some people used to say the same thing about the civilizations mentioned in the Bible by claiming that the Assyrians and Babylonians (etc) never existed, a claim which no one accepts any longer. In any event, the normal Wikipedia procedure is to state what both sides say rather than stating anything in Wikipedia's own voice. There are scholars who say that there is archaeological evidence for the Hebrew migration from Egypt, and a larger number who say that we wouldn't expect or require archaeological evidence for an event like this, especially since nomadic migrations don't leave concentrated artifacts and we don't even know where to dig because the route isn't certain. Why not just state what both sides have said rather than leaving the article as a personal essay in Wikipedia's voice? GBRV (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We reflect the weight of scholarly opinion (due weight) where this can be ascertained - and in this case, we have reliable sources giving us that weight.PiCo (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, you're misinterpreting what Kitchen and Hoffmeier actually say. They don't claim to have found archaeological evidence for the exodus, merely to have established plausibility - a claim the overwhelming majority of their colleagues reject (see Moore/Kelle).PiCo (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Also again, but on another matter, this statement is factually wrong: "''Professor Joshua Berman wrote: "We have to rely on monumental inscriptions, which, being mainly reports to the gods about royal achievements, are far from complete or reliable as historical records. They are more akin to modern-day résumés, and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind.''" Not wrong about Berman saying it, but wrong in what Berman said (i.e., it's Berman who's wrong): we do not have to rely on monumental inscriptions. This is a short list of some of the archaeological evidence scholars expect to find for the exodus story: Archaeologists have been searching for these things for over a century, and the failure to find them is one of the reasons why they now regard the exodus story as non-viable.PiCo (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 2 million Israelites living for 400 years in a quite small area of the northeast Delta (the land of Goshen) would leave extensive remains in the form of house-foundations, middens in which pig bones would not feature, and Egyptian records of persons with typical Israelite names (these records would be quite extensive but would not be inscriptions on monuments - they would be, for example, records of work assignments, records of movements of work-gangs, ration-records, and everything else associated with looking after a very large body of non-Egyptian slaves).
 * A 400 year residence in Egypt would have left traces in the Hebrew language (a fifty year residence in Babylon changed the entire language - the Jews came out of the Exile speaking Aramaic); granted this isn't archaeology, but it could be expected.
 * The Egyptians had a very extensive system of border forts, and the movement of 2 million people through them would have been noted.
 * The exodus story states categorically that the Israelites did not follow the northern (coastal) route out of Egypt, which leaves the central and southern routes: 2 million people, plus animals, moving over either would have left remains of campfires, cattle/sheep/goat enclosures, and smashed pottery (pottery is a major marker for the movement of nomadic peoples).
 * A 38 year residence by 2 million people in one small oasis, Kadesh-Barnea, would have left even more evident traces in the form of hearths, stone foundations, and general detritus.


 * You forgot that Berman further wrote: "We’ll have reason to revisit such inscriptions later on. But now let’s consider the absence of specifically archaeological evidence of the exodus. In fact, many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible. The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Levant—all described in written sources—have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic."


 * So Professor Berman addressed the "lack of archaeological evidence we should expect to find" argument too, at least to some extent.  And he made the point that since the Hebrews were nomadic (etc) lack of "archaeological evidence" is not only not surprising but, in a way, kind of expected (at least somewhat). And he cited examples of other big migrations (such as Celts, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Middle East "Levant" etc)  that "left no archeological trace".    It happens.    And so, taking that into account, Berman was not "wrong".   And even if you (and other scholars) believe that his points are "wrong" (when factually they really aren't, since A) Egyptians would NOT have recorded devastating defeats, and B) "lack of archaeological evidence" has happened with other migrations that no one questions or doubts, and those Israelites were nomadic etc), he's still RS and it's a sourced argument, presentation, statement, and reference.  That readers of presumably thorough and neutral Wikipedia should KNOW about.    And I do appreciate your work and adjustments on the edits...reflecting the case and "due weight" and "majority view" carefully, along with the "few" reputable scholarly sources giving explanations for the possible reasons.


