Talk:The Exodus/Archive 17

Tatelyle turns out to be Ralph Ellis
and has been blocked for sockpuppetry. Ralph Ellis's current/new account is not blocked but he needs to follow WP:COI. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Developments: all known accounts of Ralph Ellis have now been blocked, see Sockpuppet investigations/Tatelyle. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Thank you for information.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

New article The Exodus: sources and parallels
Jerry Russell says this is mainly stuff that didn’t get accepted here. Doug Weller talk 19:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Obsfucation and sophistry in the intro--the intent of the authors of Exodus
TL;DR Summary: The citation given consists of one person asserting, with no evidence or reasonable logic whatsoever, that the intent of the author(s) of Exodus was not to create a historical document. This has been paraphrased in Wikipedia's article as not history "in the modern sense". I am pointing out that this implies the existence of consensus where there is none, and where the citation given has mentioned none. In fact, the source given presents no evidence or compelling logic or explanation whatsoever (from what I've read so far, it merely asserts that the presence of anachronistic elements MUST imply a different definition of historicity. Why? Because otherwise I guess they'd just be liars, and We Can't Have That). But again, the main point is that there is no evidence given of a scholarly or religious consensus about the historical intent of Exodus that Wikipedia's introduction, as it's currently worded, implies. Therefore, the claim should be removed entirely or else moved out of the introduction and qualified to be specific to this one source and not pretend that it's a universally subscribed truth with a stack of compelling evidence in its favor. Anachronism alone is proof of nothing except that it cannot be entirely and accurately historical, and once again the citation does not appear to be claiming that any consensus on this matter exists. Blue Rock (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

And my secondary note is that even if the claim is ultimately retained, it needs to be paraphrased in a less sophistic, more clear manner. For example, the citation appears to be making the case that truth and fiction were being freely and knowingly blended. If this bit is retained (although I do not believe it should be on the basis of the citation given), Wikipedia should at least say *that*, instead of this extremely cryptic and opaque "not in the modern sense is it historical" stuff. Blue Rock (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Orig full comment:

"The archeological evidence does not support the historical accuracy of the biblical story,[citation given] which was not intended as history in the modern sense, but rather to demonstrate God's acts in history through Israel's bondage, salvation and covenant."

Well, that's a bloody mess. I don't think the article, let alone the intro, should be saying that everyone is in agreement that some or all of the authors of Exodus intended it to be somehow non-historical. Surely we're all in agreement that Wikipedia should not be flatly claiming "the authors of Exodus didn't mean it as real history" at the very top of the article? So I've changed it to this:

"The archaeological evidence does not support the historical accuracy of the biblical story, [citation given] although some claim that the story was not intended as history in the modern sense, but rather to demonstrate God's acts in history through Israel's bondage, salvation and covenant.

But there's still the question of what the hell that actually means. It's actually far from clear that that phase ("to demonstrate God's acts in history") is referring to allegory, but I'm not sure what else it could be if it is not meant to be considered historical. Ridiculously worded in any case... "demonstrate God's acts in history... but it's not history in the modern sense of the word!" lolwut?

The cited page being used to justify this sophistry says this: "Most of the Exodus material was composed or collected long after the events narrated. In some cases, additions were retrojected in time for placement within the legitimizing framework of Mosaic Law--especially later ritual, legal, and regulatory matters. In other cases alterations or augmentations were introduced to bring events closer to an audience increasingly separated by time and circumstance from the original experiences. Such procedures introduced historical material into the narrative--but material that dated from long after the original happenings. When detected, such later accretions or substitutions can be identified as anachronistic. Recent research indicates that even more of the extant Exodus account than previously thought comes from periods during or after the Israelite monarchy or even the exile. Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long since obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine.

The historicity of the Exodus narrative is thus a complex issue. Clearly, significant portions are not and were never intended to be historiographic. Yet the overall intent of the narrative was historical, despite nonhistorical elements in its compilation. In this context, it is important to remember that the biblical writers' conception of history, particularly within what was primarily a theological document, differed from our own. The dominant historical concern of the Exodus account is to demonstrate that God acts in history; that Israelite bondage and salvation took place in history, and that the fulfillment of that covenant with Moses and the Israelites was made in history. All other historical concerns are secondary, but this underlying, elemental historicity suffices to make the account historical, and this dominating concern made it permissible to shift historical particulars in order to make the Exodus chronicle more accessible to successive generations."

So, uh, translation: we're pretty sure authors made stuff up, because it was important people to drive home their key believes about God and His covenant. Well... ok then. I really think there is no need for this cryptic sophistry of "historical, but not in the modern sense of the word" in the article, let alone in the introduction. As the rest of the article says, there's no good reason to think that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt to begin with.

The existence of some small kernels of possible truth, if any (and which there is no broad agreement on) in the myth does not justify the article opening by waxing philosophic on the nature and definition of history. I think it's a confusing obfuscation that tells us nothing about the intent of the authors of Exodus or its historical accuracy, and should be either moved out of the intro of the article or removed entirely. I don't have time to dig any deeper right now though, plus I wanted to take the temperature of the editors around here before I go ruffling feathers. Is this a hill someone really feels like dieing on? Just because a sentence is present in a citation doesn't make it relevant or indeed meaningful.

Oh hey look, I've been reverted already. Ok, my stance is that nonsense obfuscation phrases don't belong in the article and certainly not in the introduction, and that there is no scholarly consensus that authors of Exodus did not intend it to be historical "in the modern sense of the word". The citation, in fact, presents no such evidence for this claim but simply implies that the presence of later additions is proof enough that they didn't mean for it to be taken as historical and/or they had a different definition of history. Blue Rock (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * "Evidence" has a technical meaning inside Wikipedia: according to WP:VER, WP:SOURCES are evidence. Wikipedia is not for venting our own opinions on a subject, but we simply abstract what WP:SOURCES have stated. There is no original research allowed, meaning original research performed by Wikipedia editors. All content has to be sourced to WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No reasonable person would characterize what I've said as original research. I have explained quite clearly how the content is a purposefully misleading, vague and euphemistic paraphrasing of the already-obscurely phrased source and that at minimum it is out of place in the introduction. But I suppose I'll have to come up with a different, more accurate paraphrasing and have you (presumably) argue for the retention of this more-misleading and obtuse one if I want to make any headway here. Blue Rock (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Replying to the later addition: people in Antiquity did not know the post-Enlightenment historical method, so obviously history meant for them something else than it means for us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The people in Antiquity didn't know about modern paper either, that doesn't mean that we need to start talking about the differences in the papyrus (or whatever) that Exodus was first written on in the intro to the article. And not even talking sensibly; just mysterious jabber. If you insist on retaining the unsupported assertion of that source in the introduction, it should at least be *clearly* paraphrased along with its internal logic: "the presence of anachronisms indicates that the people of antiquity had a different definition of historical accuracy" or something to that effect. If there must be insane arguments in the intro, we should at least insist they be identifiable as such. Instead of an utterly meaningless cipher that requires one spend ten minutes reading the source. Blue Rock (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Blue Rock, I agree that the current wording could mislead readers, and smacks of sophistry. On the other hand, the current reading is supported by an excellent verifiable source from Oxford University Press, so I doubt you're going to get anywhere trying to remove it, unless you can come up with a reliable source that disagrees with the OUP source. Then your case for removal, at least from the opening, would be strong enough that I think you might have a good chance of succeeding. The relevant bar for Wikipedia articles is "What's in the WP:R sources?", not "What is true and makes sense to the editors?" The need to appeal to sources is especially strong on articles like The Exodus, where there are strong feelings on both sides and editors frequently have long arguments. Alephb (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit war
The matter of myth vs. story has been discussed to death, see e.g. Talk:The Exodus/Archive 12. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717130933/http://www.rutherfordpress.co.uk/Enmarch%20-%20The%20Reception%20of%20Ipuwer.pdf to http://www.rutherfordpress.co.uk/Enmarch%20-%20The%20Reception%20of%20Ipuwer.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Negative wording
The removal of "negative wording" is expressly prohibited by WP:CENSOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article currently suggests that the "exodus narrative ... is a demonstration of God's acts in history". As there is no evidence that it is a historical event, that statement is false and a misrepresentation of the scholarly view. it would be better described as an allegory about 'God's acts', but perhaps alternative wording can be worked out here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two different scholarly sources, Redmount and Meyers, both used the word "demonstrate" or a variation. PiCo (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Descriptive Inaccuracies that do not contribute to understanding or scholarship
1. Description of The Exodus as "the founding myth of Israel" is inaccurate and confusing because the word "Israel" in the context of The Exodus means descendants of Jacob (renamed Israel) who had been born and had lives years before The Exodus event described in the Torah and does not refer to the modern day state of Israel. Also, in connection with this inaccuracy use of the term "myth" contains a subjective value judgment on the part of the contributor that the seminal event described in the "Book of Exodus" never actually occurred, and that is not only a question of faith or belief, or lack thereof, but also of archaeology and other forms of existent, non-existent, or not yet discovered, historical evidence, so it may have no reason to be used here other than to convey the contributor's biased or subjective opinion that The Exodus never actually happened.

2. The spelling of the English language name "Yahweh" used in this article to describe a later Hebrew name given for the Hebrew Deity in the Torah is also inaccurate and misleading in this context. The "Book of Exodus" in describing what Moses should tell the elders of the name of who sent him contains the name (transliterated from the Hebrew language) "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (translated as "I Am That I Am", or "I AM" which denotes an Eternal existence) for the name of the Hebrew Deity, and not (yet) the name referred to in this article. Furthermore, the English language name "Yahweh" used in this article for the Hebrew Deity suggests another subjective connotation for the spelling in that it is the English language spelling of the name of the Hebrew Deity most often employed by a particular Christian Sect known as "Jews for Jesus" and not from an authoritative Hebrew or Jewish source for the spelling, pronunciation or meaning of the Hebrew words of the Hebrew Torah. In fact, the Hebrew Deity has many names each emphasizing a certain aspect, and no reference to these other names or to this fact is contained in the article. 

Prescient Analyzer (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone with basic knowledge of modern history knows that the current nation of Israel was founded in the 20th century and was named after the ancient kingdom of Israel. The Israelites, and their eventual land and eventual kingdom are also referred to as Israel in common discourse.  Anyone with basic knowledge of the Bible knows this, and those with basic reading comprehension should be able to place that together when they click the link "Israel" and find themselves at Israelites instead of the article on the modern nation state.
 * Per the Exodus narrative, the Israelites (not yet settled in the land that would be called Israel) had collectively migrated into Egypt, fallen into slavery, escaped, and then wandered in the desert for 40 years before arriving in the land they would then call Israel. Their covenant with Yahweh was based on events that supposedly happened while escaping from Egypt and wandering in the desert -- before they arrived in the land that they would call Israel.  This is, again, is pretty basic knowledge of the Bible.
 * In academic discourse, Myth simply means a story where its primary truth value is philosophical, moral, or similarly ephemeral; regardless of its historicity.
 * Yahweh is how יַהְוֶה is commonly written in English, but that doesn't make it an "English name." The Jews for Jesus did not invent that spelling, it is the most common spelling in mainstream academia.
 * Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, most of them secular. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

3RR exemption
Reverting copyvio. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Source-checking and re-write
I've started checking the sources for the article and revising it where necessary. I want in particular to re-write the Historicity section, to address the two elements involved, the archaeology and the text. Please keep on eye on what I do and correct me if necessary.PiCo (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * So are you agreeing with me changing it?BernardZ (talk)


 * It seems impossible to please everyone with this article. I want to make the Historicity section shorter and more focused, and I want to ensure that the existing material reflects the cited sources adequately. There's more than that to a good article, but it's a start.PiCo (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I want the historical section to include that many feel that although it is plausible that a smaller exodus did happen and a few details.BernardZ (talk)
 * There is no historical section - I take it you mean the Historicity section. The material you want is already there, it has a whole subsection, Possible Sources and Parallels. PiCo (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not there the views of many like Friedman, Hoffmeier and the discussion as others have pointed out here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/BernardZ (talk)
 * So do we have any object left to putting them and the conference mentioned above in.

