Talk:The Exodus/Archive 13

Recent edits to Origins section
An anon user has recently reworked the Origins section. I don't want to revert it, as I don't actually object to it - it just presents the same information in a different manner, based on lists and bullet-points. What do others think?PiCo (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Section has since had a maintenance tag attached to part of the section, but the part in question was directly pasted from the previous version so it wasn't from an edit that the anon editor made. Ckruschke (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Ckruschke

Fringe issues raised at FTN
I've started a discussion at WP:FTN. Doug Weller talk 08:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Jericho wall
Kenyon found evidence of a wall around Jericho. So what? What's the link with the Exodus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

is conflating Jericho with Jericho. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Maldives107 because there is currently a WP:NORN discussion that you started Tgeorgescu. I recommend that discussion be resolved/closed before any further edits/reverts continue. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Exodus Research has not been abandoned as a "fruitless pursuit"
It seems to me that there is a blatantly inaccurate statement that is amazingly misleading in this Wikipedia page. In the second paragraph on the Wikipedia page, the claim is made that archaeologists have abandoned research on the exodus, with a citation to a quotation that was made in 2001. This statement is blatantly false, as since 2001, there have been several massive archaeological conferences and many publications regarding aspects of the exodus and its historicity, such as the identification of the pharaoh of the exodus. One example of ongoing scholarly research on the exodus is from 2013, a mere 4 years ago, when there was an international archaeological conference that was held in California, that brought many of the worlds leading archaeologists to discuss several aspects of the exodus (such as its dating, the archaeology behind it, and much more), and the fact that this major international conference on the exodus took place just a few years ago simply destroys the idea that research on the exodus has actually been abandoned. Here's a link to this conference where all remarks can be viewed by all speakers for anyone who wants to see more about it: http://exodus.calit2.net/ in other words, the claim that archaeological and academic research and discussion on the historicity of the exodus has been abandoned is a blatant falsehood. Does anyone have any insights for me here? If everyone here can realize that this quotation is nonsense, I will proceed to edit & remove it from the Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of factual information, not false information. Korvex (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * From William G. Dever (speaking at the indicated conference):

"* A 2013 lecture by Dever on the Exodus is available on YouTube. He argues for existence of a historical Israel in the Iron Age, contrary to 'revisionists' and 'minimalists' such as Niels Peter Lemche. He concludes, however, in this lecture that in the much greater part the Exodus is a myth or 'pseudo-history,' and that the early Israelites were mostly indigenous Canaanites."


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Of course he means Creationists persist, see Talk:Ai (Canaan). Doug Weller  talk 07:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Did someone call this fringe? Lol. This international archaeological conference of the worlds top archaeologists in the world that occurred a few years ago certainly isn't "fringe", and completely debunks the idea that research on the exodus has been "abandoned". I also don't know why Doug keeps bringing in creationism, especially on a talk page that has nothing to do with any of it. This seems to be a kind of bait. Anyways, none of my posts aim at showing that the exodus is true or false, true history or pseudo history, I'm simply showing that beyond a conceptual doubt, beyond any reasonable interpretation of scholarly discussion and research on the exodus has NOT been "abandoned". This is plainly false. It must be removed from the page, there have been many papers, many books published since 2001, many conferences, that attempt to prove or disprove, establish or rebuke aspects of the exodus in a scholarly fashion. There seems to be absolutely no question about this fact. Everyone does realize that in these conferences, they read actual published papers, right? Is there any valid evidence that this conference and the many papers since 2001 on several aspects of the exodus don't actually exist and never happened? If not, I'll go ahead and remove this quotation very soon. Just to note to Doug, none of the speakers in the California conference were, to my knowledge, creationists. Korvex (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * See . Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I read your blog link. What does it have to do with anything? I'm waiting until tomorrow to delete the nonsense that scholarly discussion on the exodus has been abandoned. Korvex (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Enns says there considerable evidence against the Conquest. Exactly what Dever stated in his 2001 book: no Conquest, therefore it would be bizarre to speak of the Exodus. As we know from other sources, there is zero archaeological evidence for the Exodus. The consensus view of archaeologists is that the Hebrews have gradually emerged from the Canaanites. No Conquest, thus: those genocides were imaginary, as many theologians are eager to confirm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Althoguh you're entirely and hilariously wrong on the evidence for the exodus, Tgeorgescu, I couldn't care less as of right now whether or not there is evidence. Please read my comments above. This has nothing to do with the evidence for the exodus, this is simply me calling out the garbage that exodus research has been "abandoned". It's a false statement, numerous papers and international archaeological conferences on the exodus that have emerged since 2001 falsify this statement. If you want to discuss evidence for the conquest, go to the Talk Page on my account, but you've clearly no idea what you're talking about, and clearrly, no idea what I'm talking about either. Again, I think it's been demonstrated that the idea that exodus research has been abandoned has been entirely falsified, whether or not the exodus has any truth to it in the first place. Thus, the statement I've been speaking of is getting deleted.Korvex (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Korvex, did you actually watch any of those clips? The keynote speaker is Manfred Bietak, and he talks about Avaris as the capital of a Canaanite Hyksos kingdom. That's all very interesting, but the Hyksos were not Israelites. He doesn't say they were. That's hardly surprising, since there were no Israelites at that time - they emerged much later. Bietak says explicitly that he does not think the Hyksos were Israelites (at about 18:54 and in more detail at 38:30 and following).PiCo (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The proceedings of the conference were published in a book in 2015. We use one of the papers as a source in our article - see the Bibliography under Sparks.PiCo (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Pico, it's entirely irrelevant whether or not the Hyksos were the Hebrews or not. Some Scholars think they were, some think they weren't -- I personally don't think they were. But that's entirely irrelevant to this discussion, why are you mentioning it? Please read the title of this section, the quotation from Dever that I deleted (and you apparently reverted my delete) claims that research on the exodus has been abandoned. The quotation goes back to 2001. This is false, research on the exodus has not been abandoned in the slightest. There are numerous publications since 2001, many very recent, on the subject of some aspect of the exodus. Some papers from recent years talk about the origins of the exodus story, some talk about who the pharaoh of the exodus was, etc. Many conservative and liberal papers have been published on the exodus since 2001, and the international archaeological conference in 2013 based in California that had multiple world-renowned speakers in the field that talk about the exodus in a scholarly fashion by reading recent published material (and by your own words, material that was further published as recent as 2015) completely tears to shreds the idea that scholarly research has been abandoned as a "fruitless pursuit". Actually, it has not been abandoned by any manner, whatsoever. Therefore, the statement is undeniably false and erroneous to a very great extent. Wikipedia is better than this. The quotation/statement must be deleted. As of right now in academia, the idea that exodus research has been abandoned is indeed fringe. Many critical and supportive papers of the exodus have been published since 2001, with various interpretations on what the exodus was (such as, who the Israelite's were, how many Israelite's were there, when did they leave Egypt, etc.). Fringe information (and blatantly false information) violates Wikipedia's policies. Exodus research has not been abandoned. Do you have any objection to the deletion of this statement in the current Wiki page, in which is a statement that does not properly reflect reality?Korvex (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The 2015 book is the collected papers from the 2013 conference. Dever's 2001 book says first that the there's no archaeological evidence for the Patriarchs, and then that "archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit." Almost none of the people at the conference are actually investigating Moses and the exodus. Bietak, for example, is investigating Avaris, and his conclusion that the biblical exodus is fictional is a by-product of that, not his focus. Hoffmeier does investigate the exodus, but he's definitely in the minority. But the conference was certainly important and I think we should make more use of the essays in the book. I suggest you start reading the essays (start with one that looks most interesting to you) and see what you can find.20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You say this; "Hoffmeir does investigate the exodus, but he's definitely in the minority" -- not only does Hoffmeir continue investigating it, multiple other archaeologists continue to do so as well. There have been many, many publications on the exodus since 2001, and whether you like it or not, research on any aspect of the exodus, or even the mere portion you conceded, shows Dever's claim to be straight out false by any coherent interpretation. I am quite astonished that there is still questioning of this -- the quote very clearly puts forth that research on the exodus has ended. This is not true. Therefore, the quote should be obviously removed, it's basic procedure. How can you possibly defend a self-admitted false claim? This violates Wiki's policies on neutrality to intentionally advocate for false information. There are no grounds for supporting such a quotation. The truth is, the people in the conference are investigating the exodus, they are investigating when it can be dated to, how many Israelite's supposedly came out of Egypt, the chronology of Biblical texts that discuss this, etc, etc, etc. Listen to Richard Friedman's part, for example. Again, there are absolutely no grounds for supporting this blatantly errorful quote. There is no defense for maintaining it. Korvex (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Frankly, "digging in order to support the Exodus narrative" is a WP:FRINGE/PS position, that's what Dever meant. "Digging in order to find something else and then comment upon the (impossibility of the) Exodus" is not a fringe position. Hoffmeier knows there is no evidence for the Exodus, so that's why he pleaded that the Exodus isn't impossible (not proven, just not impossible, according to him). If you need a confirmation from somebody who believes that the Bible is true, see .Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing you said is true, and for the twenty thousandth time, the claim that scholarly investigation, research and discussion on the exodus has been "abandoned" has been shown to be utterly false in every conceptual way. It is not fringe either, for even the CRITICS of the exodus are publishing material on this continually. So there is simply not a possible question that the quote must be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs)
 * That is what Hoffmeier is arguing, it is not my viewpoint. Besides, what positive (hard) evidence is there for the Exodus? If such evidence would exist, we would not have this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Tgeorgescu, your statements are false. You are clearly misspeaking about what Dever's quote signifies. It clearly states that exodus research has been abandoned. That is false, that is WP:FRINGE because EVEN DEVER HIMSELF has continued to publish on the exodus. The evidence regarding the exodus is not even relevant here in the conceivable slightest, because that's not what the quote is about. This is an obvious red herring. So, the quote must obviously be removed, and anything else is obvious POV pushing. Now, aside from that, if you want to discuss evidence for the exodus go to my Talk Page, because that conversation doesn't belong on this section. Clearly saying something that is false and claiming that James Hoffmeir says there is no evidence and simply says "it's not impossible" is hilarious, considering Hoffmeir has given lectures on what he thinks as evidence for the exodus. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2vhrK6Wczs -- but again, ALL THIS is irrelevant to the fact that exodus research has not been abandoned. That's exactly what the quote says, and I have caught you intentionally changing faxts about what it says to try to maintain it on the current Exodus Wikipedia page, there is no defense for what you have done. The quote is to be removed.Korvex (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"James K. Hoffmeier (Israel in Egypt): The story fits the background of Egypt in the thirteenth century B.C. There are many accurate details in the story that are surprising if it was made up later. Hoffmeier thus does recognize that archaeology offers only circumstantial support for the biblical story."

