Talk:The Exodus/Archive 3

Interwiki links
I am going to try and fix the interwiki links here. Currently some articles are about the Book of Exodus. Only articles that discuss the exodus itself should be linked here. I'll also correct it in other languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'Mainly stylistic'
I understand that the 'Dating the Exodus' section needed some revision, especially since it was very chatty and short on references, but PiCo your last edit was not 'Mainly stylistic', and removed quite a bit of material instead of rewording it. Previously the section was rightly flagged repeatedly for supporting references for its statemetns. Now the 'Biblical chronology' section doesn't have any references at all, and it doesn't have any citation tags either, which it certainly should. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was so bad that I felt we were better off without it. But if you want to take the tabula as being razed and start again, I have no objections. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Later thoughts: As I've left it, that section has two paragraphs, one on the dating of Exodus given in Kings, the second on implications for the history of Egypt. The second para would be better off in some other section, if anywhere - and might be better off simply deleted. On the other hand, the material that I deleted from the original concerning the NT on the date of Exodus is relevant and can go back in. PiCo (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Identity of the anonymous Pharaoh
Regardless of Eusebius' expertise or lack thereof, there was no good reason to remove this entire section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, the entire article should be deleted. It is mostly religious (Jewish) POV. BTW, cf. Tutimaios. Cush (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What nonsense. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True. The entire Torah is nonsense. Cush (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a Talk page, not a forum for you to air your personal prejudices. If you are unable to adhere to Wikipedia policies, then don't post here.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy is to not post POV and use primary sources uncritically. But that's what all the articles about biblical stories do. Judaism is POV (in fact it's plain bias), including all its scriptural basis. So stop whining. The Tanakh/Bible is not a history book, it is a religiously motivated effort to create an alternative history that creates significance for the adherents of Yhvh among the attested cultures of ancient times. There is no trace of the biblical Israelites in the historical or archeological record. No traces of an Exodus from Egypt (in any currently held chronology), no trace of a Conquest, no trace of the events of the Judges era, and not even real evidence for the Monarchy eras prior to, say, 850 BCE. It's all just circumstantial hints that are abused to confirm biblical claims. So cut the crap about my personal prejudices. Cush (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What did I just tell you? This is a Talk page, not a forum for you to air your personal prejudices.  If you are unable to adhere to Wikipedia policies, then don't post here.  If you have any evidence that this article is not conforming to Wikipedia policies concerning POV and primary sources, please post it here.  If on the other hand you simply want to keep ranting, I'll follow due process accordingly.  The very fact that you think 'all the articles about biblical stories' simply 'use primary sources uncritically' shows you're completely ignorant of the relevant scholarly literature.  Are you seriously going to make that claim concerning the literature written by Dever, Silberman, Friedman, and Na'aman which is cited in the article?  --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can get back to the identity of the anon pharoah: the Biblical text gives no clues whatsoever for identifying him, so how can it be done? Only by getting a date for the exodus. In other words, the pharoah will be identified via the exodus, and not vice versa. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The date of the Exodus depends on the chronology one applies to Egyptian history and its subsequent synchronization with the biblical account. The fact that Manetho mentions the pharaoh who raised Moses as Khenophres and the pharaoh in whose reign the exodus took place as Tutimaios should make one think. Especially since the names he gives are not the standard names that are used in stories about Egypt (such as "Sesoosis/Sesostris") but reflect rare actual pharonic names, namely Khaneferre and Dudimose. These both are kings of the 13th Dynasty, which incidently is also the only time frame in which a large number of Aamu in Egypt is attested. Excavations at Avaris have shown that this center of Aamu settlement in Egypt was suddenly abandoned by highly egyptianized Aamu (which would be the Israelites) at the end of the 13th Dynasty only to be resettled by not egyptianized Aamu a few decades later (which would be the first wave of Semitic Hyksos). Placing the Exodus in the 18th or 19th Dynasties does not go well with the absence of Aamu in that time, and identifying it with the departure of the Hyksos does not go well with the fact that the later Hyksos were not Semites but Indo-Europeans. Cush (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is not a page for a discussion of the subject, but how to improve the article. Cush, right or wrong, you need reliable sources, not your own arguments. Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's funny, given that the only source for this article is the Bible, which is definitely not a reliable source. Cush (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, you're absolutely right. Thanks for saying that.  Cush, take note.  --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gematria, Chronology, etc.
PiCo restored some edits today that I was happy to see were reverted by Steven Anderson. Rather than have this go back and forth in edits, I'd like to raise these issues here.

The first issue is a claim, sourced to Ted Hildebrandt, that the 603,550 males between the ages of 20 and 60 who left Egypt and were counted in the first census derives from the phrase benei Yisrael, kol rosh (misquoted by Hildebrandt as bene Yisrael kol ros, which has a gematria (letter value) of 603,550. But despite there being a source for this claim, it's like finding an otherwise reliable source that says 2 + 2 = 5.  Because the gematria of that phrase is actually 1234 (I'd originally edited it to say 1114).

(For those interested, the words convert to number as follows: 2 + 50 + 10 (benei), 10 + 300 + 200 + 1 + 30 (Yisrael), 100 + 30 (kol), 200 + 1 + 300 (rosh). That's 62 + 541 + 130 + 501, or 1234.)

PiCo reverted that because he said it's original research (i.e., I did the math myself rather than find a book that does the math for that phrase). I guess he has a point, technically speaking. But what do we do? I suppose we could get rid of the statement altogether, because a claim by Hildebrandt that's patently and obviously false, like this one, might be seen as rendering him a non-reliable source. Sort of like one who says that 2 + 2 is 5. I thought it would be less radical to merely add the caveat that Hildebrandt is factually wrong. That may have been the wrong choice. I'd love to hear what others think.