BernardZ (talk)

Expanded the Summary section to take in laws and covenants. Christians tend to treat the exodus as a story, but the story is only the setting for the really important part, which is God's relationship with Israel, and through Israel with his creation. Christians, I'm ashamed to say, have a very limited grasp of theology.PiCo (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would make an interesting read. Islam talks a lot about it too.BernardZ (talk)
 * Bernard, please be careful where you put your name-tag, it can get very confusing if you don't have it at the end of your comment. The points made in the Sources/Parallels section are the majority view, so much a majority that amounts to a near-consensus; Hoffmeier and Kitchen are outside that consensus, and we have sources stating this. Friedman is inside it, he says simply that their was some group who were in Egypt and whose experiences contributed to the exodus story (he says they were the Levites, and indeed the Egyptian names in Exodus are all Levitical), but he simply isn't a major scholar in this area - he didn't invent this idea, it was already around.
 * As for the theology, I want more of that, but am finding it hard to find concise sources - it mostly comes in thick, unreadable books (unreadable if your not a rabbi, which I'm not, and which readers of this encyclopedia are not).PiCo (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The Great Seal
doesn't actually depict Moses; this version of the seal was tabled by Congress. The story is probably still good as an illustration of the exodus's cultural significance, though, especially since we have a literal illustration here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. What the source actually says is that Jefferson and others *recommended* that the Seal show Moses. I'll correct it. PiCo (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggest rename from The Exodus to The exodus narrative
I suggest (and this is put forward for discussion) that we rename the article The exodus narrative. This would draw attention to the fact that what's being discussed is the story and its meaning, so that the question of genre (is it history) would be de-emphasised. And it needs to be de-emphasised - there's much more to the story than that. It's a story about God and Israel, not Israel and history, and that's what I want us to concentrate on. It would also link to other "narrative" articles regarding the early part of the HB - there's the Genesis creation narrative and the Genesis flood narrative, and possibly others. Anyway, I'd be interested to hear what others think.PiCo (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That ia a great idea and a good argument. Although to be consistent with the rest of WP they all should be "myth" not "narrative" (I know, I know, beat to death) Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Friedman
broadly agrees that there was no mass Exodus (millions of people) and not for about 40 years (a generation). So, he subscribes to the WP:RS/AC idea that there was no Exodus of the sort described in the Bible (when interpreted literally). He says that the Exodus only involved Levites (a smaller group) and there was no conquest of the Holy Land. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Let us go point by point

>  broadly agrees that there was no mass Exodus (millions of people)

Agreed

> and not for about 40 years (a generation).

I do not know where you get this from the lecture.

> So, he subscribes to the WP:RS/AC idea that there was no Exodus of the sort described in the Bible (when interpreted literally).

Since he used biblical text it certainly described in the bible.

> He says that the Exodus only involved Levites (a smaller group)

Agreed, this is the Exodus and that is what I specified for his views on the subject.

> and there was no conquest of the Holy Land.

He certainly would agree that there was no conquest as per the book Joshua but like in the book of the Judges. Which by the way is a view very common among experts. BernardZ (talk)


 * I meant interpreted literally like in biblical literalism (specific to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals). They mean that there was really an Exodus of about two million people who spent decennials at Kadesh Barnea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant no such claim was made by me.

BernardZ (talk)


 * While Friedman is a reliable source, we need to find where the balance of overall scholarly opinion lies. We have reliable sources for this, as cited in the article, and so we say that scholars are broadly agreed that there was no exodus of the sort described in the bible, although some (a minority) argue for a much different event which might have applied to the Levites. This is, I should mention, a distinctly minority opinion. Read the sources cited in the article before editing.PiCo (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If we agree that Friedman is a reliable, then it is valid that it goes into the article and furthermore should go.BernardZ (talk)
 * Being a reliable source is only the beginning. If that reliable source is holding a minority position, then we don't use him.


 * What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what Friedman says if he isn't in agreement with the majority. We also reflect the majority opinion about the formation of the Torah - to quote Romer, "there is  a  widespread agreement  that  the  first  publication  of  the  Pentateuch—or  of  a  Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." We qualify this with Eskanazi's statement: "A key contemporary issue ... is whether the 5th century BCE constitutes a major culmination point for the Pentateuch or just the beginning of its formation." I strongly recommend that you read the sources we use.PiCo (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You need to show that because I can assure you, this is not a majority view. The source listed does not make this claim by the way.BernardZ (talk)
 * The majority view is that the Torah is a product of the Persian period, with a substantial minority view that it dates from the Hellenistic period ("dates from" means was finalised then). See the quotes from Romer and Eskanazi above. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to know what other scholars:::: If we agree with him. And once again, this should be the the main article on the tribe before we add it here. Doug Weller  talk 06:56, 27 April 2018 (note this was deleted and I'm replacing it with the original date stamp)  Doug Weller  talk 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Doug, I can't understand a word of that. Can you explain?PiCo (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * He asked who are the other scholars who agree with Friedman. And stated that such info is more germane to another article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, copy paste of my post deleted by BernardZ didn't work well. Yes, who else agrees? And it should be in the other article first, makes no sense to have it here and not there. Doug Weller  talk 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What other article is that? PiCo (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Tribe of Levi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Friedman advances a curious argument: the Bible is our only reason for believing that an exodus ever happened; the Bible is wrong about the exodus; nevertheless, the Bible is right about the exodus. I don't think he realises that this is his argument, but it is.PiCo (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fairly usual argument in Bible scholarship: the Bible literally says this, but through textual criticism we infer the reality was that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In answer to Doug Weller's question as to who agrees with Friedman, I can only suggest consulting Moore and Kelle's 2011 book, which is linked in the bibliography of the article. (The fact that it was published in 2011 is significant: it represents contemporary scholarship). The significant point is that most scholars today do not consider the Bible's exodus story relevant to the story of Israel's emergence (p.81). Friedman's arguments therefore amount to special pleading (same page). Those who take the same position that the exodus story is reliable, notable Hoffmeier and Kitchen, are ignored by other scholars. They do concede that the exodus story has an authentic core, but the common position is that the nature of this core is irrecoverable (p.94). I believe that this synopsis is adequately reflected in our article, while standing always ready for correction on that and other issues.PiCo (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you stop this nonsense PiCo? Its is not like Friedman is the only one saying it. There were a room full of scholars in that room while he was talking and none of them claimed it was nonsense and I also quoted another scholar.BernardZ (talk)
 * Moore/Kelle gives the overview of current scholarly understanding of the historicity of the exodus. Friedman's personal views run counter to the mainstream view, therefore we don't include him. We do mention the minority view, citing Kitchen and Hoffmeier as examples. The others speaking in that you tube are William Propp and Gary Rendsberg, but they don't contribute anything substantial). PiCo (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that Moore or Kelle are anywhere near in statue in this field as Hoffmeier or Friedman, but there is no point in putting these people in and I can put more if you just scrub it. So what do we do?BernardZ (talk)
 * I think that you should read WP:PAGs like WP:UNDUE and WP:RS/AC. Anyway, it also helps if you read the straight dope at . See the broader chat about that at, e.g. "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". Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * BernardZ: Firstly, you wanted to change "scholars broadly agree that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period" to "some scholars think that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period". We have a source for the statement (Thomas Romer's article in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, volume 8, which is from 2008), and that source says: "There is  a  widespread agreement  that  the  first  publication  of  the Pentateuch—or  of  a  Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." Romer does NOT say "some scholars" think this, he says there's widespread agreement, which our article glosses as broad agreement. Secondly, you wanted to add a statement that "there is much dispute with historians over whether the exodus took place." There is not. As our article states, "there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt" (sourced to Carol Redmount's contribution on the Exodus in Coogan's edited Oxford History of the Biblical World, 2001). The relevant page is 77, and she says: "[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". Your basis for changing this is Hoffmeier's "Israel in Egypt," but you give no page number, just the book cover, and you're obviously unaware that Hoffmeier doesn't argue that the exodus DID take place, only that it MIGHT have. Thirdly, you draw attention to Friedman's You Tube address (I think it dates from 2002) in which he states his belief that the Levites may have been in Egypt (without bringing forward any evidence). You seem not to have noticed that this possibility is already covered in our article in the subsection "Possible Sources and Parallels" - we don't mention Friedman specifically because, frankly, he isn't a major voice in this area, but the concept is covered. Overall, I suggest you read the sources, and our article, more closely.PiCo (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * > Firstly, you wanted to change "scholars broadly agree that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period" to "some scholars think that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period". We have a source for the statement (Thomas Romer's article in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, volume 8, which is from 2008), and that source says: "There is  a  widespread agreement  that  the  first  publication  of  the Pentateuch—or  of  a  Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." Romer does NOT say "some scholars" think this, he says there's widespread agreement, which our article glosses as broad agreement.


 * >Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian. What you are confusing is the formulized product.


 * >> Secondly, you wanted to add a statement that "there is much dispute with historians over whether the exodus took place." There is not. As our article states, "there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt" (sourced to Carol Redmount's contribution on the Exodus in Coogan's edited Oxford History of the Biblical World, 2001). The relevant page is 77, and she says: "[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". Your basis for changing this is Hoffmeier's "Israel in Egypt," but you give no page number, just the book cover, and you're obviously unaware that Hoffmeier doesn't argue that the exodus DID take place, only that it MIGHT have.


 * >A lie, Hoffmeier does argue it takes place.


 * >PS I have a copy of the book.


 * >> Thirdly, you draw attention to Friedman's You Tube address (I think it dates from 2002) in which he states his belief that the Levites may have been in Egypt (without bringing forward any evidence). You seem not to have noticed that this possibility is already covered in our article in the subsection "Possible Sources and Parallels" - we don't mention Friedman specifically because, frankly, he isn't a major voice in this area, but the concept is covered.


 * >If you feel like this then why scrub my line?


 * >>Overall, I suggest you read the sources, and our article, more closely.


 * >I did the page is false because many refuse to allow people like me to write refereences that conflict with their thoughts, check out the "true scotsman argument". BernardZ (talk)

"PS I have a copy of the book."

Since they already asked you to add the relevant page to the citation, why do you refuse? You have the copy that you can consult. Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * BernardZ, you say "Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian." I find that rather arrogant. But if you believe that almost all scholars believe it to be pre-Persian, please provide a source.
 * You also say, "What you are confusing is the formulized product." I assume by this you mean finalised. Yes, this is what we're talking about, the final text of the Pentateuch. The sources behind it stretch back to the 7th and even 8th centuries, as stated in our article. The Exodus narrative, however, is the final Pentateuchal text, not it's sources. That dates, by common agreement, from the Persian period, with possible further editing down to the Hellenistic. (For example, the reference to "ships of Kittim" in Numbers refers to the Greeks or Romans, and although it's impossible to pinpoint the reference the latter could point to the Roman intervention in Egypt in the early 2nd century).
 * You say also: "Hoffmeier does argue it [the exodus] takes place." What Hoffmeier says is this: "The body of evidence reviewed in this book provides indirect evidence which shows that the main points of the Israel in Egypt and exodus narratives are indeed plausible". Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p.226. As I said above, he argues plausibility, not that it took place.
 * Finally, you ask why we don't allow your inclusion of Friedman's youtube piece to stand. I thought I'd covered that: the idea Friedman raises, that the sources of the Exodus narrative might include genuine memories of some persons who had been in Egypt, is already covered. Plus of course the fact that Friedman is not a major scholar in this field - his fame (and he is famous) lies elsewhere. You might be interested to know, however, that Friedman himself says that his position is a minority one, as he states in his recent study of the Exodus (more relevant to your argument than the youtube video): "many of my colleagues in Bible studies and most of my colleagues in archaeology doubt, or even deny, that it happened." PiCo (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)



>"Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian." I find that rather arrogant. But if you believe that almost all scholars believe it to be pre-Persian, please provide a source.

Frustrated, not arrogant.

Here is one https://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html

Here are some more Iain Provan K. A. Kitchen

We could include Friedman in this list too.


 * You also say, "What you are confusing is the formulized product." I assume by this you mean finalised. Yes, this is what we're talking about, the final text of the Pentateuch. The sources behind it stretch back to the 7th and even 8th centuries, as stated in our article. The Exodus narrative, however, is the final Pentateuchal text, not it's sources. That dates, by common agreement, from the Persian period, with possible further editing down to the Hellenistic. (For example, the reference to "ships of Kittim" in Numbers refers to the Greeks or Romans, and although it's impossible to pinpoint the reference the latter could point to the Roman intervention in Egypt in the early 2nd century).

> Huh??? In Exodus story, there is a little poem that most scholars believe is the oldest poem in the Bible. It is called “Miriam’s Song,” and some scholars believe it is a victory song that comes from the time immediately after the Israelites’ miraculous crossing of the Red Sea.


 * You say also: "Hoffmeier does argue it [the exodus] takes place." What Hoffmeier says is this: "The body of evidence reviewed in this book provides indirect evidence which shows that the main points of the Israel in Egypt and exodus narratives are indeed plausible". Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p.226. As I said above, he argues plausibility, not that it took place.

>I think he goes further but going by this, will you agree to allow a discussion on this page that Hoffmeier thinks it plausible and when and why?


 * Finally, you ask why we don't allow your inclusion of Friedman's youtube piece to stand. I thought I'd covered that: the idea Friedman raises, that the sources of the Exodus narrative might include genuine memories of some persons who had been in Egypt, is already covered.

I do not see this in the page but would you agree to put Friedman's lecture in there?


 * Plus of course the fact that Friedman is not a major scholar in this field - his fame (and he is famous) lies elsewhere. You might be interested to know, however, that Friedman himself says that his position is a minority one, as he states in his recent study of the Exodus (more relevant to your argument than the youtube video): "many of my colleagues in Bible studies and most of my colleagues in archaeology doubt, or even deny, that it happened." PiCo (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

He is as good an expert as you will get on this subject. Probably the top expert on the subject is the curator of the Egyptain Museam who is quoted by Hoffmeier as saying that the ancient Israel drunk deeply from Egyptain culture. BernardZ (talk)


 * I have just read through all this and have no idea what specific content is under discussion nor what the proposed changes are. You all have gone off the rails and I will be closing this soon, if it doesn't re-focus on specific changes to the article.  Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check the stuff that was scrubbed.