- John Goldingay


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

"On Wood, see Nathan's comment. You also haven't responded to Dale Murphy's comment.

I've read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn't impossible. He knows very well he hasn't proven anything.

You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view

Ted, if you really think that you've cracked this nut, why not write a book--preferably one that is peer reviewed, and present your ideas at academic conferences? Or do you some blindness, even conspiracy, on the part of archaeologists who don't agree with you?"

- Peter Enns


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Avaris
I've just edited a section of the 'Archaeology' under the Historicity of the Exodus. Previously, it stated that there was no evidence whatsoever for the exodus (leaving of peoples from Egypt), which is false. During the reign of Amenhotep II a city of Egypt and major military base known as Avaris was entirely abandoned, which would coincide with the exodus assuming the exodus date of 1446 BC (which I will make further edits on this Wikipedia page later on). I cited a paper from the journal JAIE which clearly cites this abandonment, and then shows that this abandonment indeed took place under the reign of Amenhotep II. A sudden abandonement of a city that probably hosted tens of thousands of inhabitants (25,000-30,000 from what I read) is definite evidence for the historicity of the exodus, which indicates a massive exodus of the Hebrew peoples from Egypt all at once, consistent with the sudden abandonment of Avaris which entirely happened all at once. Is this absolute evidence for the entire story? No, but it is some evidence, and that was the point of my edit (which I may need to re-do if it gets removed because I may have missed an editing step or something). Korvex (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, it's not evidence for the Exodus. You can't use it as such because it doesn't mention the Exodus, wee WP:NOR. I know the author is a Creationist who thinks it's evidence for the Exodus, but that's irrelevant. And his analysis of Avaris (ignoring the Exodus) is tentative and would need confirmation by mainstream archaeologists. Any archaeological evidence for the Exodus needs to be from sources meeting WP:RS and discuss the Exodus. Doug Weller  talk 17:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This is regarding you calling the abandonment of Avaris "not evidence for the exodus" because my entry contains "original research". Well, whether or not the research is original to myself, its evidence -- so the only problem here we have is regarding Wikipedia's policy on original research. And yet again, there is no problem -- as Douglas Petrovich, author of the paper I cited HAS expressed on an article on biblearchaeology.com that he finds this as evidence for the exodus, and thus the idea I added in was not original to myself whatsoever.