 * Also, as Dewayne Bryant points out here:


 * "One other group in ancient history left behind little evidence of foreign occupation. Assyriologist Alan Millard points out that circa 2000 B.C. a mass movement of Amorites flooded into the Babylonian empire, taking over a number of cities and establishing their own dynasties (2008, p. 167). This is evident from a large body of written material from the period. Even after this influx of Amorites, the material culture gives no appreciable sign of change. Millard argues that the same thing could have happened with Israel. Since the Israelites were commanded to take over the material culture of Canaan (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-11), it appears that a nearly seamless transition from the Canaanite culture to an Israelite one is easily explained.


 * Bryant continues:


 * "One consideration raised by archaeologists is the introduction of the so-called 'four-room house.' This particular architectural feature is so peculiar to ancient Israel that it is called the 'Israelite house.' This structure is a typical home featuring a four-room floor plan. Manfred Bietak, the Austrian archaeologist who excavates at Tel el-Daba` (the ancient city of Avaris) notes that he has excavated houses bearing this very floor plan—in Egypt (2003, 29/5:41-49,82-83). If the story of the Exodus is mere fiction, then why is a structure peculiar to ancient Israel, that emerges in Canaan shortly after the time of the Exodus, also found in Egypt in the same region said to have been occupied by the Israelites in the book of Exodus?"  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gabby, if you're happy with the article as it is, just leave it - this isn't the place for long discussions. If you'd like to know more about archaeological evidence and the exodus, the article bibliography has at least a dozen books on the subject, all by people far better informed than I am. For example, there's a book there called "Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture," and in that there's an article by the same Manfred Bietak mentioned by your friend Bryant. In fact that book is an anthology of views, and a very good starting point - and the contributors are all far more trustworthy than Bryant.PiCo (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Do those same sources also dismiss the countless other historical events that aren't backed up by archaeology, or are they using a double standard, in which case they're among the worst possible sources to use and certainly not the only ones we could use. The list of "expectations" clearly indicate a double standard; for example, they claim there would be Egyptian records (which they admit wouldn't be in monuments), although it is universally accepted that 99.9% of the Egyptian papyrus records have been lost, especially in the Nile Delta (which is where you say the Hebrew slaves would have been). Since historians agree that almost all the records have been lost, how the dickens can anyone claim that we would expect to find records about this event, and how can you claim that these sources represent the scholarly consensus when they are in fact contradicted on this point by the scholarly consensus? The same can be said for most of the other "expectations". E.g., movement past the border forts may well have been detected but not likely admitted in the monuments to the gods which are virtually the only surviving written accounts left. These monuments never mention Egyptian defeats, embarrassments, or setbacks - that's also the consensus among scholars - so why would anyone expect this event to be admitted on those monuments, and how can you claim consensus for such an idea when it's actually contradicted by the consensus? The argument about the "38 years at Kadesh-Barnea" (which your sources claim would imply a concentrated amount of artifacts) completely ignores the fact that 1) the consensus is that the Hebrews were nomads who lived in tents, hence you wouldn't expect to find building foundations or other structures that might survive; 2) the term "Kadesh-Barnea" (AFAIK) also refers to the whole region near that area rather than just that location itself (as is still true for many place-names in the Middle-East even today), and nomads who herd animals have to keep moving so the animals have enough grass to eat rather than just sitting in one location. I think this is also the consensus as well as the only common sense interpretation, which undermines the idea that there should be concentrated artifacts in that one location. You also keep citing a "two million" figure to try to make the whole thing seem impossible, but the number is in dispute and even two million wouldn't be all that much more than the number which Julius Caesar gives for the migration of the Helvetii and other tribes, which isn't attested by archaeology either as far as I know. Do your authors dismiss that migration as well, or just events from the Bible which they have a bias against?
 * But as you told Gabby Merger, this isn't the place for long discussions. I'd be willing to drop the discussion if the article would at least abide by the standard NPOV principle by just stating what both sides' views are rather than stating one of them as a Wikipedia fact. My edit only makes this change, nothing more. GBRV (talk) 04:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

NPOV
Concerning your edit comment when you again reverted my attempt to make this article NPOV: mediation is supposed to be a rare and last resort in cases of a large and prolonged edit war, not just whenever someone makes a small NPOV change to one of "your" articles. I've provided plenty of justification for my change, and it's just the normal procedure. GBRV (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To be clear, please confirm that you want to change this:


 * The archaeological data does not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that Israel ever lived in Egypt, the Sinai shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire second millennium, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.(reference Redmount|2001|p=77) Despite this, a few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story.(reference Moore&Kelle|2011|p=88-89)


 * to this:


 * Scholars have debated whether the archaeological data would accord with what could be expected from the Biblical exodus. Many scholars have argued that there is no evidence that Israelites ever lived in Egypt, and that the Sinai shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire second millennium, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.(reference Redmount|2001|p=77) Despite this, some scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story.(reference Moore&Kelle|2011|p=88-89)


 * The top text reflects the sources. Redmount does not say that the non-existence of evidence is debated, she says (quote): "[A]t no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai and Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus..." Moore and Kelle do not say "some" scholars, they say "a few", but of course I don't think you're very concerned with that - in fact I have no idea why you want to change it, the difference is purely semantic, although I gather from Moore and Kelle that "a few" better expresses how little interest there is among archaeologists in the historicity of the exodus.


 * Your proposed changes would therefore tend to misrepresent the sources. Your main (sole?) argument seems to be that there is little archaeological evidence for various other nomad migrations. I doubt that this is as true as you seem to think - nomads leave graves behind, for example, and these are readily identifiable - but this is original research on your part and therefore beside the point. We reflect sources. So, if you aren't satisfied with this explanation for why you keep getting reverted (and not just by me), you should take it to an appropriate forum.PiCo (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I might agree with you, Pico, regarding "authoriSation", but you're just plain incorrect for wanting to maintain the blatant POV wording of "The archaeological data does not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that Israel ever lived in Egypt," as IF Wikipedia itself is dogmatically stating and holding to this conclusive view, with obvious bias, as if it was a "sky blue" fact, when it's anything but, instead of the more NPOV (and WP compliant) wording and tone (which is NOT wrong at all) of "Scholars have debated whether the archaeological data would accord with what could be expected from the Biblical exodus."    I would word it as "The general scholarly consensus is that the archaeological data does not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story", which is a fair compromise.    Good day.  Gabby Merger (talk) 18:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See Daniel Okrent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I know what you're saying, but doesn't really apply. This is NOT really a "sky blue" situation no matter what some people want to claim or believe, as there's ZERO expert disagreement that the sky appears blue, but there are at least some scholarly variations regarding the Hebrew exodus out of Egypt, as you can see from the comments and quotes a little farther above...from various RS sources on this subject.     Gabby Merger (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nor is there any expert disagreement that there's no evidence for the exodus, not even from Kitchen and Hoffmeier. But this discussion is going nowhere - if you want to pursue your point, take it to a suitable dispute settlement forum. PiCo (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not mainly my dispute if you notice, as I have not reverted you on this particular matter per se, though I more so agree with GBRV on this. (Also, that's not totally correct that, according to a "few" experts, there's literally "no evidence for the exodus". Some maintain that there are some things to be considered, like the "Israelite house" found in Canaan, and also found in Egypt.  Unique and specific to Hebrews.   That's arguable "evidence"...though not conclusive "proof".   Also, the papyrus stating that there were some severe disruptions to Egyptian living, that tend to match some things with the plagues, etc.  And it's not certain what time period or dynasty any of those things were.  (It was NOT under the reign of "Rameses", as that's been debunked a while ago.)   Also, what needs to be understood and remembered is that "evidence" is NOT the same as "proof", by the way.  "Evidence" is more general and broad, and is data that give inferences, whereas "proof" is more solid and definitive.)  But you didn't address or mention what you thought of my rendering as a fair compromise (of sorts), of "The general scholarly consensus is that the archaeological data does not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story", which is a fair (and WP compliant) compromise, and neutral-point-of-view as well as accurate wording.   Gabby Merger (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gabby, we're getting into semantics here on the difference between your favoured phrasing and mine, but for what it's worth, I don't like to use the word "consensus" unless we have a source that uses it, and we don't. What we have is a source saying, well, you can see what what it says. As for the "evidence" you bring up, the that that particular house-style is specifically Israelite is no longer held by archaeologists, and the Ipuwer papyrus is never, ever, associated with the exodus by professional Egyptologists. In other words, the existing wording of our article correctly reflects the current state of scholarship. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The unique Israelite house matter is not held by most archaeologists (with the problem of group think) but is held by some.   And again, Manfred Bietak, Austrian archaeologist, does NOT agree with your statement "no longer held by archaeologists".   A few still do.