BernardZ (talk)

"In Exodus story, there is a little poem that most scholars believe is the oldest poem in the Bible. It is called “Miriam’s Song,” "

The Song of the sea is the oldest poem in the Exodus, and immediately precedes Miriam's song in the text. "The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. Most scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period. An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device. Proposed dates range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE. "Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It is part of the J source which most believe was written between 848 and no later than 722 BCE in Judah but the Hebrew as you state looks much older. Also, it appears to contain references to another poem which appears to be both older still and is lost.

BernardZ (talk)

"The goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design"

- John E. Jones III


 * The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to foment revolution, but to take the WP:RS/AC for what it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I think we are getting there mate. No-one is disputing anymore that many notable people do think that it is plausible that it did happen.BernardZ (talk)
 * No, Bernard, they don't. It's fringe.PiCo (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are old arguments, which are now rehashed, see Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8 (search for "Liverpool"). Basically, Kitchen and Hoffmeier know they are in the minority and tell they are in the minority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If we accept for the sake of the argument that they are in a minority which I do not, they are still notable and should be included in this page.

BernardZ (talk)


 * You don't take their own word for it? Anyway, see about majority . Scholars from evangelical educational institutions won't ever agree to anything else than biblical inerrancy. So all we can do is reflect the views of scholars from secular universities (secular does not mean atheist), since history is a secular academic field, even if it concerns the history of the Holy Land. It's not like we would debate theology, see WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is unfair, people in non secular places can be fair too Tgeorgescu. In any case it is not true that only people in such places have this view.

There is an interesting discussion here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/

"Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction?

This is a loaded question. Although Biblical scholars and archaeologists argue about various aspects of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, many of them agree that the Exodus occurred in some form or another" Read on..

So reading this debate, I think Bernard you do have a real case, I think we should make a separate section to put in these people.

Even if one accepts that it is a minority view, clearly it is considered a valid view. Macquaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * As has stated, their view is already covered. For the rest, WP:PAGs are of application and if you don't base your arguments on WP:PAGs, your changes to the article won't stick. As for evangelical scholars, some of them took formal oaths that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Anyway, if they deny biblical inerrancy, they will have to flip burgers at Target, that's what Peter Enns said. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a pretty view you have Tgeorgescu, should I not be allowed to comment on democracy page because I believe in democracy?

BernardZ (talk)


 * Hi Macquaire. Wikipedia generally deals in views, not people - we try to find the consensus view if one exists, or failing that the dominant view, and any significant minority views. I think the article is well-sourced regarding consensus/near-consensus views on the following:
 * Your views on whether the page is not shared, saying it again does not make it right. Plus there is no reason if you feel it is balanced for people not to be allowed to expand the comments.

BernardZ (talk)


 * date of composition of the Exodus narrative, 450-350 BC with a significant minority advocating a later date (later by about a century);
 * Now what about the significant minority which you accept exist advocating an earlier date

BernardZ (talk)


 * socio-political background to its composition (the "citizen-temple community" thesis - we mention the Persian Imperial authorisation thesis because it's widely known, and was only recently overturned);
 * Prove that comment and its relevance.

BernardZ (talk)


 * lack of historicity/written as a charter document;
 * Meaningless comment.

BernardZ (talk)


 * probability of prior background, now probably irretrievable (though we mention "collective memory", the Hyksos, and a few other theories).
 * If so it should be in

BernardZ (talk)


 * You're welcome to check out the sources attached to each of these, and you should do so - source-checking is an invaluable help to getting articles right, especially when done by persons not involved as editors. Incidentally, I said above that we don't deal in persons, just ideas, but we do mention persons when they're important - Frie as originator of Imperial authorisation, Assman as foundational in cultural memory theory, to take two examples. Friedman, however, has not made a contribution to Pentateuchal studies in this way - his name is never mentioned in the literature. PiCo (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Lies Friedman expertise in in this check the books he has writtern

BernardZ (talk)


 * There is a saying in the Netherlands (it was a commercial) "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck." Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to say Mr Tgeorgescu that you know nothing about this subject? Just for the record, I have studied formally this subject, disussed it with several experts recently in Egypt and can assure you that this page is quite false.

BernardZ (talk)
 * Look, we have a WP:PAG, it is WP:RS/AC. We do not set it aside because some editor claims that he would be an expert and knows better. If you are an expert, you should be able to easily quote WP:RS and therefore you should pass the test of WP:RS/AC with flying colors. Yet somehow you are either unable or unwilling to do that. As stated, Hoffmeier and Kitchen stated in some Liverpool conferences that they are a minority view. Why do you trust them for establishing the reality of the Exodus but you don't trust them that they are minority? To give you an inkling of what kind of approach we prefer, see WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is *WE* what you mean is *I*

BernardZ (talk)
 * We, as in we, the WP:PAG-abiding Wikipedians, i.e. those who have a WP:CLUE. United by WP:PAGs, experienced editors constitute a hive mind. The good news is that everyone who is up to the task may join us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that you can hardly argue that you are an honest broker here.

BernardZ (talk)

Just in case anyone here believes that Friedman, which started this debate is not an expert on this subject please check his book on the subject which is highly regarded. https://www.amazon.com/Exodus-Richard-Elliott-Friedman/dp/0062565249/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=1S3Z8MWBZWMXHBKZZ70Z


 * I did not deny that he is knowledgeable, he just isn't a major voice in this debate. As stated, Friedman has not invented the exodus of the Levites-only. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Define notable, he has edited a book on the subject, he has spoken to many experts, he is considered an expert. He is listed by wiki editors are notable

BernardZ (talk)
 * has explained to you that his name is not tied to the Levites-only exodus the same way other major scholars are tied to their original findings. So, yes, I agree that he is notable, he just isn't a major voice in this dispute. If you want, he wrote a WP:RS, but this has to be cited according to WP:DUE, i.e. there are many other WP:RS and WP:RS/AC has to be taken into account. E.g., there are many good NBA players, but they are not generally considered major players. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And how do you determine that Friedman is not a major player but PiCo is please?

BernardZ (talk)
 * This is not Citizendium, Wikipedia editors don't have to be experts, but they have to quote experts. PiCo's role as an editor is to WP:CITE WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You have edited Wikipedia long enough to already know this. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly have edited the wikipedia long enough to know what is wrong. I am still waiting for your proof that Friedman is somehow a minor figure

BernardZ (talk)
 * He isn't a major figure, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Friedman is a reliable source (a biblical scholar and author of many books and articles quoted by other biblical scholars, but using reliable sources is only the first step in writing Wiki articles. The next is deciding where the balance of scholarly opinion lies - to set out the majority view and any significant minority views. This is what NPOV and Due Weight are about. We know where that balance lies for this topic because we have the Moore and Kelle book, and they tell us. If you want to dispute them you need to find another book. Getting back to Friedman, he holds two views (0r rather theories) which are minority ones within modern biblical scholarship. One is the idea that the Pentateuch was made by combining four distinct stories, each complete in itself, meaning that each runs from Genesis to the end of Numbers. That's the documentary hypothesis, which still has followers today, but not in the form that Friedman holds it: he believes that the four can be dated to various centuries from the 9th to the 5th, and that the authors can be identified. That's an extreme position that even others who hold the documentary hypothesis don't espouse. If you want to know what the modern documentary hypothesis is, read Joel Baden (and there's a brief overview in our Wiki article on the hypothesis). The second minority theory that Friedman advances is that there was a real exodus from Egypt, although in his version it was of the Levites alone. His is rather an extreme version, and ties into his ideas on the documentary hypothesis, but the more common version is called the "mixed multitude" hypothesis, and has been around for quite a while. On this, read the book by Killebrew in the bibliography in this article.PiCo (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * All this should say his comments should be put in because he is notable.

BernardZ (talk)

Would anyone mind if we get mediation to settle this question if we cannot resolve this question say by the end of the month? BernardZ (talk)


 * Just mind that WP:UNDUE is non-negotiable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is that a problem to you? BernardZ (talk)

Listed twice
Any special reasons for repeating the same information in two different places? Once is enough, it should not be repeated ad nauseam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Except for Tgeorgescu, anyone else mind if I put it back?


 * I and everyone else is unable to add current findings until it is in.
 * BernardZ (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reading comprehension problem? As I have stated at WP:ANI, I don't think anyone has agreed on the talk page that we should repeat more or less the same words (difference being puffery) a few lines below their first occurrence. If you want to display good faith, I suggest that you write something like "As stated above, there are some scholars who don't agree to the consensus view" followed by way of using the same sources. and Oh, boy, a matter of WP:CIR: I have not objected to the line mentioned once, I have objected to the line mentioned twice. Do you have proper reading skills? I have objected to repeating the same stuff. Your line is now still inside the article, albeit without puffery. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a contentious article, and like many such it grows and grows. Most of the repetition of ideas and points is in the Historicity and Composition sections, and are essentially over the question of genre - is the exodus narrative (the story in the bible, as we have it in Hebrew, not English) a work of history or of theology? These two sections can be combined under a new heading, Questions of Genre, with a substantial saving of space possible.

(I've changed my mind slightly: the Composition section will remain, as it concerns the history of the text; the new section replacing Historicity will be called Genre, and will concern the intention of the text).PiCo (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

These are the points I'll cover - not an exhaustive list, but the main ones:
 * The exodus was written as a foundation myth, an explanation of Israel's origins. (It's the moment when Israel met God and forged an eternal covenant, therefore the moment of Israel's foundation/origin).
 * Actually I think the story of Abraham is the foundation myth.BernardZ (talk)
 * I only just noticed this comment, Bernard. Yes, the story of the ancestors (not just Abraham) is a foundation myth, and the exodus story is a second. The two compete, and the Pentateuch is an attempt to reconcile them while granting primacy to the exodus story. The exodus story has a northern origin (the ancient kingdom of Israel), while the ancestors come from both Israel and Judah. There's a lot of material published about this, and you can look it up on google books.PiCo (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In historical terms Israel didn't exist at all before the close of the Bronze Age, and arose from Canaanite roots. At first it was two kingdoms, Israel and Judah, alike in every respect to their fellow-Canaanite kingdoms (Moab, Ammon, etc) and not very different from the Phoenician and even Philistine city-states (the Phoenicians were Canaanites, and the Philistines even eventually came to speak Canaanite languages and merge into general Canaanite society).
 * We are not sure of the origins of the Philistines

BernardZ (talk)


 * The exodus narrative (the modern Hebrew text) was written in its present form in the mid-late Persian period, as an exercise in community building following the Babylonian captivity. There are signs, however, that its roots stretch back earlier than than, certainly to the 8th century Israelite prophets, who mention something like it ("Did not a prophet bring you out of Egypt?), and elements may derive from even earlier episodes, such as the Hyksos experience and the Late Bronze Egyptian occupation of Canaan.
 * The bible is almost certainly pre Persian, but parts are clearly put together in the Persian times.

BernardZ (talk)
 * A tiny number of conservative Christian scholars continue to argue for it's validity as history, or at least for the plausibility of this position, but they are ignored in mainstream scholarship and modern histories of Israel do not generally mention the exodus.
 * I dispute this

BernardZ (talk)

Wikipedia seems to attract a disproportionate number of conservative lay editors who are unaware that their favoured viewpoint is out of favour with current scholarship. I rather doubt that such persons will accept this argument unless substantial evidence is marshaled, which I fear would overbalance the article (there's no reason to waste space on an argument that doesn't really exist in academic circles). I therefore propose a separate article, Historicity of the Exodus, where the evidence can be placed. (I think something a little along these lines already exists - I'll try tyo find it).PiCo (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to doing this. A link to this page could be put to the new page.

BernardZ (talk) 06:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Historicity
I have reverted two significant edits to the Summary subsection of the Historicity section. The first is to change "There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt,..." to "Most [archaeologists?] feel that there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt..." The source is Redmount, page 77, who says: "No archaeological evidence from Egypt can be constructed as representing a resident group of Israelites in the Delta or elsewhere..." This is categorical, and cannot be parsed as supporting a statement representing the opinion of "most" archaeologists.

The second is the addition of a sentence to the effect that "a significant number of scholars believe that it is plausible that a significantly smaller group of Israelites could have made an exodus from Egypt." Three sources are given, Hoffmeiers's Israel in Egypt, an article from Biblical Archaeology magazine, and a you tube video of a talk by Professor Richard Friedman. Biblical Archaeology and you tube are not reliable sources and should not be used in Wikipedia, but I accept the point being made, that there appears to be a number of scholars who feel that a "significantly smaller" (smaller than the 2 million or more implied in Exodus) might have exited Egypt.

It's not correct, however, that these amount to a "significant" number of scholarly voices - significant enough to merit mention in the article on the basis of due weight. This is covered in Moore and Kelle's book, Biblical History and Israel's past. On pages 88-89 they mention "a few" (not "a significant number") of scholars "keeping alive discussion of the potential historicity, or at least plausibility," of the Exodus narrative. I'm sure that at one point in the recent past our article explicitly mentioned this, but I can't see it there now. So I'm willing toi reinsert a sentence along the lines of the one quoted from Moore and Kelle, and to name Hoffmeier and Kitchen as representatives of this view, but it has to be made clear that mainstream scholarship simply ignores them (for which see the same pages of Moore and Kelle). PiCo (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On what basis do you say that there is not a "significant" number of scholarly voices, it is not like there are 100s of specialist in this field and considering these people importance in this field it is certainly significant enough to merit mention in the article.