So, how about this -- in order to respect Wikipedia's policies, I will cite both the paper authored by Douglas regarding this abandonment, as well as his article on biblearchaeology.com. That way, the abandonment is confirmed by my citations, as well as my connection of it to the exodus being shown as not original and thus respects Wikipedia's policies.Korvex (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All of this seems pretty flimsy to me. An abandoned city in Egypt is not necessarily evidence of the Exodus. Let us think critically about such loose associations. What would be interesting is evidence in written form. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Flimsy? This is far from flimsy. In my view, this is quite extraordinary -- Avaris was a major military base of Egypt and housed tens of thousands of inhabitants, and then out of absolutely nowhere was entirely abandoned at a single point. That's exactly what the exodus tells us. Now, whether or not it is "flimsy" evidence in your view is not the point -- the point is the edit of the Wikipedia page. The fact is, archaeology has unearthed this sudden abandonment, and it has been published, and the scholars have made a connection between it and the exodus. Thus, it has every right to be incorporated to the Wikipedia page and give the full story to the readers and the debate. It is not my own original research and has been archaeologically verified to have occurred. Again, the only conclusion from all this information is that it should be accepted to the page without anyone continuously reversing the edits. Thus, as I said earlier -- it has every right to be included as it is verified information that has already been connected to the exodus. Do you have any more objections/questions, or may I proceed in re-doing the edit?Korvex (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please wait to get input from other editors (not just me). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Petrovich has made these statement about Avaris but they can't be accepted as fact - Petrovich doesn't even claim an abandonment date as fact, saying "understood best to have" nor in his Toward Pinpointing article does the make a link to the Exodus. His Creationist article fails WP:RS and can't be used for this - he clearly knew he couldn't get it into the Toward Pinpointing article. In any case I wouldn't use his Toward Pinpointing article for anything until it's discussed in other reliable sources, seeWP:UNDUE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 20:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something here? I just read through Petrovich's paper (per this revision, now deleted); quite a slog, as no page number was given. It doesn't seem to deal with any kind of exodus, let alone The Exodus (the topic of this article). It addresses matters of dating for the seemingly sudden abandonment of a settlement at Avaris. C'est tout. It's unusable and irrelevant for this article. We can only say what the source says; we can't use what the source says to draw our own conclusions, or offer editorial observations. Haploidavey (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * TO DOUG AND HAPLOIDAVE -- The fact that Petrovich uses language like "understood best to have" is because in history, there is no such thing as certainty -- especially events dating back thousands of years. Thus, if you've ever read any papers on these things, you know that certainty is never put forth, so this is unrelated in its entirety. The fact is, 100% of egyptologists accept the historicity of the abandonment. Douglas's paper simply focuses in on the dating of this abandonment, arguing it dates to the reign of Amenhotep II. In reality, Douglas was mainly responding to Manfred Bietak's initial publications on AVaris and its abandonment -- and Bietak doesn't even think the exodus happened! David Rohl, another guy who doesn't even accept the exodus, on page 60 of his book The Lords of Avaris references the abandonment of Avaris, and he doesn't reference it as something being debated, he references it as he mentions other pieces of established history in his book. In the Scholarly book The Egyptian World by Toby Wilkinson, the abandonment of Avaris is discussed, in the book by James Hoffmeir called Israel in Egypt, the abandonment is discussed as fact and accepted. Take your pick. The reality is, there is no Scholarly discussion regarding whether or not Avaris was abandoned. Alright -- but I get the worry, your still not accepting it because of a lack of "Scholarly connection" in this paper itself, to the exodus. So, I will provide one for you. Here is the deal, I wont cite the "creationist article" (it's not a creationist article), rather I'll cite one of Bryant G. Wood's publications called 'Recent Research on the Date and Setting of the Exodus', and in it Byrant (whom has a PhD in this field) says "Although Egyptian history does not provide an answer for this abandonment, Exodus 7–14 certainly does". So, there's absolutely no doubt about whether or not this abandonment happened, and there are various Scholars now as we've seen whom have connected the abandonment to the exodus in reliable sources. Any more issues?Korvex (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have searched for a non-creationist source supporting the connection between Avaris' abandonment and the Biblical Exodus, yet you have found an article by Bryant G. Wood laconically claiming this, published on Bible and Spade, a biblical inerrantist magazine which is edited by Wood himself. Not sure at all it could be considered RS. It that thing at least peer-reviewed? Khruner (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Korvex seems to think Petrovich is an expert Egyptologist. As I replied on my talk page, "No, he has poor qualifications in Egyptology. You don't "publish" at Academic.edu, you can store a paper there, it isn't publishing. He is nowhere near being a top expert. Has he even finished his PhD? Creation.com calls, ab him a candidate. He isn't a professor or a junior professor, he's just an adjunct which is the bottom of the rung - if it even is a rung." Bible & Spade may be peer reviewed by other Creationists, but that's not "scientific peer review". Nothing inerrantist can be properly peer reviewed. And we aren't arguing whether Avaris was abandoned, of course it was, but whether mainstream sources connect it to the Exodus., what sources meeting WP:RS connect it to the Exodus? Doug Weller  talk 12:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In my previous comment, I heftily dealt and destroyed Doug's remarks that Petrovich isn't qualified or something, so only Khruner's remarks should be addressed in this argument. It seems you attack Bible and Spade as a "biblical inerranist magazine". I have no idea what you got the idea that the magazine supports inerrancy. On its official explanation page, the following is explained on it: "BIBLE and SPADE is a non-technical quarterly publication published by the Associates for Biblical Research. It is written from a scholarly and conservative viewpoint, supporting the inerrancy of the Biblical record. The BIBLE and SPADE CD-ROM Collection is must for serious Bible students. Archaeological evidence, properly interpreted, upholds the history of the Bible. BIBLE and SPADE shows you how!" -- so although of course it publishes articles that support the historicity of Biblical events, it's always written by Scholars in the field (albeit conservatives, but being conservative of course does not make you un-credible). The article I gave from Wood is in fact technical, and it has a full bibliography where it cites all scholarly works to validate its claims and positions, citing numerous other scholars. Scholars who disagree with it as well have responded to its articles, such as when Bienkowski tried to challenge Wood regarding the dating of the destruction of Jericho (although Bienkowski lost that one, RIP). In fact, just in case you aren't convinced about the neutrality of ABR and its magazine Bible and Space, it has published two articles debunking The Exodus Decoded and Patterns of Evidence -- two different major films that were produced for the purpose of defending the exodus based on archaeology. ABR and Wood reject all claims attempting to defend the exodus that aren't based on fact, such as rejecting the Ipuwer Papyrus and such. I also recently found a Huffington Post page that also connects Avaris to the exodus. HOWEVER, IF ALL THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH -- and you want to reject everything I said, I recently did a bit of digging on Google Scholar and I found this -- a paper published to the journal Catastrophism and Ancient History by Kenneth F. Doig, connecting the exodus to the abandonment of Avaris, when it says this: "Another support for the 1552 Exodus is the abandonment of Avaris for about 250 years following the Hyksos expulsion. Avaris had been the capital of the Hyksos domination of the delta, a prosperous trade center, and a well fortified city. It would have been a desirable site for the Egyptians to refortify and occupy. But it was abandoned by the Egyptians after a short occupation (Bietak 1981). Why?" -- it goes on to explain more. So, even though the published paper of Douglas to the journal JAIE is 100% reliable and JAIE is a neutral and good journal, and has nothing to do with Bible and Space, I can cite various books on top of it regarding the abandonment of Avaris, as well as this published paper that is not by Bryant Wood to an actual paper in order to verify this. So, do you guys have any other problems?Korvex (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Petrovich seems to be doing his level best to destroy his own professional credibility: http://phys.org/news/2016-12-archeologist-proof-hebrew-written-alphabet.html PiCo (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize just how much evidence he has for that, correct? Probably haven't read it yet. I'll be glad to, discuss it on your Talk page or my Talk page, but