 * Archaeologist Manfred Bietak writes:


 * "In one detail, however, the Egyptian example does deviate from the usual four-room house: Its entry is through the broad room rather than through the courtyard (the middle long room). (From the broad room, one would have walked into the middle long room.) But even this anomaly sometimes occurs in houses in Canaan, at Tel Masos, for example.7 It may well be that the entry to this house is through the broad room because it is the northern room and, as in most contemporary Egyptian houses, is designed to let the prevailing north wind enter the house, especially during the heat of the summer.8"


 * Also an interesting tid bit here:


 * "In the course of this excavation, the archaeologists discovered evidence of some rude makeshift huts, whose dates I shall discuss later. The evidence for the huts consisted of narrow trenches chiseled out of the bedrock, from 6 to 8 inches wide and only 4 to 8 inches deep. In these small trenches were postholes, apparently for wooden poles or reed bundles bound together with ropes to be used as posts. The trenches and postholes still held evidence of the mortar or plaster used to secure the posts and the reed-walls. At two spots, postholes were found in pairs at ends of trenches, showing breaks. Here doorposts could be reconstructed. The excavators interpreted all this as evidence of workers’ huts, the walls of which were made of reeds plastered with mud or desert clay stamped around them and supported by intermittent posts in grooves in the bedrock. Similarly constructed huts can still be found in Egypt even today."


 * You frankly have been making all-sweeping statements, that are proven to be wrong.  Most scholars discount the historicity of the exodus, but not necessarily all, and not all say that there's "absolutely no evidence".    Some say there is, though scant.   But again, as Prof Berman pointed out, that is not to be wondered at, as Egyptians would never honestly record a devastating humiliating defeat and tragedy like that, and also nomadic migrations would leave little to no archaeological trace, as has happened with other migrations that no one doubts or questions.    But with circular assumptions of "no miracles can ever happen" and "there's no God" even, this is the stuff we get.     Where things like unique Israelite houses and floor plans are denied, down-played, and desperately rationalized away, and dismissed.    But Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak, one of a few experts, doesn't totally dismiss these things.   Regards...... Gabby Merger (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gabby, I suggest you go to the article's bibliography and get the Moore-Kelle book and read the relevant parts - it's comprehensive, recent, and non-technical. Then read Dever's book, "Who Were the Ancient Israelites?", and the Finkelstein-Silberman book, "The Bible Unearthed." After those, the Killibrew book, "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity," which is more technical.