 * Also if you look at the URL here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/


 * Clearly what there is as specialist do seriously think it is plausible.BernardZ (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The judgement that the number of scholars arguing for historicity/plausibility can't be described as "significant" (the word you want to use) is based on Moore and Kelle's discussion, and I've gone over that at least twice. They say "a few". We have to rely on sources, not personal assessments, and if you want to argue that the numbers are significant you'll have to find sources with that or equivalent wording.
 * Your link is to an article in Bible History Daily, which is not a peer reviewed publication and therefore not a Reliable Source as that phrase is used in Wikipedia policy. As for what's in it, it's based on an article by Manfred Bietak, an archaeologist who has worked extensively at Avaris, the ancient Hyksos capital. I don't know how accurately it reflects Bietak's article, but it has several serious errors. Most notably it talks about the 4-roomed house form as Israelite - in fact this is what it's about, an argument that the presence of 4-room houses at Avaris indicates the presence of Israelites. The idea that these houses were an archaeological marker of Israel was first advanced by the "biblical archaeology" school in the middle of the 20th century, but was later abandoned when it was shown that it developed from native Canaanite forms - it's a Canaanite house-form, not a specifically Israelite one. The article is about half a century behind the times.
 * I don't understand your final sentence.
 * Incidentally, please be careful to indent all paras in your comments equally, and put your tag at the end of the last comment, otherwise it's confusing to read.PiCo (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sure that you will find that almost the articles in this publication are sourced from peer-reviewed publication or are articles that are going into peer-reviewed publications, the biblical archaeology magazine is considered the most authoritative source on this subject for the public plus if you look thru the wikipedia you will see many references to this publication so the editors of the wikipedia do accept it as a source. So do we agree it goes in this comment if I quote these peer-reviewed articles. There is a lot of scholars here. BernardZ (talk)
 * Bernard, is it too much to ask you to sign yourself at the end of your posts rather than on the next line? It really does avoid confusion.
 * Personally I wouldn't accept Bible History Daily as a reliable source, but if you feel it can be you can ask about it on the appropriate forum. I don't use forums much so can't help guide you, but others here can.
 * If the articles in BHD are sourced from peer-reviewed journals, why not use those journals? It would save a lot of bother.PiCo (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So you have no objection left if I use peer-based articles BernardZ (talk)
 * Being peer-reviewed is one indication that we're using a reliable source. But being a reliable source is only the beginning, we also (for example and importantly) need to reflect the weight of general scholarly opinion.PiCo (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Noblecourt

 * She might be the greatest Egyptologist, then do not do her a disservice by presenting her views as totally off-topic: there is no explanation given for what those brute facts have to do with the Exodus, and of course the hypothesis that the Israelites learned these stories/habits while occupied by the Egyptians is more straightforward than they have come from Egypt (which is still lacking corroboration). If she does not say that these facts would have anything to do with the Exodus, then neither may you. It is a matter of policy, see WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * we had this used in another article recently, do you recall which? Doug Weller  talk 19:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was Pharaohs in the Bible and user Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau. I've CU blocked the new editor as a sock. Doug Weller  talk 19:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes to lead sentence
please discuss your proposed change to the lead sentence and gain consensus here first. The proposed change contradicts the historicity section of the article that there is "No historical basis" for The Exodus (cited to numerous references). Bennv3771 (talk) 03:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Also, the reference you cited does not support the historicity of Exodus as it explicitly says that it does not discuss its historicity: "The critical problems and hypotheses that Exodus shares with the other books, such as the historical value of the accounts; ... can not be discussed here now." Bennv3771 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

William Dever misrepresented a wee bit
In the Historicity section of the article;

"While a few scholars discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the Exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit".[38][39]"

However, Dever's quote doesn't say that the "historicity" of the Exodus has been abandoned as a fruitless pursuit. Dever says that the "archaeological investigation" of the Exodus has been abandoned. Here's the full quote;

"And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit." (pp. 98-99, What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?)

Literary investigation of the Exodus continues. See, for example, the collection of essays in Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective by Finkelstein, Bietak, Hendel, Hoffmeier, Rendsburg, etc. The Historicity section should be changed to reflect what Dever actually says.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem. He singles out archaeologists as having abandoned the effort to prove the Exodus might have occurred. We don't say that other scholars have abandoned the quest. Doug Weller  talk 21:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wiki's phrasing isn't what Dever says. Historicity being abandoned isn't the same as archaeological investigation being abandoned.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that could be true. But since other scholars made the point that its historicity is bogus, your objection is moot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Historicity is irrelevant. The point is about whether or not investigation has been abandoned. What Wiki says doesn't reflect the source given. What I'm saying is straight forward.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There are ongoing WP:MAINSTREAM investigations into the tradition of writing about the Exodus; however mainstream investigations about the historicity of the Exodus are dead in the water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that says that, then feel free to show me. (It's not correct, anyways, though I digress). Wiki doesn't reflect the source that's currently cited. Again, this is pretty straightforward.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Friedman basically agrees that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible. In fact, mainstream scholars do agree that there was a real historical event behind the Exodus tradition, but that event is irretrievably lost to us. Others are evangelical authors who are experts in a certain field and try to push the view that they would be experts upon the Exodus. Basically, they are writing apologetics, not history (i.e. they are preaching to the choir). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're imagining I'm arguing for a biblically described exodus. As you admit, Friedman and other scholars continue to investigate historicity in one sense or another. I probably agree with Friedman's Levite Exodus. Anyways, the point I've been making and that you've repeatedly been stepping around is that the Wiki page doesn't reflect what the sources say. Dever says "archaeological investigation", Wiki says "historicity".Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For evangelicals, Friedman's view is heresy. Anyway, according to the mainstream scholars, all claims about the historical Exodus are "not even wrong": those are theses which float in the limbo of the unknowable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who cares about what evangelicals think? We're talking about what scholars, like Friedman think. As I must repeat myself ad infinitum, Wiki doesn't reflect what its source says. It really is that simple, and the phrasing needs to be changed.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, then write it in the form "A should be changed into B". Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

OK. I think the sentence;

"While a few scholars discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the Exodus story, the majority of archaeologists have abandoned it, in the phrase used by archaeologist William Dever, as "a fruitless pursuit".[38][39]"

Should be changed to;

"According to archaeologist William Dever, archaeologists have abandoned investigation of any surviving archaeological records of the exodus as 'a fruitless pursuit.'"

The first sentence is not in the source. The second sentence is.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't get it: both speak about what archaeologists think. Why should that change occur? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The first sentence says that "historicity" has been abandoned. That's clearly not the same as archaeological investigation being abandoned, which leaves open investigations like the one Friedman conducted.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand what is now written in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to enlighten me. The article says that historicity has been abandoned, the source says archaeological investigation. The proposed sentence I gave is much more precise when it comes to the source.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps after all will become clear. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ugh, interesting edit you just made, but the problem remains that the second half of the sentence ("the majority of archaeologists") implies that historicity is still being discussed when the subject of the sentence is now archaeological investigation. I did a wee bit of wording change. Let me know if you disagree.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I won't edit war about that (though others could still object). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I must have lost my edit, because I replied to Wallingfordtoday's first post saying that I thought he misunderstood what we had written and that as it stood it was correct. Doug Weller talk 12:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's right there: I don't see the problem. He singles out archaeologists as having abandoned the effort to prove the Exodus might have occurred. We don't say that other scholars have abandoned the quest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see it now, I don't know how I missed it or how the original text could be so misunderstood. Doug Weller  talk 14:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The exodus has been abandoned by archaeological investigation, not archaeologists. Archaeologists like Finkelstein continue to publish on the historicity of the exodus in realms other than archaeology. If anything, the article is simply more precise now.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

"Believed history"
I reverted this edit describing The Exodus as "believed history". Is this even a real academic term? It doesn't make sense to me in the same way a "believed fact" doesn't make sense. Either something is historical/factual or it's not. Whether someone believes in it or not doesn't change its historicity/factuality. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The IP cannot just change it without WP:SOURCES. And our sources are pretty clear that it's a founding myth. This has been discussed to death. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There may be room for the term "salvation history" if carefully explained, but I don't think that was what the IP was getting at. Alephb (talk) 21:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is common vandalism, and this page has been attracting vandals for years. Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's just one vandal who is spoofing or using a botnet but no one believes me. :-P Levivich (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It could be true, but the burden of proof is upon you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed it is, and I tried, and we all know how that went. The alternative, I guess, must be true: there are dozens of people around the world, entirely unrelated, who, for the last few years, each decided one day to learn enough about how to edit WP to make exactly one change, and always the same change–removing "myth" from The Exodus–and then decided never to make any other changes at all, including to other uses of "myth" in religion articles, and not one of these people has ever had a problem with being reverted or gotten into an argument about it on the talk page. Now, some might say that editors generally behave the opposite of that, that if anything, they usually tend to stubbornly cling to their changes, or they make the same changes across a number of articles, or they get into lengthy discussions about POV issues to keep their changes. Some might look at this years-long history of dozens of SPAs that only make 1 or 3 edits, always the same edit, and conclude it's a sock farm or at least a group of meatpuppets. But I've been told repeatedly that I'm way off base for believing that. Levivich (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * What you say seems reasonable, but I am not a checkuser. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You could always file an SPI and ask one to check it out ;-) (just kidding) Levivich (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * For whatever it is, or isn't worth, there's similar behavior around a set of articles involving the historicity of the book of Daniel, although at times it gets more argumentative there. There's apparently a lot of drive-by editors highly interested in whether or not Daniel was a historical figure. I'd say there's more interest in Daniel than there is on Genesis, which is weird, given that people in the real world argue more about Genesis than Daniel. I've not done any kind of counting or tracking to try and figure out if the characteristics are similar or anything like that. Alephb (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it is relevant, but there are a number of "documentaries" in YouTube, which parrot fundamentalist nonsense and base their entire view on world history on the "accurate" prophesies in the Book of Daniel. Dimadick (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, Seventh-Day Adventists cannot accept that the prophecies in the Book of Daniel were wrong, otherwise their whole denomination is based upon preaching falsehoods. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Kitchen
Kitchen and Hoffmeier know they are in minority, a tiny minority. See Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Very true. But why do you mention this?PiCo (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my idea. It concerns a compromise solution for an edit in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I just deleted that addition about Kitchen and his criticism. Had no idea it was a hot topic. I'll stay out of it :) PiCo (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, I approve of your edits. But I am not as harsh as you. When it's not vandalism or WP:CB I seek compromise. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Coogan
Does Coogan explicitly deny that the verses are a later addition? Please provide copious quotes for verification. AFAIK Coogan is a reputable scholar and would never do such thing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Tgeorgescu I entirely agree that Cougan is a reputable scholar and one can read the Wikipedia entry for him which includes reference to his book on the OT. You could buy or borrow the book which is written with Cynthia Chapman and you will see that Cougan is quite clear that the passage is from Micah and not a later edition.  The section on it is headed 'The message of Micah' and follows the section 'The Life of Micah'.  The reference to the Exodus in Micah forms part of a 'covenant lawsuit'.  What evidence do you have that the passage is later edition?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timofacleah (talk • contribs) 07:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Coogan, not Cougan. I've amended the footnote to say that "many scholars" say this, following The Old Testament - A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, by John J Collins. Someone else might like to add Collins to the bibliography in appropriate place. PiCo (talk) 08:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have two problems: I have no access to that source, so I don't know what Coogan wrote, and you have to provide copious quotes for verifying your claim (otherwise I cannot assume that you have correctly interpreted what Coogan wrote, reason: WP:REDFLAG&mdash;I do have an idea of what sounds like Coogan). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing typo in last section, and potentially altering the heading & content.
There is a typo in the section "Genre: thec exodus as myth and history." Obviously "thec" should be changed to "the." Also, "exodus" should be capitalized to "Exodus." I also find it weird that the section heading is called "Genre: the Exodus as myth and history." The word "Genre" should be removed so that it just reads "The Exodus as myth and history." Though I would go a step further and change the heading of that section to something like: "Analysis as myth and history," "Interpretations as a myth," or my personal preference of "Scholarly interpretation."

Furthermore, I think that section and the one before it ("Sources and parallels") have way too much overlap. I think the issue of historicity should be relegated to just one section, rather than split between the last section and the second-to-last, "Sources and parallels." The "Sources and parallels" section could contain most of the issues pertaining to historicity, and the last section could be called "Scholarly interpretations." That one could have a more directed focus on mythological symbolism, rather than jumping between issues of historicity and issues of interpretation as myth/literature. (Note: this is only my second attempt at an edit, so my apologies if I went about this incorrectly.)NomNomNomDePlume (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Don't apologise, you've made one observation that's spot-on (the typo), and some suggestions that are worth consiidering. Welcome to Wiki.,PiCo (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting historicity section
I think the entire historicity section should be deleted. The article makes it quite clear that the exodus has no basis in history, and what's in the section is just a tedious recital of individual items. Don't worry about this being contentious for some, those who believe there really was an exodus can't be convinced by facts.PiCo (talk) 10:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Those who believe in creationism can't be convinced by facts.


 * This is an area of quite extensive study to in the hopes of proving or disproving the historicity of the exodus. It doesn't hurt to have discussion of that, especially when there's edit warring about precisely this topic in the lede.