the fact is I've shown Douglas's published paper to JAIE is reliable and I have found published papers to technical journals connecting Avaris to the exodus not written by Douglas or Wood.Korvex (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Rolleston's critique of Petrovich's idea is here - seriously, I think you need to read more widely and in more mainstream sources.PiCo (talk) 04:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And yet you can't find that the Association for Biblical Research is inerrantist: "We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the verbally inspired Word of God, and inerrant in the original writings,". Why you think you demolished my argument about Petrovich is beyond me - has he even got a PhD yet? He's barely an academic. " Catastrophism and Ancient History owes its inception to the theories of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky," so not a reliable source by our criteria. And what technical journals relate Avaris to the Exodus? And what are Doig's qualifications anyway? Doug Weller  talk 07:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you claim Petrovich teaches at the University of Toronto - since he doesn't seem to claim this, why do you claim it? And you think he speaks Late and Middle Egyptian which according to you makes him an expert - who says he speaks these languages? My guess is that he reads them. Doug Weller  talk 07:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The conversation on Douglas's credentials continue on the Talk Page. As for Kenneth Doig's credentials, I can't find too much other than he has published a few scholarly books, and his name appears in Google Scholar, so he's most definitely a Scholar, not to mention the paper I'm referencing was published to an archaeological journal... So, considering this MOST DEFINITELY qualifies as "reliable", and it's not original to myself in any way, it qualifies 100% of Wikipedia's requirements. So this is no longer about whether you or I agree with the exodus, you see. It's about bringing this information to the Wiki page so everyone can know the information for themselves, and judge. The sources are most definitely reliable.Korvex (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard explanation for the abandonment of Avaris is that the port silted up after that branch of the Delta changed course.
 * Petrovich holds a PhD from the University of Toronto and currently teaches at Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada. I regret that this site isn't loading for me so I don't know much more: http://wlu-ca.academia.edu/DouglasPetrovich. His article on the date of the abandonment of Avaris looks like a reliable source to me, but as has been mentioned more than once, it makes no mention of the exodus. Bible and Spade is not a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria, and neither is the journal in which Doig published his article. You'd need to provide evidence that the scholarly community has now abandoned the idea that Avaris was deserted when the river silted up and accepted instead that it was due to the exodus. In general, please use books in preference to articles, and try to make sure you're reflecting mainstream views.PiCo (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliability of Bible and Spade was discussed at Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC
 * Just loved the quote about dinosaurs' extinction. Khruner (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly being found in a GScholar search doesn't give the author any credibility Gavin Menzies eats several mentions. But hey, I'm mentioned, it's not all bad! And he is still only an adjunct, many grad students assist professors with their courses in Canada and the US. Doug Weller  talk 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * God help the grad student with a biblical inerrantist for a supervisor.PiCo (talk) 06:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * True, any paper indexed by Google which remotely looks like an academic paper gets indexed by Google Scholar. Even this paper of ro:Lorin Fortuna, which talks about snake-illian and gorillian civilizations, among other civilizations (which belong to either esotericism or systematized delirium, take your pick). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why Korvex refers to him as BOSS? I see he seems to be on first name terms with him. Doug Weller talk 08:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view Petrovich is simply not a reliable source and we should not cite him. Zerotalk 09:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting discussion about the fate of Avaris. If there are sources discussing its abandonment, should they not be used the current stub-like article we have about the city? Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Despite what everyone says about the sources and credentials etc, the ideal of Avaris being associated with the Exodus is no minor view amongst biblical academics via Google Books and should be clarified in the article. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But we need to talk about sources. Showing up on even Google books isn't very meaningful thr first hit I got was one of Ralph Ellis's self-published books. You find a lot of self-published books there. Also a lot of books mentioning Avaris and Exodus but with no connection.  Doug Weller  talk 20:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Avaris is a focus for exodus-historians because it was the Hyksos capital - so it links with the role of the Hyksos in the story. Perhaps more material in the Hyksos subsection? ANyway, I wouldn't like to create yet another section in this already long article. (There's a problem with whether Avaris is to be used to date the Exodus, or vice-versa - Petrovich is going for the first option, believing that the 480 years in Kings is accurate and that Avaris must therefore fit the date given there). PiCo (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Basic issues
There seem to be several here. One is combining sources to make an argument, something Korvex wants to do, and this is original research and not allowed by policy. Another is the inclusion of fringe material which is covered in WP:Fringe, specially WP:ONEWAY. And then there's Petrovich, who is simply not the expert he's claimed to be. He's still a student, for a start. He isn't a significant member of the academic community by our criteria - this is covered at WP:UNDUE. Ignoring the fact that he's a Creationist and all his writings are going to forward his agenda, we need to be more careful about using even peer reviewed material that hasn't been discussed by the academic community. There are exceptions to this of course, but those usually involved major figures in their field. I wouldn't use Petrovich's JAIME (sp?) article anywhere until it gets more academic reception. Doug Weller talk 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The paper I am talking about is not just one that "looks like" an academic paper, on the very top it quite literally says "The following article was published in the journal Catastrophism and Ancient History, Los Angeles, July 1990, pages 147-157. [Note: This article is not based on the theories of Velikovsky.]" -- so this is an actual academic paper written by an actual Scholar, and also a dude who isn't Petrovich. I repeat, this paper I'm talking about is NOT written by Petrovich, so any claims against it appealing to Petrovich are absurd. Regarding Petrovich himself, in reality, no matter how you slice it, Petrovich is a credible dude. He's a PhD, he taught an archaeology course in the University of Toronto for several months (one of the best universities in the world), and permanently teaches archaeology in Wilfrid Laurier University, as well as having a good number of papers to his name although he has only entered Scholarship for a decade or so. He also speaks 6 languages, 4 of them being Koine Greek, Aramaic, Middle Egyptian and Hebrew -- languages he uses in his studies of ancient history. So he is a good Scholar no matter how the cake is sliced. As for me doing "original research" -- this is entirely false. I'm not "combining" anything, because the paper I'm talking about connects the abandonment of Avaris to the exodus, which means it is really the only one that needs to be cited. The citations on the abandonment of Avaris are just an extra to make the reader understand that this is a recognized fact of archaeology. So all in all, I do not need any of Petrovich's resources here, I just need this paper I've been talking about earlier, and perhaps the citations establishing to the reader that the abandonment of Avaris is a historical fact. The edit could look like this "Scholars recognize the abandonment of Avaris, add in more writing here and citations, and X Scholar connects it to the exodus." -- no original research whatsoever, reliable sources, and no Petrovich. Everyone is happy! Yes? Korvex (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No. The long-defunct, Velikovskian Catastrophism and Ancient History journal never was, and never could be a respected academic mainstream journal. And mainstream scholarly credentials and reputation are not earned by writing and publishing papers in non-mainstream, or fringe journals, or teaching a subject at University level. They're earned through published scholarly peer reviews of one's published efforts. Likewise, speaking (or more likely, being able to read) umpteen languages indicates being able to speak umpteen languages. It doesn't make one a reputable mainstream scholar in archaeology - I'm not sure that these constant reiterations are going to help any. Haploidavey (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Personally I have no problem with Petrovich's paper on the date of the abandonment of Avaris, but the paper never even mentions the exodus. You want to connect the abandonment to the exodus (city abandoned because the inhabitants were all Israelites and left with Moses), but the mainstream