 * On a minor point, the Israelites were not a nomadic people, nor does the Bible say they were - this meme is somewhat like the popular idea that there were three magi, although the Bible doesn't say that at all. The Bible says the Israelites lived 430 years in Egypt, 700 years in Israel, 6 months at Sinai, and 38 years at Kadesh-Barnea. That leaves just 18 months in the desert out of over a thousand years. PiCo (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In one of my previous notes a couple days ago, I pointed out a number of issues in which the actual consensus differs from what these authors claim. Both Gabby Merger and I have provided RSs which could be added in order to justify moderating the wording, which right now is rather extreme. But you'll just revert it and then tell us to seek mediation. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You and Tgeorgescu don't own this article.
 * The issue isn't mere semantics, because 1) the consensus isn't what these authors claim it is; 2) there's an important difference between claiming that the expected archaeological evidence doesn't exist (in Wikipedia's own voice) versus saying that the matter has been debated.
 * On the issue of whether the Hebrews were nomads: while migrating (the incident we're dealing with) they were certainly nomads, and before they were enslaved (a time period which you failed to mention) they would clearly seem to have been nomads as well. As for Kadesh-Barnea: you (or your authors) are just assuming that they plunked themselves down and built permanent houses, whereas the Bible doesn't say that, nor does it say that it's referring only to one small location since it would be commonplace to refer to an entire region by the name of the most prominent location in that region. GBRV (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To be sure, no miracles can be shown to have happened and the existence of God is unfalsifiable. That's what methodological naturalism is about and all historians, regardless of their religious affiliation, have agreed to work with it. Of course, some authors disagree with it, but that is theology, it isn't history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Gabby accuses me of making sweeping statements, but I'm not making any statements at all, I'm simply quoting and paraphrasing reliable sources. We have to stick to sources. PiCo (talk) 00:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that proving paranormal phenomena or supernatural causation is not what historians do for earning a living. Otherwise we would have peer-reviewed articles like "Have leprechauns dictated the Book of Isaiah? An alternative theory for the claim that angels have dictated the Book of Isaiah", "Historical proof that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits", "Vespasian's godly status confirmed through archaeological finds" and "The role of elves and fairies in World War II combats". Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The things we've been discussing here aren't supernatural: pottery, whether nomads would leave foundations, etc. GBRV (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Pico, I already own "Bible Unearthed", and have for many years now. And of course I've read and studied it.   And it's mostly the same usual circular reasoning and secular cocoon of flawed dogmatic nonsense.    Not totally worthless of course, but it just reflects many of the usual fallacies and dogmatic assumptions.  That outfits like DailyKos eat up, then barf out blindly and drone-ishly, because of wanting to believe that the Bible is "disproven by archaeology".   (Like "no camels around Abraham" even though that assumption has been recently proven false by Millard etc.)  It's the same old story.  Like how the Hittites' existence were once denied.  Because of no archaeologist evidence or documentation outside the Bible.    Atheists and Bible critics at one time denied the existence of the Hittites, Belshazzar, and Pontius Pilate, because there was no outside archaeological evidence or documentation (outside of the Bible) for the existence of any of those people.  Then later on, discoveries were "unearthed" confirming the existence of Hittites, Pilate, and Belshazzar, vindicating the Jewish-Christian documents (of the Bible) as usual.    But (as I've pointed out before) hard-core Bible-rejecting Higher Critics and Atheists never learn and never change.   The attitude continues anyway.  No matter how many times the Bible's chronicling of events and peoples is eventually proven right.  And the book "Bible Unearthed" just shows the usual and old failed mind-set. Finkelstein is a leading Israeli archaeologist that is really just a revisionist or minimalist, because he contends that the Bible is a late invention of Hellenistic Jews.   But archaeologist David Rohl disagrees with "Bible Unearthed" and its author Israel Finkelstein.   My point is that the archaeologist Brietak is an RS and does NOT discount the exodus's historicity, and says there's at least some "evidence" for it, though not much.    That was my only point.    That it's not necessarily "all" experts, who hold the majority view, but that it's the majority who do.   Some (though obviously few) don't.  (Also, by the way, I said that the migration was "nomadic", not necessarily the entire existence of the Hebrew Israelites, every moment.  But that the Hebrews were at least for a while.  For decades, at some point.)  And also like I said, this dispute is mainly between you and GBRV, on this specific matter.    Though I tend (obviously) to agree a lot more with GBRV's position and point.   NPOV and careful unbiased wording are important on supposedly neutral Wikipedia.  And also things like this should not be compared to things like "sky blue".    Click this.   Gabby Merger (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"The things we've been discussing here aren't supernatural: pottery, whether nomads would leave foundations, etc. GBRV is right, that's the question. Sort of. Of course, the Israelites weren't nomads and the Bible doesn't say they were - 18 months crossing the desert from Egypt to Palestine doesn't make you a nomad. But that aside, the real question is, would archaeologists expect the Iraelites to leave traces if th3e exodus story were history? And the answer, according to the archaeologists, is yes. Kitchen says yes, Redford says yes, Beitak says yes - they all do. And they all say no conclusive traces have been found. Kitchen says that the tabernacle is very like the tents Egyptian kings used while campaigning abroad (but unfortunately kings used tents like that for three thousand years, right down to Greek times, so it doesn't carry much weight), and Beitak says he thinks the 4-roomed houses in the delta might just possibly be Israelite (be he admits that those houses aren't exclusively Israeliite as they're found in Jordan and elsewhere where Israelites never lived and they developed out of Canaanite house-patterns anyway), and Hoffmeier has written two very well-researched, exhaustive books on Israel in Egypt and Israel in Sinai and come up with nothing conclusive, as he admits. So that's it. PiCo (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, maybe not "conclusive" proof (or conclusive "traces"), even the pro-exodus archaeologists and scholars might say, but "conclusive proof" (as I pointed out before) is not necessarily the same as general "evidence"...to some extent.  