 * The level of tediousness is entirely subjective Blitzcream (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Much of it seems well sourced and fairly neutral summaries; it needs some improvement as does everything in WP. What prompted this, Pico?  It seems unusual for you.... Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Blitzcream says above that the historicity of the exodus "an area of quite extensive study". It's not. Mainstream biblical scholars and Egyptologists ignore it. It's 7 paragraphs long, more than double the length of any other section. This is way out of proportion, especially when the article overall makes it quite clear that the exodus story is a literary creation, not a history.It can easily be cut back to the first paragraph only, and better still deleted.PiCo (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I cut it back about half. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

More so than late C19th scholars traipsing across Northern Egypt and doing applying folk etymology to piles of rocks any how.


 * ::::Further, it's clear from the editing history of this article that while mainstream Biblical scholars and Egyptologists might ignore this (which given the number of reliable sources cited seems arguable)the interested public do not. Having a section that covers why the Exodus is not regarded as historical doesn't seem unreasonable. Maybe there was undue weight before - I think Jytdog's edits have probably resolved that.Blitzcream (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the entire historicity section should be retained. I tried to *move* "The traditions behind the story can be traced in the writings of the 8th-century BCE prophets...but no historical basis for the biblical Exodus exists... Instead, archaeology suggests a native Canaanite origin for ancient Israel." into the historicity section. It was reverted by @Tgeorgescu with Wikipedia boilerplate '"truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is'. How that is relevant I don't know. Also, notice how the proponents of historicity can't have their arguments made - instead they must be passed on second hand via the detractors. This is not exactly a page you'd trot out as a fine example of an encyclopedic article. "What men want is not knowledge, but certainty - Bertrand Russell". BenSWiki —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 29 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You conflate reasons. WP:LEDE refers to how the lead section should be written. The summary posted on your talk page is about much more than WP:OR. We seek to render WP:RS/AC to the best of our abilities. We do not seek WP:THETRUTH, since we are not a research institute. We do not seek to educate you, since we are not an university (encyclopedias aren't in the business of creating doubt). Also, we're not Debatepedia, so we don't do WP:GEVAL. If we tell our readers what university students hear from their professors, we have done a great job. So we're pretty much biased for the academic consensus. We're biased for "the Exodus did not really happen" because this is the prevailing view at WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this and the script I have shows that Blitzcream is blocked, checking shows he was a sock puppet of Orchomen so striking through his edits.  Doug Weller  talk 14:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention of Habiru slaves in Ancient Egypt
The History of the Jews in Egypt Wikipedia article states that there were certainly some Habiru slaves in Ancient Egypt, and in fact they are depicted in Ancient Egyptian iconography. Why not mention this fact in this article as well, where it is also very relevant? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that mention of the Habiru should be included, as they are another part of the historical basis behind the Exodus narrative. If it is sourced, you should add it to the article in the correct section. Epf2018 (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The article Sources and parallels of the Exodus seems to differ from this one
Surely the views of the historicity etc of the Exodus should be the same in both of these? Doug Weller talk 14:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. My edits are including some of the excellent sources there, as well as information from various others such as Finkelstein and Meyers, but a user name PiCo is making a stink about it. The current form of the Exodus article, from his edits, however makes false claims (e.g. "there is no historical basis") completely unsupported by the citations they cite, which is why I made changes. In addition, I've added material from other sources clearly stating that scholars agree there are historical events the Exodus narrative was likely based upon, and that it has varying degrees of historicity, explicitly clarifying that they are not saying things like "it has no historical basis". Epf2018 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The agreement is that behind the Exodus story was something real, but such event is totally lost to history. Also, it is very hard to disprove an exodus of 60 slaves and their families, so all scholars could say is that the Exodus did not happen as told in the Bible (i.e. with more than half of the population of Egypt leaving the country and having to fear the Egyptian and Philistine armies, which were much inferior to 600 000 Israelite fighters; 600 000 fighters were enough to conquer the Roman Empire at the peak of its extent). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The agreement in not at all that it is "entirely lost to history". Read Faust, 2015, p.476. The total historical elements of the Exodus is narrative, and may be elucidated with archaeological finds in the future, especially if wide-scale excavations are ever allowed throughout the region, especially at some of the most important non-excavated sited like the ruins at Temple Mount itself in Jerusalem. Epf2018 (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As someone told you before, Wikipedia goes by WP:BALL: we don't speak of future discoveries until such discoveries are actually made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying future potential discoveries should be included in the article. Where are you getting this from? I only corrected you in that no scholars are claiming that a historical Exodus event as basis or core behind the story is definitively "lost to history". Epf2018 (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Pico
A user named PiCo is reverting a format of a paragraph in the introductory section, as well as another in the Historicity section, I edited based almost verbatim from the sources. Worse that this, is that the format he re-verts to has a claim not supported or mentioned by citations it has listed. For example, none state that the Exodus narrative has "no historical basis". In fact, they make a point to state quite the contrary by pointing out that the lack of evidence for the narrative as presented in the Book of Exodus does not mean there is no historical basis, or no historical evidence, for an event or events it refers to or is based upon. This is stated most specifically in Meyers, 2005, which is why I added that source. Furthermore, none of the sources claim the Exodus narrative was only compiled or composed in the 5th century, but only that the final version or redaction of it (and the rest of the Torah). They state clearly the bulk of it was composed and compiled during the captivity in the 6th century (with large elements influenced from events of that time), but based to an unknown amount on pre-existing, earlier written sources (going back at least to the 8th century prophets, where the Exodus and events of it are mentioned in both Hosea and Amos - works universally agreed to date to the 8th century), as well as earlier oral traditions. I then included scholarly sources clearly stating the tradition could stretch further beyond that, as well as the narrative having a likely connection to or influence from elements of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites (of whom the Israelites were a sub-group of) from Egypt during the 16th - 14th centuries BCE. These are perfectly valid edits, and I have not seen a genuine explanation from PiCo as to his edits.

On a side note, this is an area of intensive and rapidly growing research, especially given there are also known to be a plethora of historical "Egyptian" figures named "Moses" at this time period when Semitic Canaanite populations were found in the Nile Delta. The Hyksos capital of Avaris has never been properly excavated, being blocked currently by the Egyptian government. Historian Josephus supported the Exodus-Hyksos connection as far back as the Roman period. Several researchers are even investigating a link between the Thera eruption c. 1600-1400 BCE and the events, specifically "plagues", described in Exodus. Much of this can be seen at the Sources and parallels of the Exodus. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and the most accurate and honest position of scholars is that it is simply not known how historical the Exodus narrative is, because investigation is ongoing, and much of what needs to be excavated archaeologically can't be because of the political sensitivities of the area, especially at places like the ruins of Avaris in Egypt or the Temple Mount and ruins in Jerusalem.

In any case, most scholars agree there is a historical core of presently unknown extent to the Exodus. Epf2018 (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging Bennv3771 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The two versions, the original and Epf2018's, are not actually very different - they use the same sources and make the same points, for the most part. The original, however, is more concise and puts the emphasis on the genre of the exodus narrative - it's important for readers to know the Totah is myth, not history. There are tow secions involved, the lead and the final section, "the exodus as myth and history". Here's a comparison of the two leads (second para - the first is the same in both):

The two paras have been broken into sourced segments and numbered for easier reference. We can see the following:
 * Sentences 1 and 7 are identical
 * Sentences 2 and 8 are identical
 * Sentences 3 and 6a are apparently contradictory
 * Sentence 6b is identical with a sentence in the final section of the original text (we'll come to it in a moment)
 * Sentence 4 is identical with 5b - 5a is found in the final section of the original text.

Overall the two texts share most of their content, and even the contradiction in sentences 3 and 6a is more apparent than real, as we'll now see: Let's make a point by point comparison:
 * Sentence 11a is identical with sentence 15a
 * Sentence 11b is identical with 6b
 * Sentence 12 shares elements with sentences 16 and 18 (Egypt in Canaan, Moses-like figure, Hyksos)
 * Sentence 13 of the original is missing from the proposed edit - a crucial absence.
 * Sentence 17 of the proposed edit is not in the original as it currently stands - it was quite recently, but was edited out.

Given the amount of overlap, I really can't understand why user Epf2018 seems so emotional about this.

Now the reasons why the existing version is preferable to user Epf2018's proposed version:
 * It contains almost identical information in far fewer words, which is surely desirable;
 * It contains the crucial point made in sentence 13, which is about genre-confusion: "(Collective) memories are not history, and there is a considerable consensus that Exodus and Conquest are best understood as Israel's national foundation myths."

Those are the main points, but the proposed edit has other weaknesses: There are other statements also that I find curious - they seem to come from a very conservative, evangelical standpoint. (I'd caution against using that book by Fretheim uncritically). But anyway, the two versions are so close that I don't see why a compromise can't be reached. PiCo (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It says (lead) that "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, likely based on collective cultural memory." No, not "collective cultural memory", just collective memory - this is the phrase popularised by Assman (though there's a Greek equivalent) and we should stick to it.
 * It says that "Scholars are broadly agreed that the Exodus story in its final form was composed by the 5th century BCE" (lead). The source (Romer) actually says that "the first publication of the  Pentateuch — or  of  a  Proto-Pentateuch — took place in the middle of the Persian period." I hope the point Romer makes is clear: the mid-Persian period is when the Pentateuch was first published, not when its final form was compiled. He's saying there was no earlier form, no documents called Yahwist or whatever - that's the old documentary hypothesis, which is pretty much abandoned these days (as Romer says: "since the majority of scholars abandoned the traditional documentary  hypothesis..."). He's also saying that there may have been editing after then - and indeed there clearly was, since the internal chronology points to 164 BC as the end-date of history, meaning that someone around that point went through editing in people's ages, etc etc. (Not to mention the reference to "ships of Kittim" in Numbers - Kittim is the Greeks or Romans, but there's no way of knowing which).


 * PiCo, you have outlined very well the differences and similarities between the edits. There's no need to claim that some of the statements come from a "conservative" or "evangelical" standpoint. The latter is not true, but in any case neither is a justification against the edits I made, so I suggest staying away from such things. "Conservative" is an ambiguous term here, and whether it refers to scholarly positions or theological ones, both are of merit in this discussion, especially since it is a religious community, Judaism, which wrote down these texts and experienced the historical events/collective memories of a migration or expulsion of their Canaanite ancestors (including proto-Israelites) in Egypt and wrote them down into a religious perspective. The scholars quite clearly note that the first publishing of the Torah in the post-Exilic period is with regards to a first published composition based on a compiling of earlier written sources going back to the First Temple period, with many additions made during the actual Babylonian Exile when the Torah itself was being compiled. The earlier texts are known to have existed in separate forms. Romer is not saying there weren't earlier written documents and texts of the Toarh, only that there wasn't an earlier publication of it - but this itself is not supported by all scholars, who admit it is still slightly possible the Torah could have existed earlier, especially since we have parts of it now which themselves date to the pre-Exilic period (the part of Numbers found at Ketef Hinnom). In any case, several written sources which were used as a basis, even if partial, for the Torah and included wthin it certainly are accepted to go back to the First Temple period, including possibly parts of the Exodus, since it is known that Hosea and Amos mention it in their writings which are accepted to date to the 7th century BCE. Epf2018 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * PiCo makes the following false statements in his edits:
 * "but it has no historical basis"
 * "(Collective) memories are not history, and there is a considerable consensus that Exodus and Conquest are best understood as Israel's national foundation myths."