view among experts is that the city was abandoned because the river (a branch of the Nile Delta) silted up and the port became unusable. PiCo (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It looks as though Korvex doesn't understand academia, whatever he says. There is no evidence I can find thT he was in charge of an undergraduate course. Mind you I was while I was studying for my masters, but whatever, it doesn't make him an expert. And yes, it still looks like academic research. Doug Weller  talk 06:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Aside from blatantly asserting that the journal of Catastrophism and Ancient History is a "fringe journal", with a link referencing the publications on it and nothing else, what exactly have you achieved? It's clear that this is a peer-reviewed paper in a peer-reviewed journal by an actual Scholar connecting the abandonment of Avaris to the exodus, and thus I have fulfilled Wikipedia's standards by any conceptual reasoning or thought process. As for Doug not finding any evidence of him teaching at the University of Toronto, again, just READ IS LINKEDIN. It clearly says he had a position of "Adjunct Faculty Member at Scarborough Campus" in the University of Toronto for three months, "Teaching: Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean". Furthermore, for his "previous" workplaces, it lists "University of Toronto, Shepherds Theological Seminary, Canada Christian College", with a current working in Wilfrid Laurier University. So he has worked in the past in three places including the U of T, now at Wilfrid Laurier.Korvex (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the journal Catastrophism and Ancient History is clearly fringe, and this guy, Petrovich, is barely an academic and not an established authority. Just because somebody published an article somewhere does not count for much. I think you should forget about it. Do you edit other articles on Wikipedia? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Check his/her edit history. Korvex is a relatively new user, with no edits prior to 25 October 2016. So far, he/she has edited the articles and talk pages on The Exodus, the Book of Exodus, and Gospel. Dimadick (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. My question was rhetorical. I'm encouraging Korvex to focus his/her energy in a more productive direction. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop claiming I said something I didn't. You wrote on my talk page that he "has a position in the University of Toronto" and there's no evidence for that. He says he worked there for 3 months 3 years ago. You claimed he worked there now. He was a graduate student assisting on a course, typical of an adjunct position. But it doesn't matter. He doesn't even have his PhD yet. And I don't know what teaching at [Canada Christian College]] or Shepherds (no article) has to do with this discussion. The JCAH is definitely a fringe journal and fails WP:RS. If you disagree, there's no point in repeating yourself here, go to WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I never claimed that he worked their now. I said he works in Wilfrid Laurier University teaching archaeology now. He doesn't have his PhD yet? He probably has received it by now -- considering I now realize he published a dissertation on academia.edu in 2016. Also, for the troll who said Douglas is "hardly an academic", that's laughable at best.Korvex (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm responding to the claim above which characterized the statement that there's no archeological evidence for the Excodus as a lie: Well, where's the evidence? If it exists, it's documented in reliable sources which any editor asserting such should be able to point to. Absent any reliable sources documenting said evidence, then someone needs to familiarize themselves with WP policy on verifiability. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  21:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Cole and gematria in the HB
User Alephb recently made a number of edits which I've reverted as I think we should finalise Korvex's concerns before opening a new cans of worms. But one of them is interesting: he quotes Coles' commentary on Numbers (published 2000, so quite recent) in which Cole says there is "no conclusive evidence of the use of gematria in the Old Testament era". This comes from Cole's idea of when and how Numbers was written - he believes it is substantially by Moses, with later editing (see page 34). This is definitely a minority view, even a fringe one. The majority view is that its final form is substantially a work of the Persian period, around 400 BC, and that it contains two strands, Priestly and non-Priestly. Some material was added very late, in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods (only a little, but some - for example, Japheth the son of Noah is the Greek titan Iapetos, dating that story to the Hellenistic period, and the reference to "ships of Kittim" might even be a reference to the Romans although it could equally be the Greeks). Anyway, Cole says, quite correctly, that gematria became popular in the late Second Temple period; which, of course, fits in very well with a late revision of the Exodus story in the Hellenistic centuries. Just by-the-bye, the Torah didn't stop being revised right up to the present day - modern Bible translations are happy to introduce their own readings, although the Hebrew text has been fixed for far longer. Anyway, I find this quite interesting and just wanted to prefigure the problem is might present.PiCo (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I withdraw my edit. I had it in my head that the New American Commentary series wasn't the sort of commentary that would dabble in such fringe ideas as Mosaic authorship. I must have had it confused some other, more mainstream series. I'm still going to look and see if I can find something else confirming or denying the idea that gematria is at work in the number of Israelites, just because the statement that the gematria interpretation is "probably" correct is the kind of thing that makes me suspicious. But until I find someone better than Cole to support the idea, I withdraw my edit.Alephb (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome to edit, knowledgeable editors are always in short supply, As I said (or think I said), I just want to get Korvex satisfied before moving on to new fields. I wouldn't reject Cole as a source, just his idea of what constitutes the "Biblical age". PiCo (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. Whenever the Korvex affair is squared away, I've got two sources in the peer-reviewed journal Vetus Testamentum that look useful. One simply dismisses the gemetria explanation of the 603,550 as "clearly contrived," while the other goes into somewhat more detail and claims that few scholars have supported it, and that there is no "clear" instance of gematria in the Hebrew Bible. On top of that, the gematria example, even if it is correct, is phrased misleading in the article. The article implies that 603,550 is what you get via gematria from the phrase bne yisrael kol rosh, when in fact, you get 603 and 551. The proposal requires "rounding off" to work, and then there's a whole host of other questions raised about the other numbers in the narrative. When the appropriate time comes, I'm thinking that the best approach will go something like, "A variety of proposals have been made to account for the numbers . . . yada yada yada . . . including a minority viewpoint that the number was produced via gematria, though most scholars do not subscribe to that view." An alternate idea would be to scrap the gematria angle out of the article altogether, given that the source that supports it is shaky. The source does not discuss the gematria question, but simply alludes to it as a given, the journal is not peer-reviewed, and the journal (Trinity Journal) imposes an inerrancy-based theological litmus test on contributions. On the other hand, both of the dismissive sources come from a high-caliber peer reviewed journal.Alephb (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction: the supportive source actually doesn't even go as far as the current wikipedia article does. Our article says the gematria is "probably" the correct explanation. The cited source in Trinity Journal simply ascribes that view to "some writers" and gives a mildly supportive footnote.Alephb (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I've deleted Guillame (the piece about the number 600,000) because G. is talking about calendars, and doesn't mention gematria; I've brough the Beitzel closer to what he actually says. PiCo (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I can live with the text as it currently stands. I take it the fact that you made this edit is a sign that the temporary hiatus on editing is over. I only intend to add one footnote which will lead readers to an online scholarly look at the issues involved in the various methods of dealing with the numbers.Alephb (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had this page watchlisted for several months, and I've never posted to it before now (that I can recall). Why? Because beautiful exchanges like this one leave me no real need to get involved. Kudos to both of the above editors for embodying what WP should be.
 * To be fair, at some point in the future I'm sure some controversy will fire up (this is a subject that can be quite controversial). At that point I'll burst in like the kool-aid man and make a total ass of myself, as is my style. But for now, I just want to express my admiration for the geniality and honest effort to improve the article I see here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  23:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well thank you kind sir :) PiCo (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Taking into account "Patterns of evidence:The Exodus"
Hi, I just finished watching "Patterns of evidence:The Exodus" on NetFlix.