As I mentioned before in one of my comments above, the word "evidence" is not the same as the word "proof".   Evidence is general and broad, and is stuff that CAN mean something, though not necessarily.   Whereas "proof" is more definitive, conclusive, and solid.  And the word before was not "proof" or "conclusive" (necessarily) but was "evidence".    And though admittedly scant, there's at least some to consider.  (The RS scholars have so stated, as the quotes and links show.)   And as I also pointed out clearly, some experts and RS have explained the two-fold issue of "no inscriptions" and "little to no archaeological trace" being the fact that "Egyptians would never honestly record devastating defeats and humiliations" and "nomadic migrations etc would not leave much if any archaeological trace".  (And no, it was not just "18 months" (as the Bible-rejecting crew would want to say), but decades, for various reasons.   But even if we go with a year and a half, that would make it even more so that "no trace" would be left.  But even decades of nomadic travelling.)  But again, to sum it up, there may not be (what many would consider) "conclusive proof", there's at least some rough "evidence" here and there.   And Mietak and Millard et cetera admit that.  To that extent.   But anyway, Wikipedia should reflect more of NPOV tone and wording.   If the wording was "there's no conclusive proof" in the WP article, I may accept that better.   But when you say "no evidence" (again, "evidence" is not the same as conclusive "proof") that's going too far, as it's denying the (admittedly scant but still existent) "evidence".    Not every one discounts (as Mietak clearly shows) the four-room house matter, and also other things like those huts etc.    So this is not a "sky blue" thing necessarily.   Evidence is not the same as solid proof.   The former is some, the latter may be lacking though.  And WP should be careful with that with the wording.    Especially with the appalling record of Bible critics who were proven wrong a number of times over the decades (viz. the existence of Hittites, Belshazzar, Pontius Pilate, etc etc).   Gabby Merger (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * PiCO: The question is: do these same archaeologists claim that we would expect archaeological remains for other migrations (the ones that aren't in a book which they personally dislike)? The answer is an emphatic "no", otherwise they'd have to similarly dismiss countless other migrations in history that aren't attested in the archaeological record, as well as numerous other events. I've already mentioned cases of this type, and Gabby Merger (I think) mentioned others. If your authors aren't using a consistent methodology, then maybe they're not the best ones to use as sources, and there's no reason why these guys are the only ones we can use.
 * As for the nomad issue: the main point I was making was simply that ex-slaves fleeing servitude are not going to be dragging houses with them nor are they going to be building houses as they flee through the desert, so that would certainly qualify them as "nomads" during the migration itself, which is the entire focus of this discussion. It makes no difference whether they had been nomads hundreds of years earlier, since that's not what we're debating. GBRV (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * If it boils down to 600 slaves who escaped from Egypt, it would be extremely improbable to find evidence for it. But if it is two million souls living for decades in Kadesh-Barnea, as the Bible suggests, some evidence should have been found by now. We notice again your assertion by fiat that the most trusted experts on this subject aren't experts at all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaking about consensus in these matters, perhaps you should check above the quote from Grabbe (published in the proceedings of the British Academy). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The two million figure is disputed, for reasons already discussed; and it isn't much mote than the numbers given by Julius Caesar for the migration of the Helvetii and other tribes with them. So should we dismiss Julius Caesar's account, and do your authors dismiss his account? You keep citing them as the "most trusted" authors on the subject, but the only justification you can provide are quotes from these guys themselves claiming that most people agree with them. If I wrote an article claiming that most people view me as the next Einstein, would that prove the matter?  GBRV (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We speak of academics who have a reputation to maintain, so, no, they cannot simply state ridiculous claims without fear of consequences for their careers. But it is a more basic problem, explained at WP:SOURCES and WP:RELY. If you don't agree with basic policies and guidelines, there is little hope you will agree upon anything concerning Bible scholarship. You cannot simply dismiss a whole research field taught at major universities with an WP:OR claim about the Helvetii. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You say that academics with a reputation to uphold cannot make ridiculous claims, but in this case the issue isn't patent nonsense, but rather an author's statement about his own reception which does not qualify as an objective neutral opinion, or (as StAnselm has stated elsewhere) is based on his own personal definition of the term "critical scholar". Most authors claim to enjoy widespread approval, but that doesn't necessarily prove the matter.
 * You also claimed my example of the Helvetii is OR, although published academics accept Caesar's statements about the Helvetii migration despite the lack of archaeological evidence. It's not just my own opinion. GBRV (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The out of hand dismissal of a whole research field is WP:OR. It is like rejecting evolutionary psychology because many don't agree with its basic assumption (namely evolution). See the reply written by a Christian at . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't dismiss an "entire research field". I questioned a couple authors' claims about the reception of their own theories, and so did StAnselm on the mediation page. GBRV (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)