 * These statements are particularly inaccurate. The sources clearly mention the collective memories in terms of them being from actual historical events. They are memories of past events experienced by expelled Canaanites in Egypt, including proto-Israelites. That is the point. My contention is that your edit has a statement which says that "it has no historical basis", when none of the sources - including the one used with this sentence - claim this. My edit, by contrast, elucidates the points more accurately. The whole point of the citation from Finkelstein is that it is saying, specifically, that scholars are NOT saying "it has no historical basis", and discusses the historical foundations of collective memories of events which influenced the writing of the Exodus narrative. This is the main contention with your edits, in addition to the fact that you do not make mention to the sources clearly saying that elements of the Exodus narrative date to older written sources - at least to the 7th century BCE when it is mentioned by the prophets Amos and Hosea - and oral traditions or collective memories. My edits also make clear that the scholars do not know how much further back the tradition or narrative of the Exodus may go beyond the 7th century BCE. Thus, your edit that the Exodus "was composed in the 5th century BCE" is slightly inaccurate in that parts of it are thought to date to much earlier written sources, at least to the 7th century BCE (i.e. the Book of Exodus dates to the 5th century, but the narrative of a historical events of the Exodus began to be written about far earlier). Also, its form in the Torah was composed in the 6th century, during the Exile, and then published in the 5th century. As for your personal views on Freitheim, it is a valid scholarly source, so these concerns aren't relevant here. Epf2018 (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My edits are supported by a plethora of sources - including Meyers, Redmount, Dever, Lemche, Fretheim and Finkelstein - all clearly stating the Exodus narrative and the collective memories have some historical basis, and that elements of the specific Exodus narrative itself go back at least to the 7th century prophets who mention it in their writings, with oral tradition going back even further to an unknown date. But my point is best summarized by Faust, 2015:


 * Faust, A., 2015, The Emergence of Iron Age Israel: On Origins and Habitus, in T.E. Levy, T. Schneider and W.H.C. Propp (eds.), Israel’s Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: Text, Archeology, Culture and Geoscience, Springer, pp. 467-482


 * "This is then followed by a more detailed discussion of the possible "origins" of the members of this group, and especially that of earliest Israel – the group that is mentioned in Merneptah's stele. It appears that while many individuals, families and groups were involved in the process of Israel's ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age, and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origins, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group which left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own. Traditions and practices that were useful in the active process of Israel's boundary maintenance with other groups were gradually adopted by "all Israel". It appears that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was one such story. " Epf2018 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt." (p.476) Epf2018 (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Essentially, PiCo claims erroneously that "it's important for readers to know the Torah is myth, not history." The fact is that the position held by scholars is that it is a combination of historical, mythological and legal/ethical elements portrayed in a religious framework (Dever says this in an almost identical way, as he is a critic of minimalists). The Exodus specifically is a "foundaton myth", but one which incorporates historical and mythological elements into it as a religious text, and which the level of historicity is of ongoing investigation changing as new evidence is uncovered. Every archaeological find increases or changes the level of historicity of Biblical texts among scholars, such as King David now being fully accepted to be a historical figure who existed based on archaeological finds, and the existence of Israel as a cultural unit as early as the 13th century BCE due to the Merneptah Stele, or proof of written parts of the Torah existing in the First Temple period due to the amulets at Ketef Hinnom. And the Temple Mount and the Hyksos capital Avaris haven't even yet been excavated archaeologically because of political sensitivities, so if they ever are, the level of historicity will change even further. This clarification is the point of my edits, stated by the citations themselves, which PiCo's edits omit and inaccurately represent. The scholars themselves specifically and explicitly state that the foundation myth of the Exodus still has a historical basis, with debated levels of historicity, and is not purely mythical.Epf2018 (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No, they do not increase that. Once the existence of a great empire of the United Monarchy was widely accepted, but it gradually became a marginal thesis among mainstream archaeologists.

"The last quarter of the 20th century has also seen the development of a crisis in the historiography of ancient Israel, which shows no sign of abating in the early years of the 21st. This crisis takes the form of a progressive loss of confidence in the historical value of the biblical narratives. In the middle of the 20th century, English language scholarship on ancient Israel was dominated by the Albright school, which placed great confidence in the archeology as a a means by which to affirm the essential reliability of the biblical text, beginning in the time of Abraham. This approach found its classic expression in John Bright's History of Israel, an impressive attempt to contextualize the biblical story by interweaving it with what we know of ancient Near Eastern history. Even when Bright wrote, a more skeptical view prevailed in German scholarship, at least with regard to the early books of the Bible. But the scene has changed drastically in the last quarter century. In a book originally published in 1922, Philip Davies claimed that "biblical scholars actually know - and write - that most of the 'biblical period' consists not only of unhistorical persons and events, but even of tracts of time that do no belong in history at all."

- John J. Collins


 * Such scientific revolution is described at . So, Coogan agrees that David's Jerusalem could fit on five rugby fields.  Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect here. Evidence does change the level of historicity as new discoveries are made, and has increased large elements in recent decades with many discoveries. This is why King David is now widely accepted as a historical figure circa 1000 BC, when before there was large claims that he didn't, and how is is accepted that Israel existed as some form of ethnic or cultural unit by the 13th century BC. The existence of the United Monarchy is still highly debated by historians and archaeologists. Some new finds support it, while others do not. What is accepted is that David's kingdom existed as some form of political unit, even if only a petty kingdom or chiefdom, circa 1000 BC in southern Israel, and so did the larger northern Kingdom around that time. Epf2018 (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It was the other way around: minimalists were the underdog for most of the 20th century, now everybody is a minimalist, except for fundamentalists.

"Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now."

- Philip Davies

"The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view. In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given."

- Lester L. Grabbe




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * These quotes are from biased, minimalist perspectives who have nowhere near the authority of the likes of Dever, Finkelstein or Faust, who all criticize minimalism. Your claim that "now everybody is a minimalist, except for fundamentalists" is complete and utter nonsense. Read the source from Faust which clearly shows that discussion of historicity, at least in the case of the Exodus and Iron Age Israel, is not a minimalist position. The dominant position is neither minimalist or maximalist, but lies somewhere between these extremes, depending on the scholar. As per Dever, the minimalists were much more influential in the past, due to less hard evidence, and it was them who ridiculously claimed that none of the Biblical texts existed before the Exilic period (now fully rejected), and that figures like King David were purely mythical (now also fully rejected). Meyers, Dever, Redmount, Faust, Finkelstein etc. are not minimalists, and certainly are not fundamentalists. As for the United Monarchy, as it is described in the Bible is what has very little support, but its existence altogether has not been abandoned. Epf2018 (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As for the patriarchs, there is zero evidence really of any sort to even verify any possibility of historicity for any of them beyond Moses, himself with only very limited possible evidence for some sort of figure. This is the case for most figures going back to the middle and early Bronze Age, apart from some major ones described on some tablets in Mesopotamia and Egypt. There may be a possible Hyksos leader (Yaqub-Har) with a name cognate to Jacob, and possibly some similarities, but that is all I have come across. Noah, if a historical person in any sense, was likely synonymous with a historical Utnapishtim. Epf2018 (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The full quote:

"But this theme is pointless and irrelevant: there is nothing in principle to be proved or disproved, and there never was, once fundamentalism lost control of biblical history (fifty years later in America than in Europe). Only a few archaeologists have realized that the contribution of archaeology to understanding biblical narrative is to illuminate the time in which they were written, whenever that was (notably Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman). And while Finkelstein denies being a “minimalist,” he follows exactly their agenda of looking for the historically realistic contexts of what are accepted as fictions. The context itself, whether Josianic or Persian, makes no difference to the principle. Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now."

- Philip Davies


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Davies is a highly biased minimalist. I already established that, but the majority of scholars do not support his viewpoint. Dever certainly doesn't, especially any claim about minimalists being the position for nearly all scholars in this field. What narratives is he claiming are accepted as fictions? Does he mean the entirety of these narratives accepted as fictions? That is not the case at all, especially for events described in Israel's history after the Exodus and the Book of Joshua anyway, apart from mythological or religious elements about beliefs. As shown already with Faust, the Exodus is not accepted as purely fiction either, and the level of its historicity is debated. Archaeological finds clearly have the importance of bringing understanding to events that may be historical, and mentioned in the Biblical narratives, not merely about "the period they were written". That is a ridiculous assertion. This is obviously the case with the ongoing research into the period and events the Exodus refers to, or the Book of Judges and Book of Kings in terms of the early history of Israel, with large elements about likely historical events but written down at a later date. Epf2018 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Finkelstein and Dever deny being minimalists, and actively criticize that viewpoint. I take them at their word, being so highly respected in the field, and not the ideological ramblings of a minimalist crank like Davies with an axe to grind. Epf2018 (talk) 22:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

"I think we have to avoid extremes.

The minimalists would make out of the Bible a pious fraud and I think that's going much, much too far.

On the other hand, if we try as moderns to read the Bible literally in the way fundamentalists do, we make nonsense of it.

I would try to avoid both of those extremes."

- William G. Dever


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know Dever is not a minimalist like Davies, and criticizes that extreme, as well as the maximalist extreme at the other end. That is my point. Epf2018 (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * What Dever says there is that taking the Bible historically at face value is silly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Why have you restored your disputed content under the claim that "PiCo has diasppeared from the discussion"? It has only been two days since you replied to their last comment; that's hardly a long enough time to claim someone has disappeared. Moreover, another editor has been active in the very same discussion and questions your changes to the lead as well. This is not how consensus-building works. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Visiting Moses
Back in the 70's while doing some historical research I was invited to a local Jewish library. Material on Moses was in the fiction section. I found this very interesting since Christians stress Moses as a historical figure. This has always struck me as being a bit ODD: Moses' staff (obviously a magic wand), the 7 or 10 plagues, the parting of the red or reed sea, (My favorite OVERLOOKED version of this story is the one where the Egyptians troops pursue the Moses escapees in BOATS! See: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the history and the religion of Israel by Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University Press, 1973), the receiving of the 10 commandments (Exodus 20:2-17), their destruction (Exodus 32:19), and REVISION usually NOT accepted (Exodus 34:1-26) and the STRANGE time line of taking 40 YEARS to cross the Sinai desert when Yahweh is GUIDING them with divine signs both day and night. They are lead to the promised land of Canaan, a land inhabited by terrible cannibal giants. (Numbers 13:1-31) DUH!! What we have here is likely fantasy literature. Miistermagico (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You posted a comment similar to this one at Talk:Moses not long ago, and while you somewhat offhandedly mention Cross's book, you seem to be expressing your opinion on the topic rather than suggesting improvements to the article. Do you have any specific changes to suggest? A. Parrot (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear A. Parrot, Every time I offer changes to the article, my favorites being the Egyptians troops pursue the Moses escapees in BOATS! (See: Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the history and the religion of Israel by Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University Press, 1973) and Moses' band wandering aimlessly across the Sinai desert guided by Yahweh's divine signs both day and night for 40 years to the promised land of Canaan, a land inhabited by terrible cannibal giants (Numbers 13:1-31) where Moses'  spies are the size of INSECTS!!, it is removed as UNNECESSARY data. I suggest the addition of this eldritch data is an IMPROVEMENT. I also suggest my UNNECESSARY data is UNDESIRABLE to THEM. Miistermagico (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you can find reliable sources mentioning specific details of the story as unbelievable, then it's possible to mention them. Otherwise, you are merely offering your own opinion on the matter. The giants are already mentioned in the body of the article.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Ermenrich, You are correct I should have cited (Numbers 13:32-33) 32 And they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land which they had spied out, saying, “The land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours its inhabitants, and all the people whom we saw in it are men of great stature. 33 There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” I was a bit hasty. Sorry about my error. This indicates I am NOT offering my own opinion on this matter. There is data to support my stuff. Miistermagico (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bible is not a reliable source for making statements about the believability about the Bible. If scholars mention these things as unbelievable, you can add them, you can't simply state that there are in the Bible and are unbelievable. Plenty of people do believe them, after all.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You appear to have misunderstood the passage in question anyway: the Israelites are not literally the size of insects, they are being compared to insects when one sees how large the giants are. That's a metaphor and definitely does not belong in the summary.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * However, the variant of the story in which the Hebrews cross by boat would be worth including, as long as the article specifies where that variant comes from—is it implied in an obscure biblical passage or in some extrabiblical text, and if the latter, when is that text from? Cross's exact words would be worth quoting on the talk page. A. Parrot (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear A. Parrott, I no longer possess a copy of Cross's book. I'll leave the identification of the variant up to you. Besides since Numbers 13: 33 "There we saw the giants (the descendants of Anak came from the giants); and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight.” keeps getting omitted from this article I see digging out Cross' primary source as a waste of my time. But let me conclude with this in my Religious Studies class on the Old Testament our text book was Understanding the Old Testament by Bernhard W. Anderson. The Exodus and Moses were barley touched on. If I remember correctly, the only thing that was brought up in the text was there are 2 different versions of the so-called plagues, seven and ten in the Old Testament. The so-called historical criticism began with the Jewish captives returning from their captivity in Babylonian exile in 539 BCE. I am a bigger fan of the Old Testament than the New Testament. Its popularity, influence, and proselytizing in Western society astonishes me. So it goes...Miistermagico (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Pecking order
I suggest that you read WP:FIXBIAS, WP:NOTNEUTRAL, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. That's quite some reading, take some time to read all that. You see, there is no pecking order of Wikipedia editors, but there is a pecking order of WP:RULES and of course we closely follow the pecking order that already exists in the academia. I want you to know that the stuff about idiots is not predicated about you, I mention in there because it makes a general point; it is not meant as an offense. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I shall read through them. Thank you. Jgriffy98 (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And for a shorthand introduction to the scientific revolution that happened in respect to biblical archaeology, see https://web.archive.org/web/20011110114548/http://lib1.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/jerques.htm Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll check that out too. Thanks. By the way, I just wanted to make it clear that I'm perfectly willing to admit that I could be wrong about all the accusations I have made. I was just taken aback by what I perceived as an extremely biased article. I'm a rookie at being an editor, and I have a lot to learn. I also can have a fiery temper. My apologies for that. Jgriffy98 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies accepted. You should keep in mind that:


 * the rules which apply to debate championships (Debatepedia) don't apply to Wikipedia;
 * the rules which apply to Academic Publishing Wiki don't apply to Wikipedia;
 * the rules which apply to MBTI don't apply to Wikipedia;
 * the rules which apply to Hindawi don't apply to Wikipedia;
 * the rules which apply to the academia don't apply to Wikipedia.
 * If I were stubborn and unwilling to learn from others, I would not have lasted that long as an editor. I don't dictate, the community dictates. I am not the community. Anyway, if you try to undo WP:RS/AC, this talk page is not the venue for it. You could try your luck at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources, but I am afraid it will be taken for WP:SNOW. WP:RS/AC is an essential tool in respect to WP:DUE, so it is highly unlikely that it will be overturned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Pyramids of Giza
New and unsourced content in the article compares the working condition of the supposedly enslaved Israelites with the workers who built the Giza pyramid complex. How is this relevant? The pyramid complex was constructed by the 4th Dynasty (27th to 25th century BCE), and the Exodus story is typically seen as depicting the 2nd millennium BC. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed that text, which was wildly out of place. One could perhaps make a general point about the nature of the Egyptian corvée system, which was probably responsible for the pyramids as well as any major monument built in the New Kingdom—but only if there's a reliable source that directly contrasts those working conditions with what Exodus describes. A. Parrot (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Moreover, the offered source doesn't mention Israelites or the Exodus, so WP:SYNTH applies. Zerotalk 08:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed...Modernist (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Four points:
 * The evidence showing that the pyramid builders were well fed, does not mean they were NOT slaves. One does not starve a valuable animal like a horse or camel or dog, so why would one starve a slave?
 * I am not aware of ANY source anywhere that "proves" that Israelite workers were present in Egypt in significant numbers, at any time in history. There may well have been handfuls of Israelite slaves here and there, as the Levant was conquered and ruled by Egypt at various stages, but not a workforce or an "army" of Israelite slaves as suggested by the Bible.
 * The "Hyksos" are "believed" to be from Canaan, but were probably not Israelites in the Biblical sense. Some of them may well have been slaves, but again, not remotely in the numbers as suggested by the Bible.
 * The pyramids of Giza were probably built in the 3rd millennium BC, perhaps earlier, but certainly not later. Did the "Israelite people" even exist as such in that time period, or did they only originate much later in history?
 * Wdford (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


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

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

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


 * I think the bible serves well enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Exodus is from the Torah. It is linked so people can read about the Torah if they want to.  It's not just that it is of "special relevance", the Exodus is from the Torah, not the Bible.  It would be misleading to say otherwise.
 * The Bible just contains the Torah.  It would be like if someone wrote a well known book - "Book X" which contained the Bible, and we removed all references to the Bible from Wikipedia and replaced them with "Book X". Fajkfnjsak (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Torah is used throughout the article too. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Torah is the Jewish name for (usually) the first five books of the Bible. No Christian or non-Christian would ever refer to the grouping of these books as "The Torah". Christians have "The Bible" of which "The Pentateuch" is the term that Christians commonly refer to the first five books of the Bible. Saying that either The Torah or The Pentateuch or The Bible is "THE" word is silly. Likewise using the term The Torah interchangeably with The Bible is not just silly, it reveals that the editor doesn't understand the difference in terms (since The Torah's five books are merely a subset of the 26-book Bible). That is why we are having this discussion in Talk.
 * I don't have an issue with using either term and if the group feels that "The Bible" is the term that should be used, that's great - when its the proper word to be used in the context of the sentence. Considering the page is about The Exodus of the Jewish people from Egypt (or from wherever "modern scholars" now think it happened), The Torah is probably the more operative word when we are referring to the actual book of Exodus, but there are other places where it refers to the Bible in general or another one of the books of the Bible, old testament, etc, so using The Torah as a replacement for The Bible would be incorrect and confusing for the reader.
 * IMO, we should be using the term "The Torah" when the article is referring to the events of The Exodus or the actions of the Jewish people or specifically the book of Exodus or the specific "Jewishness" of a passage or action and use the term "The Bible" in all other places (and specifically when referring to Christian or non-Christian views of the Exodus) with other words (such as The Pentateuch) sprinkled in here and there when germain.
 * My 2 cents. Ckruschke (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * The Torah (Pentateuch) is the part of the Tanakh (old testament, Hebrew Bible).
 * The Bible includes this with the New Testament
 * You're thinking of the Hebrew Bible (Judaism), which is not the Bible (Christianity)
 * The Exodus is from the Torah, which is part of the Hebrew Bible. I'm proposing we use Torah, because that is where the Exodus is actually from.
 * The Bible just has the Hebrew Bible in it. Like "Book X" has the Bible in it.  Using the Bible is like changing all pages with the Bible to Book X.
 * modern scholars do not think the exodus happened at all. the article is about the mythology of the Exodus. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal feeling is that the Torah is a specifically Jewish term and as the Exodus story is not specific to the Jews, being in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, we ought simply to use the term bible and be more specific as to it being the first five books as needed. The term "bible" is common to both religious traditions. We can use the name of a specific book of the bible if necessary as well, but the Exodus story is in all five.
 * I don't really know why you feel the need to mention mythology in this context.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * was addressing ckruschke - said article is about the exodus of the... and implied that modern scholars think it happened but somewhere else. So was clarifying.  read the comments in the thread
 * Jewish people say Torah way more than Bible, not even close. The Exodus is literally about the Jewish people. Book of Exodus is clearly the Torah's book.  Just because the Bible contains the Torah, does not mean we should ignore where the Book of Exodus is actually from.  Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The first five books of the bible are not exclusively Jewish books. They may have been once, but that time has long since passed. Most readers here will not be familiar with the term Torah, in fact, I'm willing to bet most readers here are not Jewish nor interested in the Exodus as a specifically Jewish story. It makes sense to use a broader terminology in this case: both Jews and Christians use the term bible, and we can be more specific as needed.
 * It's clearly a Jewish book about Jews from the Torah. The Bible contains the Torah.  That does not change where the book is from.  It doesn't matter if readers are interested in it "as a Jewish story", whatever that means.  We're not preaching to people based on their interests.  We're presenting the Exodus as it is, which is a Jewish myth from the Torah.  At the least I think the article should mention both the Torah and the Bible. I don't see any reason to exclude the word Torah, as you did in your edit.  That would be erasing its actual origin.  And as I said, Jews use the word Torah. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyway, so far it appears that consensus is generally behind my change.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We're rather reinventing the wheel here! Of the three available terms for (almost entirely) the same books: Old Testament, Hebrew Bible and Tanakh, we normally use "Hebrew Bible". We use Torah when talking about it as a whole, & should mention the Exodus is part of it, but as it is only sections of the Torah, I don't think we should use it as the main descriptor of where the story is found. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Torah is certainly the less familiar term to most people who will be reading this article" How do you know, is there an available reader's poll? Dimadick (talk) 19:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the percentage of the English-speaking population that is Jewish rather than Christian, some other religion, or non-affiliated, I'd say it's a safe bet.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "the first five books of the bible" The common term for these is Pentateuch. Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Pentateuch, but it seems that some people find it more Christian than Jewish. It's currently mentioned and linked in the article, along with Torah.
 * Do you have a specific edit you'd like to recommend?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Exodus is literally a myth about Jewish people. In what way do you find it "more Christian"? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section of the article about Passover, which clearly indicates that this is more relevant to Judaism than Christianity. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "We can use the name of a specific book of the bible if necessary as well, but the Exodus story is in all five." Technically not. The group also includes the Book of Genesis, which depicts the legendary ancestors of the Israelites migrating to Egypt. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ?? Isn't Genesis one of the first five books of the bible? I don't think we're disagreeing.EDIT I guess you're differentiating between the Israelites going to Egypt and the Exodus proper. Fair enough.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Book of Exodus is a book in the Torah. The Bible just contains the Torah. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

You changed a sentence from "Torah" to "the books". It is a sentenece about the Jewish people in Israel. The whole Exodus is about the Jewish people. At the most you should be adding in the "Bible", not using it, or "the books", as a replacement for "Torah". Fajkfnjsak (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're referring to. I find two or three places where "the books" is used in the article, but I don't think I'm responsible for it being there, nor do I find it particularly problematic.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The Torah (the Exodus story) served as an "identity card" defining who belonged to this community (i.e., to Israel), thus reinforcing Israel's unity through its new institutions.
 * became
 * The books containing the Exodus story served as an "identity card" ... Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

"Published" / "publication"
, could you please review why I've changed it from saying "published" to "was composed" before reverting it. Obviously ancient texts were not published in the modern sense in the ancient world, as Johnbod pointed out above. Yes, the source does use the term "publication" but it means it in a sense that will be unfamiliar to most readers, and this is why first Johnbod and then myself had wanted to change the wording.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I already read what both of you wrote. He called it a "howler" and you said "for obvious reasons" "we want to avoid saying that word".
 * Neither is a reason. Which is why I changed it to the source's wording.  Wikipedia should reflect the sources.  I think published clearly means written and disseminated. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be changed. it is not usual to use it for manuscript works, as this originally was. The source uses "composed" immediately above, so there should be no objection. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * publication definition = "the preparation and issuing of a book, journal, piece of music, or other work for public sale"
 * seems representative of what happened
 * publication vs written vs composed? which are you advocating for?
 * Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That definition is precisely what isn't meant by publication here. The torah wasn't released for sale in bookshops in the fifth century, it was composed and thus made available for copying by scribes.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


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

The author switches from written to transcribed to composed to publication, so I guess any work. So if you don't want publication, why composed vs written or transcribed? Also, he uses both Torah and Bible; at the least, both should be in the article. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Composed/composition because that's what happened. Somebody/bodies wrote the Pentateuch. It gives our readers the most accurate impression of what actually is being referred to.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant why composed instead of written or trasncribed? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Written is not as clear as to what it means and transcribed implies that it already exists and is merely being rewritten on a new piece of parchment/papyris/whatever.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why is written not as clear?
 * transcribe - put (thoughts, speech, or data) into written or printed form. - seems same as written
 * Not that it matters a lot, but just wondering between the 3 if it is just preference or there is a reason. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is how you ask someone about something without telling on them by referring to their actions in the 3rd person.
 * Written is my preference. Do you have an explanation for why composed is better?  Also, why did you make the edit before we reached consensus, and then said in your edit summary "per talk" as if we had consensus?  Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not mean "unanimous agreement." There is a clear consensus for the edit. Whether it says "written" or "composed" does not affect that consensus, nor is it very important. At any rate, the text currently uses a noun "the composition of" where saying "the writing of" would be awkward. Not that that is set in stone.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a clear consensus for a change from publication, not what edit to make. The text says written, transcribed, composed, and publication as I mentioned.
 * I would say "...was written in the Middle Persian Period..." Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede Edits Good To Go?
Anon editor, Fajkfnjsak, has made repeated edits that almost dramatically change the context of the lede. I haven't been as involved in this page as I used to be, but I know the lede went through a quite extensive overhaul and this one person has changed it on his own. Is everyone ok with that? It also seems odd that the contextual changes are similar to anon editor, Jgriffy98, who repeatedly had his changes reverted - is this a coincidence? Ckruschke (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * I personally do not like the changes but Fajknjsak has reverted me every time I've reverted anything he's done. As they aren't terrible, I let it go, but if other users prefer the old wording I certainly would as well.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the changes aren't "terrible", but allowing an IP to run the page isn't how things are supposed to work. It seems very odd to me that several IP editors over the last 6 months have made very similar changes to this page. Smacks of Sock Puppetry especially since Fajknjsak hasn't been heard of since I brought this up... Ckruschke (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Well, sockpuppetry issue aside, ideally it shouldn't matter if the IP is an IP or not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ideally" However, IP editors are often anon for a reason. Ckruschke (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * , would you care to discuss your edits here?--Ermenrich (talk)
 * It doesn't look that different to me, & still contains howlers like the book being "published" in the 5thC BC! The escape from oppression theme was of great importance to Early Christians, and other Christian groups (under Muslim rule) etc, and if African-Americans are mentioned these should be too. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with 's POV, but he edits too bluntly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW, he's doing the exact same thing on Plagues of Egypt and also reverting long established editors. Ckruschke (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * He's currently blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I'd just like him to use the talk page to discuss what he's doing. He hasn't responded to my ping and he completely removed my attempt at rewording to avoid saying the exodus "was published", taking out a long stable part of the text with reference in the process. I've tried a reworded version so hopefully he'll actually engage here when his block is up.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This edit here strikes me as far more problematic. He removed sourced material claiming it was unsourced.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * POV-pusher or straw-man sock? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Concerning the removed text, why are we quoting a news article from Haaretz in reference to Samaritan traditions? Don't we have better sources on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't personally at the moment. I replaced like with like, but obviously we should look for better sources. I've noticed that Israeli newspapers get cited a lot in biblical articles where an academic source would be preferred so it's a fairly widespread problem.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