This documentary makes in my opinion several valid points that can be followed up be viewing the materials referenced concerning the digs in Avaris.

I have no "bone in this fight" as I am a non religous person.

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arneno1 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's speculation which goes against lots of mainstream stuff. 1250 BC busted, 1450 BC improbable, 1650 BC probable, wait, it's 1550 BC, no, we have to redate Jericho, it's really 1650 BC, no, we have to redate the whole Egyptian chronology, it's really 1450 BC and then everything matches with the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Associates for Biblical Research
As regards the Associates for Biblical Research, its masthead proclaims "A christian apologetics ministry dedicated to demonstrating the historical reliability of the bible through archaeological and biblical research." Not whether or not the Bible is accurate, it starts by assuming that it is and then trying to find evidence that it can say proves it. It also makes it clear what its mission is "Associates for Biblical Research exists to serve the global Church of Jesus Christ through ministries that affirm and promote the full authority, reliability and inerrancy of the Scriptures". One of the ways it does this is by " the tearing down of any argument raised up against the knowledge of the truth." This is a misuse of archaeology and once again I say that you can't do proper archaeology by working on the determination that you are going to find evidence that confirms your religious beliefs and we can't trust such archaeology. I'm not saying that they are lying although we know that Creationists have lied about evolution, but their sincerely held beliefs make it difficult if not impossible to work scientifically (see cognitive dissonance). So someone like Petrovich (Korvex, please use his last name, I doubt that you are friends with him and it's confusing) sees what he needs to see, interprets it according to the truth he is trying to prove. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Dumbing down the article
The foundation myth wording has been discussed in the talk page archives and the result has been: the Exodus is a foundation myth for Israel, regardless of whether the Exodus story is true or false. That is a fact, not an "opinion", so WP:ASSERT is of application. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it was not the foundation myth, it would be irrelevant to modern life. Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * My point was: it is a fact because according to the definition of foundation myths, the Exodus story is a foundation myth (this could be said that it is tautologically true, the Exodus is a paragon of foundation myths). Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The exodus is a foundation myth both by definition and by general consensus. What motivated you to start this thread - who's dumbing down the article, and how? PiCo (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is about wherein I reverted Exodus being called a foundation myth "according to those scholars", instead of asserting it as a fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good call to me, and so I put it back. I don't think Dimadick disagrees, he was just trying to find a compromise acceptable to Kovex (I think), but I prefer the old wording as being clearer. I think the edit warring here has gotten too hot and the article needs to be locked down fpoor a while. By an uninvolved admin :) 09:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Kovex's problem is ultimately one of genre. He sees the Exodus story as history, so for him it has to be true in detail. He's probably not aware, but his reason for this view is ultimately theological: to paraphrase the words of Ken Ham, the famous biblical inerrantist, if the Old Testament is not true, then the New Testament is not true, and if the New Testament is not true, then we have no assurance that Christ was raised and that our salvation is assured. Kovex probably hasn't thought that through (though people like Merrill and Bryant Wood certainly have), but it lies behind the search for physical proof of the biblical story. In fact the Torah isn't history, it's theology - Israel escapes slavery not through its own efforts but by the strength of Yahweh, who has chosen them as his own people from the begining of time and set them aside to be a nation of priests, led by priests. The Torah is an extremely intricately-structured story, and I'm constantly in awe at how well told it is, and just to give an example of this: Adam is the first man, from him is descended Abraham, to whom the covenant is given, and from Abraham comes Moses, and from the line of Moses comes Aaron the first pries, and that, the first priest and the first dwelling of God among Israel, is the whole point of the Exodus story. It's not about history, it's about the priestly vocation of Israel.PiCo (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Pico, your statements about me are false to some extent. I do not know the genre of the Book of Exodus, but I do not say it is "true" in detail, whatever that means. From the evidence I have critically analyzed, the general story seems to be true. For example, I do not think there were 603,000 Hebrew men who delved out of Egypt under Moses. The number 603,000 is either not accurate, as a minimalist would say, or to me not literal at all. In fact, I have evidence that the Torah specifically states that there were not that many Hebrews. For example, Deuteronomy 7:7 says that the Hebrews were the FEWEST of all the peoples. So the number is to me, at best symbolic. Or perhaps there is something to do with the original Hebrew for the word "thousand". I also think the reference to the city of Ramses is proleptic in the Book of Exodus. I only advocate for on this Wikipedia page what I can defend from academia, especially ever since I was trampled on the discussion of Avaris which was my first attempted edit on this site. The identification of the proto-consonantal script should change the view of academia soon, and so I am willing to have long discussions on these topics, because in the end I can predict my position will be accepted. I have closely analyzed the archaeological findings in the last two decades and it couldn't be any better.Korvex (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * For what is worth, the peculiar numbers derive from the Book of Numbers, Chapter 1, where Moses takes a census. "Yahweh spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying, 2 "Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers' houses, according to the number of the names, every male, one by one; 3 from twenty years old and upward, all who are able to go out to war in Israel.":


 * *"of the tribe of Reuben, were forty-six thousand five hundred" 46,500 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty-nine thousand three hundred" 59,300 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Gad, were forty-five thousand six hundred fifty" 45,650 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Judah, were sixty-four thousand six hundred" 64,600 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Issachar, were fifty-four thousand four hundred" 54,400 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty-seven thousand four hundred" 57,400 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand five hundred" 40,500 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Manasseh, were thirty-two thousand two hundred" 32,200 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Benjamin, were thirty-five thousand four hundred" 35,400 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Dan, were sixty-two thousand seven hundred" 62,700 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Asher, were forty-one thousand five hundred" 41,500 men.
 * *"of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty-three thousand four hundred" 53,400 men.
 * *"all those who were numbered were six hundred three thousand five hundred fifty. 47 But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them." 603,550 men, excluding the Levites.


 * Far-fetched isn't it? Moses has a fighting force of 604,000 men, plus an unknown number of civilians. In the Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC), the Egyptian Army barely numbered 20,000 soldiers, while the Hittite Empire had an army of up to 50,000 men. And these were the great powers of their era. Dimadick (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Dimadick, there are three scholarly views on this issue. 1) There were 600,000+ men, 2) there were no men because no exodus happened, and 3) perhaps the best option that numerous scholars take and is present in much peer-review and scholarly literature, the Hebrew word translated as thousand, being aleph, has more then one translation. Aside from thousand, it can mean "family", "troop", etc. Assuming it means something like a troop/unit, the actual number of Israelite's would number somewhere between 15,000-120,000 in all, rather than over 2 million as contended by the traditional English translations. There is abundant evidence that, without a possible question, this is the best translation that is present in scholarly literature. Deuteronomy 7:7 says that the Israelite's were the fewest of all the peoples when they were taken out of Israel. Exodus 23:30 says that the Israelite's were so few, that after they came out of Egypt, they could only inherit the promised land little by little until they increased enough to take all of it. So, Dimadick, I hope to have helped you out here -- the number of 600,000+ is NOT what the Bible says, according to the evidence from scholarship. I read a paper on this a few days ago that might be relevant to you, so I'll just give you the link if you want to read one of these papers on your own time -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/41062683?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- once me and the others get the entire Hebrew-worlds-oldest-alphabet thing sorted out, I will create a new talk page pointing out this fact from scholarship to add to the article, so that the viewers can be much more educated when they read the current exodus page, which is clearly written from a completely minimalist point of view, which is a very, very bad thing.Korvex (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Wikipedia isn't minimalist, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia: it renders the mainstream view on anything, while noting dissenting opinions as dissenting opinions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * As for Jerry Waite, outside of the fact that he described himself as a scientist who knows that the word of God is true who also wrote this, I don't know who he is. GScholar turns up only his paper, GBooks only his book. I didn't expect that, but with that result I'd argue against using it. Doug Weller  talk 10:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain who "Jerry Waite" is. An online search turned up several people of this name. For example, a Jerry J. Waite has spend several decades as a professor of technology at the University of Houston. Another Jerry Waite is a "transport security officer" for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). Dimadick (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The relevant article was published in the journal Vetus Testamentum. The publisher is Brill Publishers. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Which makes it all the more significant that a 2010 article, even published in a reputable journal, hasn't been cited. Not every reliably published source is a suitable source for us. Doug Weller  talk 13:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Tgeorg, althgouh Wikipedia is in fact not purporting to be minimalist, there is absolutely no question that on many pages, the content is purely minimalist. This exodus page is an amazing example of that, there are numerous problems. For example, William Dever, an anti-theist making the insane claim that exodus research has been abandoned, is somehow not only considered reliable, but valid! The fact that such a nonsense quote even made it into the Wikipedia page shows that the Exodus page is plagued by minimalism. This is a fact. I never considered looking at the author of the Census of Israelite Men page (a guy named Jerry Waite), considering its irrelevant -- the paper has in fact been published into one of the leading journals to Vetus Testamentum, which means it is a reliable source. Period. Someone also said this paper has never been cited -- which is also false. Anyways, I only referred to this paper because it had been one of the most recent papers I had read on the census figures in Numbers 1 and 26 -- there are obviously hundreds of others on this. If we're curiously tracking reliability by "number of citations", then the debate is already over -- a paper published by George E. Mendenhall also pointing out how the translation should be troop/clan/family, which can be read here -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264330?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- and also published into a journal almost as prestigious as Vetus Testamentum, has been cited over 60 times. Not only that, but in the first page of Mendenhall's paper, Mendenhall points out that the view of elef meaning something other than thousand, such as troop/clan/family is the CONSENSUS of scholarship. So, how is it that I am the only one who knows anything about this? How come I'm the only one familiar with any of these papers? It is precisely because the editors of the Exodus page, although they may deny it, are in fact minimalists. Considering this view that elef does not mean thousand, rather it means clan/troop/family is the CONSENSUS of scholarship as Mendenhall points out, it is to be of the main discussion on the Exodus page -- all other theories (gematria, a literal 600,000+, etc) are only to be listed as secondary explanations of the biblical data, and have a much shorter portion of the Exodus page devoted to them. Likewise, because I'm the one who is bringing this information to light -- I also want to be the one who adds it into the Exodus page, considering I am all too concerned that the information I bring may be skewed by the minimalism dominating a number of editors here.