In addition, we currently say "the Exodus myth" or refer to "the myth" too frequently. Fajkfnjsak keeps changing any other word ("story" "narrative") to myth. In some cases, I think even just "the Exodus" would be more appropriate.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are way too interested in me. Also no need to tell on me, just talk to me.
 * I agree it could be slimmed down, but cutting out all form the lead except for the first sentence of the 2nd paragraph is way too extreme. You would be completely removing very different information instead of consolidating them.
 * I also agree that it says "the myth" too much. There are certain instances (ie the 1st paragraph - "The myth's message is that...." could just say "It's message...") where it could just say the Exodus.  Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not "telling on you," I am bringing your edits up for discussion by the community. If I am "interested in you" it's because you've been making a series of very blunt edits to this article and others related to the Exodus topic. And I'm hardly the only one who has noticed this, as evidenced by this entire thread.--Ermenrich (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw you just added the words "the myth" into the lead today. Changed "it" to "the myth" Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I did, yes, because otherwise I didn't think the referent was clear. But that was mostly because it was previously described as "the Exodus myth" where we could have simply said "the Exodus".--Ermenrich (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No one made you write the word myth. Just 2 sentences prior to where you wrote "Exodus myth", I wrote "The Exodus" without the word myth. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look at the diff . It already contains "the Exodus myth". If you look at my edit here I originally changed myth to story, as it already was when I first made the change .--Ermenrich (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how to link your edit. But just look at history page and look at the changes in your edit.  You clearly changed "it" to "the myth".  Enough with trying to blame others for your edit.  I wrote "the Exodus" in the end of the 1st paragraph. You could have used that if you wanted to too. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't affect anything about what I said before - you have been changing instances of story or narrative to myth. Is there some reason you don't want to just discuss that fact?--Ermenrich (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You just did what you accuse me of. When you can see that I wrote "The Exodus" at the end of the 1st paragraph.  And you went out of your way to change "it" to "the myth" which was totally unnecessary.  Pot calling kettle black. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Just fixed your excessive "myth" addition. Changed "myth" back to it.  Also changed 2 other instances of "the Exodus myth" to "the Exodus", that some other editor added in the first place. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the changes, I'm doing a few more now. They generally restore the article's wording to that of c. June 6 of this year, when the term "the Exodus myth" only occurred once in the whole article (in the section on the Exodus as myth).--Ermenrich (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made some further changes to the lede based on Fajkfnjsak's openness to cutting down the number of sentences devoted to historicity and some of the comments that were made earlier. I'm open to further ideas for improvement.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I said I was open to consolidation. I specifically said I was against removing all these separate, sourced, pieces of info from the lead. You keep making edits without consensus. I made some good faith edits to address your concerns. Why don't you try some good faith edits, consolidate the sentences, don't remove them all in their entirety from the lead. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Maybe we could consolidate the last sentences of the 1st and 2nd paragraph? Thoughts? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you'll review the edit, I think you'll see that's exactly what I did. I only cut one sourced piece of information and consolidated two sentences into one.
 * Compare the current wording:

to my version

The information on Canaan is now found in the first sentence of the second paragraph and I moved the sentence on slavery in Egypt to the second paragraph. The only thing removed is that historians don't include it in their histories, which I find to be redundant given that we've said historians don't hold it to have happened. Does anyone else have an opinion? ,, , ?--Ermenrich (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC) - can you archive most of this page except for maybe the last edit you made? Its getting hard to follow. I put your edit back in while including the part you removed about scholars agreement on the lack of historical basis. Thoughts? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a mistake in his comment format, I have fixed it. It is clear now.
 * you can quote like this or  etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Some editor added "tutelary deity" Yahweh. Should we eliminate those 2 words? Seems true but kind of random. also can you archive this page, its too much to follow. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hardly random. A tutelary deity is "a guardian, patron, or protector of a particular place, geographic feature, person, lineage, nation". That is Yahweh's role in this myth, the protector of the Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I said it seemed true, just random because I thought describing Yahweh in this article's lead seems out of place. But I don't really care either way, so I'll just leave it in. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"Does anyone else have an opinion?" That something is a myth, has nothing to do with its historicity. "many societies group their myths, legends and history together, considering myths and legends to be true accounts of their remote past." ... "One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of historical events. According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborate upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gain the status of gods. For example, the myth of the wind-god Aeolus may have evolved from a historical account of a king who taught his people to use sails and interpret the winds. Herodotus (fifth-century BCE) and Prodicus made claims of this kind. This theory is named euhemerism after mythologist Euhemerus (c. 320 BCE), who suggested that Greek gods developed from legends about human beings. " Dimadick (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Do you have an opinion specifically on the manner this is presented in the lede now though?--Ermenrich (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * saying its "has nothing to do with its historicity" is black and white and as incorrect as saying "all myths are 100% false and every one is based on nothing". Clearly all myths are not created equal.  Being a myth means they are to some significant degree, false, or at the least, supernatural (ie unfalsifiable/unverifiable).  I'm sure some myths are distorted (ie false) accounts of historical events, while others are entirely made up.
 * One cannot borrow the historicity of the actual event and lend it to the false event (myth).
 * For example, if I make up a myth, "Australia enslaved millions of Finnish people." Then I said it was based on Americans enslaving Africans (real historical event).  The historical event (the Americans enslaving Africans) does not make the myth (Finnish enslavement in Australia) true to any degree.
 * And the fact that some people consider myths and legends to be true has no academic relevance. some people believe in ghosts too, which like supernatural myths, are unfalsifiable/unverifiable
 * Some people believe in the Exodus, creation, etc myths but they're still considered myths (false) by academia
 * Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Content removal
I literally gave you the exact quote and you deleted it anyways. please stop doing that. thanks
 * Because it doesn't say what you says it says. Please have a look at the discussion above marked "Lede citations and mis-citations".--Ermenrich (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I literally gave you the quote but here it is again: "Most important is the fact that no clear extrabiblical evidence exists for any aspect of the Egyptian sojourn, exodus, or wilderness wanderings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaf7J1mdM (talk • contribs) 21:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC) I put this in the edit summary but the other guy removed it. I put it in the summary because you said it wasn't in the source. So now that you see it is literally in the source, can you please re add my 2 sentences? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaf7J1mdM (talk • contribs) 21:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not the same thing as "there is no evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt" which is a far more complicated matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the edit according to the literal source. What do you want from me now?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niaf7J1mdM (talk • contribs) 21:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The information you've added is useless and WP:UNDUE without a larger context of what historians actually think happened. The section is already abundantly clear that the Exodus did not happen in the Bible and already mentioned a primarily Canaanite origin for the Israelites.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

historians said in the sources that their is not any evidence for it. that is what I wrote. I would be happy if you expanded on what the historians think if you want to. It is not primarily Cananite. The Israelities came from Canaan. That was another sourced sentence that you delted.

i have gotten its "unnecessary" and its "bad writing" if we write: and does not accurately describe historical events it clearly implies that this is a historical event, which it is not if we write and can not be taken as history in any positivistic sense this is literally acurate and what the source says if we write and can not be taken as history that works too positivistism: a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. this means that the exodus is not verifiable at all
 * And yet you fail to mention all the ways that Redmont says that the Exodus does reflect history.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The source is Collins and you changed what Collins said. Are you Collins? And The sentence says "consensus", not name a fringe opinion it is clearly academically fringe to say that the exodus is history

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

p 87

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

I might add that, just looking through some of the secondary literature, our section on the historicity of the Exodus is laughably small and could greatly be expanded.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just reviewed the other sources cited on the origins of Israel and the Exodus. From Meyers (cited in lede): (p. 10). On the other hand Moore and Kelle do seem to reject the story and claim that the majority of histories of Israel do not include it (I only have a limited preview unfortunately). But even they note  Faust, who I think was used to say that Israel developed from Canaan, in fact says:  (p.476). Redmont, who I already note supports some sort of historical background, is cited in the article in a way to support the unreality of the Exodus. The statement "The Israelites originated from Canaan" appears to be a mis-citing of two sources saying that archaeology indicates continuity and thus a Canaanite origin.
 * In short, the article is not accurately reflecting what the sources actually say about the historicity of the Exodus. The article is in need of a rewrite on this matter.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've decided to post notice of this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East to get a broader range of opinions from people who hopefully a broader knowledge of this topic than I do.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't have all that many sources on biblical history, but I do have some of the most recent surveys of the scholarly field, including Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? by Lester Grabbe (2017 edition) and Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective by Thomas Levy et al. (2015), the latter of which includes Faust's paper and a couple of others cited in the article. Checking the citations for the historicity section via Google Books, they all jibe with the impression of the scholarly consensus that I get from Grabbe and Levy et al. The current text of this article isn't a gross distortion of that consensus, just an incomplete representation of it. The Israelites did originate natively in Canaan, probably out of a mixture of various West Semitic peoples. An Exodus like that described in the biblical text is utterly implausible and only defended by archconservatives, but many scholars have argued that one of the groups that made up the Israelites—perhaps the group that became the Levites?—could have migrated out of the Nile Delta, where we know Semitic communities lived during the New Kingdom. A cultural memory of their migration could have evolved into the Exodus story that we know. This seems to be the most widely accepted hypothesis, and it's certainly the one espoused by Faust and William Dever, but it's not the only one with significant support. Donald B. Redford thinks the Exodus tradition comes from the dim recollection of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt into Canaan at the start of the New Kingdom, and Nadav Na'aman argues that the Exodus is a distorted memory of Egypt's rule over Canaan during the New Kingdom and the collapse of that rule as Egypt weakened. A. Parrot (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I certainly don't think that RS are saying that the Exodus happened as in the Bible, the sources are very clear on that. My concern is mostly that possibly for some sort of ideological reasons people have been overstating the case and not adding anything about scholarly theories on what caused the story to exist in the first place. See this rather strange conversation about the Exodus being racist against Egyptians started by a banned editor who kept emphasizing how mythical the Exodus was . I think the article needs to discuss those theories you mentioned above: at the moment, the impression given is just that the Bible is wrong, which is true, but is not the only thing RS are saying about this. We currently only mention the Egyptian oppression of Canaan theory, and that in a sentence.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of that, but I don't think ideological editing is the sole reason why the section is so short and one-sided. Articles and sections on controversial subjects, which this one is, tend to go through cycles of bloating, as people add arguments and counterarguments, and shrinking as other editors cut out the excessive detail. But I agree that the section needs expansion; this is Wikipedia's primary article on the Exodus as an event, and the question of where the story comes from is endlessly debated. That debate should be covered here. I might be able to help with that over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made a first go at it, but it obviously needs more work since I have only added what I found while researching the way that the sources already cited talked about the Exodus. think we should go a lot more in depth, personally: talking about problems like nameless Pharaoh, inability to identify Goshen, while also listing the reasons behind the theories in favor of some sort of historical kernel behind it all.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


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


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

Do scholars agree or disagree as to when the story took its present form?
I recently deleted the sentence "Scholars disagree as to when the Exodus story took its present form" from the end of the Historicity section. User:Woscafrench undid the deletion with a note in edit summary that if I doubted the notability of the source I should discuss on Talk. The source was Collins' "The Bible After Babel", but while I certainly don't doubt that this book is reliable (it's a standard text), the citation as given had no page number and was impossible to verify. As it contradicts the first sentence of the section on Composition, "Scholars broadly agree that the publication of the first five books of the Bible took place in the mid-Persian period...", sourced to Romer's 2008 monograph "Moses Outside the Torah", I'm wondering what Collins actually says. If Woscafrench has the page number we can see what's going on.
 * My apologies, I just found it on page 46 of Collins' book (although it really needs a page reference in the source cite). Collins first writes of the scholarly consensus that the exodus story is a myth (he's talking in terms of genre and sitz em leben, the latter being the social situation in which a text arises), and then says "there is considerable disagreement as to when these myths became current and when they attained their present form". This does seem like something of a contradiction to what Romer says. So what are we to do?
 * I think Collins is referring to the existence of the Exodus story prior to to the creation of the Pentateuch. Oral myths aren't fixed entities, so any pre-Pentateuch version would have variants, but by "present form" he probably just means the basic elements: going into Egypt, slavery, Moses, and Exodus. Plagues seems like something that could be different in different versions (maybe that's why there are so many even, because different versions were combined - just my own OR though).
 * The whole article needs a lot of work I'd say. Just see the section I started above that no one's replied to yet. There clearly are scholars who support a vaguely historical notion behind the myth, which we barely get into.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just an amateur, but ISTM that one should make a distinction between "myth" and "falsehood". I would say that the Exodus and Conquest is a myth, a founding myth, whch tells us that it is very important, not just a story. Everybody agrees to that. The consensus of scholarship is that the is little, if anything, historical-archaelogical that can be discerned in the myth. For example, whether or not there was a real human being, of the 13th century BCE or so, behind the protagonist, Moses, nobody knows. Unlike the mythical figure George Washington, where we know a lot about the real GW, but that does not take away from his mythical status. IMHO.   TomS TDotO (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute the label myth, but I think we're giving the considerations made by scholars like Redmont about what sort of history lies behind the myth short shrift in the current article. She considers various possible historical analogues (the Hyskos, for instance), notes problems (no one can say where "the land of Goshen" is), etc. But she assumes that something about the story has a historical basis, and even claims that a majority of scholars do. Without actually looking at some more Exodus scholarship myself, I can't say whether that's true of course, but I think an expansion of the section is probably needed.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is a distinction between when the general story took its present form and when the story was first written down, and so I do not see the contradiction in the sources. The historicity section briefly deals with some of the potential historical basis, such as oppression in Canaan, but this section definitely needs work, as Ermenrich has pointed out. I wonder whether the mention in the lead is WP:UNDUE, especially if it is not summarizing information already in the main body of the article as per WP:LEAD. I think that if the lead has confusing information, then that confusion should be addressed/resolved in the main body of the article, or else the material is not an appropriate summary for the lead. Of course, we also have the issue of inaccurate information that is not supported by the cited material (as discussed in the above section). Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


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


 * "In 1885 Édouard Naville identified Goshen as the 20th nome of Egypt, located in the eastern Delta, and known as "Gesem" or "Kesem" during the Twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt (672–525 BC). It covered the western end of the Wadi Tumilat, the eastern end being the district of Succoth, which had Pithom as its main town, extended north as far as the ruins of Piramesse (the "land of Rameses"), and included both crop land and grazing land. " Dimadick (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, according to Redmount p. 65 it has "never been satisfactorally been localized", but I'm just going off her.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)