 * One more note -- regarding Jerry Waite, Doug Weller uses "he believes the Bible is true" (as in he is a Christian) as a reason against using his material. In other words, Doug says that if one is a Christian, his material is unreliable. That is an obviously corrosive, ridiculous claim that I hope I am misinterpreting here. Doug's atheism is blinding him from objectively taking a look at almost any of these sources. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy blocking religious discrimination from playing a role in the editing of a Wikipedia page?Korvex (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am getting tired of this. I clearly did not make that suggestions. I didn't say anything approaching "if one is a Christian, his material is unreliable". The only reason I gave for not using him was the fact that he appears to be uncited. This is simply a personal attack by Korvex, who ironically seems to read into what I wrote his image of my views., I expect an apology and a disavowal of any suggestions that I am somehow religiously discriminating. I should also point out that I at least have known many Christians who do not think everything in the Bible is true, that do not believe in Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, etc. You may not think they are Christians but they did/do. Some of them were ordained ministers. Doug Weller  talk 11:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

We have a policy against using fringe material. Fringe theories: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support.[3] Other examples include conspiracy theories and esoteric claims about medicine. Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative source to identify the mainstream view. However, there are at least two caveats: not every identified subject matter has its own academic specialization, and the opinion of a scholar whose expertise is in a different field should not be given undue weight."

In this case, there are a number of pseudoscientific ideas.
 * "Biblical literalism": Taking whatever the Bible says literally. This is not much of an issue, as there are very few people who do. To quote from the relevant article: "I've never met anyone who actually believes the Bible is literally true. I know a bunch of people who say they believe the Bible is literally true but nobody is actually a literalist. Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat, it has pillars, and will not be moved (Ps 93:1, Ps 96:10, 1 Sam 2:8, Job 9:6). It says that great sea monsters are set to guard the edge of the sea (Job 41, Ps 104:26)." ... "If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the "inerrancy" of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors. Many of them are discrepancies regarding the numbers of things in the Books of Samuel and Kings and the retelling of these in the Books of Chronicles. All credible Bible scholars acknowledge that there are problems with the Biblical text as it has been received over the centuries. ... The question is not whether or not there are discrepancies and, yes, errors in the Bible, but whether or not these errors fundamentally undermine the credibility of the text. Even the most conservative, believing, faithful Biblical scholars acknowledge these problems with the text."
 * "Biblical inerrancy": the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact". A far-fetched religious doctrine which blinds people to all the errors and fabrications in the Bible.
 * Then there is the "Historicity of the Bible, "the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history,". Several passages in the Bible (though probably not all) contradict history, archaeology, and science. They are not historical and yet are often mistaken for reliable ones. The Biblical archaeology school as conceived by William F. Albright tried to find historical evidence or at least a basis for the Bible. Albright confidently claimed: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details of the Bible as a source of history." As it turned out, Albright and his contemporaries misinterpreted findings, because they viewed them through their own biases.

In this case, Doug Weller found a book by a Jerry Waite (I am not certain if it is the same person) which attributes to God the fall of the British Empire: "It would seem that God still treats nations that have known Him and rebelled against Him like He did Israel in the past. England sent missionaries all over the world, but when their church buildings were empty and they no longer worshipped God through Jesus Christ, they lost control of their colonies and have become bankrupt."

This is a fringe idea which attributes to loss of faith, what was the product of two World Wars, a number of rebellions, and independence movements across the Empire.

The same writer makes another patently false claim: "the US seeks to ban the use of God's name even in prayer". When has it ever done that? It is the same scary country which adopted "In God We Trust" as its national motto back in 1956. In the landmark court cases Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), it was decided that an official state-school prayer stood in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and that Bible readings and other public school-sponsored religious activities were prohibited.

Prayer is not banned at all. Compulsory prayer, forcing people to pray, is banned. Voluntary prayer is not. Last I checked, the States have a National Day of Prayer, established back in 1952 by Harry S. Truman. The relevant page even includes a quote by Ronald Reagan, claiming that the United States seek "divine guidance". The United States has a long way to go to become a secular state.

(I am not throwing stones here. I live in Greece, and we have proclaimed the Eastern Orthodox Church to be our official religion. 88% of the population are Christians, 6.1% have declared themselves irreligious, 5.3% are Muslims, and the final 0.5% belong to religious minorities. Despite efforts at secularization, we are way too conservative by European standards. )Dimadick (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What I have stated is that Wikipedia does not have a minimalist bias. But when the mainstream view is minimalist, Wikipedia presents it as the established view and other views as dissenting views. See the quotes at Talk:Omri. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that being a Christian or Jewish believer is not a reason for dismissing research, but as Dimadick said, historiography starting from the assumption that the Bible is literally true in every respect is a WP:FRINGE position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It is the same Jerry Waite. His Amazon.com page for his book says "This book is a summary of Old Testament history that I taught teenagers many years. It is from the perspective of one trained as a scientist who believes God’s Word is true. I have applied my conclusions from my paper “The Census of Israelite Men in the Exodus from Egypt,” Vetus Testamentum 60, no.3, 2010. My warning is to escape God’s penalty for rebellion against Him." I also noted the claims you describe above, but decided not to mention them at the time (despite Korvex's evident view of me). Thanks for bringing them up. The book seems to be a combination of fringe claims and falsehoods. Doug Weller  talk 12:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If Doug didn't intend to religiously discriminate in some sense, then apologies of mine are due and given. I apologize for that. However, I have already shown that the consensus view is that 'elef' is not to be translated as thousand, but rather family/clan/troop. Dimidack seems to be conveniently ignoring the paper I cited from Mendenhall -- http://www.jstor.org/stable/3264330?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- which has received over 60 citations, advocates the view I just explained, and calls the view of elef meaning clan/troop/family an outright consensus. I have already explained that I only referenced Waite's paper because it had been the most recent one I read -- however Dimidack does in fact blunder when he tries to dismiss the reliability of Waite because he has negative views of what is happening in the US against religion, which of course, contrary to Dimidack's claims, are not unfounded -- many people would be alarmed at what is happening in the US, especially since the FFRF is suing virtually every public institution it can to remove religion from their services (such as schools that offer optional bible courses, or suing a cemetery with a cross on it). I have also pointed out Waite's paper does in fact have a citation attached to it, and was published into one of the worlds best journals. But the very fact that this is the consensus view, as Mendenhall explains, removes all debate. I expect Dimidack to admit this in his next response, as claiming that a consensus view doesn't belong on the Wikipedia page blatantly contradicts Wikipedia's policies. Hopefully that will put these matters to rest regarding how elef is to be translated in Numbers 1 and 26. Once Dimidack admits this, I will add in the relevant sources.Korvex (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The theory that elef=family/clan/troop is common enough that it should be mentioned in the article with attribution. Claiming that it is the consensus view is simply false and you haven't proved it.  At best it may be the preferred view of those who believe the Exodus happened as the bible says. Zerotalk 01:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * LOL. Zero, do you even read the references I give? I've already referred to Mendenhall's paper SEVERAL TIMES now, which clearly states that it is the CONSENSUS that elef = family/troop. Why do you ignore my references for your own convenience? I have, to date, found no paper on the issue of the meaning of elef with as many citations as Mendenhall's paper (more than 60, for goodness sake). The "preferred" interpretation for creationists on the exodus story is 600,000+, but that of course is a nonsensical view (as 100% of scholars have noted by now) if you actually read the exodus narrative. Considering I've already shown that this is the consensus view, and that no other view is even worth mentioning on the Exodus page (like the idea that the Bible intends over 600,000 migrants), I will simply take my time to educate Zero regarding this -- Zero, if he thinks he can even question the consensus or this interpretation, will have to explain that if the Bible actually says 600,000 rather than 600 families/troops, then why does Deuteronomy 7:7 tell us that the Israelite's were the fewest of all the peoples? If the Bible intends 600,000 men rather than 600 families/troops, then why does Exodus 23:30 say that there were so few Israelite's that they could only inherit the promised land little by little because they weren't yet populated enough to even occupy the region with their population? Once you even take a look beyond the crack of the surface, you'll realize that the exodus population was likely anywhere from 5,000-50,000 rather than 2,000,000, according to specifically what the Bible says. And as previously shown from a citation to Mendenhall's paper on the issue, this is indeed the consensus view -- a consensus is a consensus, and claiming that this is NOT the consensus requires me to seriously ask Zero -- can he provide five papers over all, either themselves reputable papers, or have been published into reputable journals, which espouses a theory other than 600 families/troops that actually discusses the issue? The truth is Zero can produce no such five papers, however I would be able to produce 5 papers in half a minute by simply looking at the footnotes of the first paper I referenced in this discussion. Either way, it is the consensus view and therefore, is the only view that is even worth mentioning, unless other views can be shown to have scholarly support. I will add this into the exodus page tomorrow and remove almost all references to a 2-3 million exodus population in the exodus page tomorrow as well, because I have not been shown any evidence yet that these views on the translation have serious scholarly support. Tomorrow these edits will be made.Korvex (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Just as a point of caution; we can't use the number of citations in other works as a guide to current consensus. Authors cite and discuss other works for all sorts of reasons. Mendenhall's paper was published in 1958 - that's nearly 60 years ago. According to google scholar's search engine results, it's cited 64 times; but at best, even being cited by 64 scholarly specialists in the field since 1958 would not of itself make Mendenhall's the current consensus view. His interpretation of 'elef seems to be accepted as plausible, but it's evidently not the only one. Just as an example (first on the google scholar search results), Life in biblical Israel, PJ King, LE Stager - 2001, pp 240 - 241 describes this as one "among various scholarly proposals" that seem to allow the Biblical text to marry up with other evidence - (btw, "Life in biblical Israel", recently published, is cited by 338). Haploidavey (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In any case it should be obvious that a paper written about 60 years ago can't be used as a source for the contemporary consensus. Doug Weller  talk 12:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And in the more recent papers I've read (like this one Humphreys, 1998) there is no mention of a "consensus" anymore. The state of scholarly opinion on the Exodus has changed drastically over the last sixty years, so it should be no surprise that the state of a related issue like the census figures has changed too. Anyhow, Humphreys simply lists six general options, without trying to make any single one the "consensus" explanation, and does indicate that, as of 1998, no generally accepted solution to the problems of the numbers exists. Among the scholars who are still trying to make sense of the Numbers censuses, it doesn't look like we've got a state of agreement in recent times.Alephb (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Before addressing the consensus issue, I will respond to Haploid somehow claiming that this is view is some sort of attempt to make the biblical data line up with the evidence, if I understood him correctly -- this, if he indeed invokes it, is blatantly false. From what I have seen, the biblical data allows for no other interpretation -- the biblical data specifically only allows for a translation of family/troop. Deuteronomy 7:7 for example, tells us that the Israelite's were the fewest of all the peoples. It is impossible to support a 'thousand' translation in light of this text.


 * Anyways, maybe this is no longer the "consensus", however, I would be hard-pressed to consider it anything less than the majority/largest view, especially to note that Mendenhall's paper remains the most important paper to have been published on this issue. I have not seen a major work to date that actually rejects this interpretation. I think the "consensus" has been lost, possibly because of the (pseudo) minimalist school that took off in the 1970's. So, although I would now agree it isn't the consensus, it seems to me to still be the scholarly majority position. Something I have to say to Aleph is, he cites Humphreys on this issue, however Humphreys actually supports my position of the elef meaning family/troop/tribe, and Humphreys estimates that the exodus population was somewhere between 20,000-30,000. So his study is useful to me. Take note that, the first paper I cited from Jerry Waite was published in 2010, and also published to Vetus Testamentum no less, and supports this. A major Exodus commentary from 2006, the commentary from D.K. Staurt also supports this interpretation. So I still find it to be no less than the majority position, and therefore the position that should take most priority on this Exodus page -- any rogue references in the Exodus page that says "hurr durr we havent found 2 million pots in the Sinai yet" should be definitely removed, and all discussion of an Exodus interpretation of 2,000,000+ people should be contained as a minority view in a specific section of the article. But -- I think that what everyone agrees on is that this is in fact the most prevalent (or at least a mainstream, largely prevalent) view in academia, and should in fact be added to the current Exodus page. Furthermore, a lot of discussion on the 2,000,000+ interpretation obviously needs to go as a minority position. So, I have made an edit to the current Exodus page -- I'd ask for the editors to review it, but I'd also discourage from reverting the entire thing based on a small disagreement -- please discuss my edit here on the Talk Page before making changes.Korvex (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I've reverted you because we've already been discussing this and you've made a major change without anything close to consensus. You're removing sources such as Dever and Cline replacing them with a physicist, Waite whose article has been basically ignored, made unsourced claims such as "majority", "few", "most scholars agree", etc. Those claims appear to be your own original research. You need to get consensus and you don't have it yet. We may be able to work something out (and I would suggest that if you really wish to do this you avoid personal comments), but this hasn't helped. Doug Weller  talk 19:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)