The other issue is the curious claim that the regnal lengths of the kings of Judah add up to 430. In fact, Jewish tradition holds that the First Temple stood for 410 years, and not 430. Granting that there are other traditions, outside of Judaism, there doesn't seem to be any sense to a claim that the period was artificially set to 430 years for schematic purposes when the most relevant tradition regarding that period doesn't say anything of the sort. The 430 itself seems like some sort of original research, though I don't know who by, because no source whatsoever was given for the claim. Rather than just delete the paragraph (which I probably should have done, since it's sourceless), I limited myself to correcting it. Again, I'd like to hear feedback. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Since PiCo saw fit to revert again, I've removed the statement about gematria altogether. A source that can't do math isn't a reliable source. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Lisa. My apologies, I wasn't looking at the Talk page. Thanks for the Seder Olam and Thiels. I've still got no idea where Barr got his date from, but he's a respected scholar and must surely be basing it on something - but nevertheless I've dropped it as I can't explain how he arrived at it. I've also dropped the sub-sub heading "Criticism" - these aren't criticisms. they're attempts to understand and explain. As for Bietzel's gematria, you say he's an unreliable source, but looking at his CV, where his article is published, and the sheer scholarship, he seems to me to be as reliable as we need to have. Incidentally, in his footnote Bietzel suggests that he gets his reading of the phrase from the Encyclopedia Judaica - you might like to check that out, unfortuinately I don't have access to it and can't do it myself. I think this section is really starting to look good now, let's keep working on it. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi PiCo. You should keep the main part of a section for simple statements of what the article is about, and additional sections for rebuttals/criticisms, if you think there are some.  I've moved your material criticizing the Exodus into a more approrpiate section.


 * As far as Bietzel's reliability, it's a funny thing. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, had a Ph.D. in psychology and would certainly be considered a reliable source in that field.  Would you be willing to have him cited here as a mainstream source for archaeology and chronology?  Bietzel's expertise clearly does not extend to gematria, so for the purposes of the rather silly claim that benei yisrael kol rosh has a gematria of 603,550, he is not a reliable source.  This should not be construed to be prejudicial to other citations by Bietzel where appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I'll undo the indent because it makes iot easier to write multiple paragraphs. I've taken a day to think about your comments and give a thoughtful answer. I'll do it in dot form, taking them one by one. I'm still investigating the material from Barr and will let you know what else I discover. PiCo (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "keep the main part of a section for simple statements of what the article is about, and additional sections for rebuttals/criticisms, if you think there are some." Basically I agree, but I disagree that the material about the problems with the chronology of Kings constitutes criticism. I'd say instead that it's simply attempts to deal with those problems. Can you explain to me in what sense you believe it's criticism? - perhaps we're not using the word with the same understanding of its meaning.
 * Structure of the section (this is not a point you made but it leads on from the first point): I think we've got the first sentence right - "According to the 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple in the 4th year of his reign." This is the basis of the Biblical chronology for the date of the Exodus. But the first thing the reader is going to do after that is ask, Ok, so what date in history was the 4th year of Solomon? The answer isn't to talk about Seder Olam Rabbah, which is a secondary source, but about the interlocking reigns in Kings down to the destruction of the Temple at a fixed/known date, which is a primary source. That's why I think the second sentence in this paragraph should be about the reigns in Kings, with a third sentence about the problems that exist with accepting this at face value. Seder Olam Rabbah should be the next paragraph.
 * Bietzel's reliability: I know that you're something of an expert on Biblical chronology. Bietzel, it seems to me, is also an expert on Biblical studies - he has respectable degrees, holds a tenured professorship, is published in peer-reviewed journals, and has authored/edited important books. In short, he's a qualified Biblical scholar, unlike Velikovsky. So I'm perturbed that you disagree with him over this gematria. He refers to the Encyclopedia Judaica 7/369-70, which I take to mean volume 7, pages 369-70. I can't be sure that this is what he's actually saying, as I don't have access to the EJ. If you do, could you please look this up and tell us what is said there?

Biblical chronology is essentially arbitrary. For example, the 480 year number correlated to Solomon is not corroborated by any hard evidence, whatsoever (for all intents & purposes it could actually be 1000 years). Ralph Ellis' theory in Tempest & Exodus and other works argues that Exodus is the condensation and displacement of two events approximately 250 years apart, i.e. the Hyksos Expulsion and the Amarna Exile of the pharaoh Ahkenaten (who functions in "disguise" as both the biblical Aaron & the "living" god of Moses in the Old Testament).

What hasn't been stated is the connection between the Hyksos pharaoh, Yacoboaam and the biblical Jacob with the Hyksos Expulsion and the return of the Hyksos to Egypt less than a generation later when Jacob's son, Joseph (Yuya), becomes the vizier through a reconciliation in the aftermath of Ahmose's death between the ruling regent, i.e. Queen Mother Nefertari (the nameless pharaoh), acting on behalf of the child pharaoh Amenhotep I.

The return of the Hyksos sets up a caste system between the royal, incestuous, bloodline of the Theban pharaohs and the bloodline of the Hyksos viziers (with their prohibition on incest to prevent the creation of a competing royal bloodline) that does not fully merge until the advent of Ahkenaten's reign, which is then rejected by the Theban clergy & segments of the military that results in the "expulsion" of the radical pharaoh and his older brother, Tuthmoses, the High Priest of Heliopolis, i.e. the biblical Moses. The identification of this particular Moses is supported in large part by Sigmund Freud in Moses & Monotheism. Pvsalsedo (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Table in archaeology section
I've added a table to this section because I thought it would be useful to lay out side by side what was happening in Egypt and Israel over the period when the Exodus could have occurred. Grateful ant feedback. PiCo (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dead Reckoning"
PiCo, you've tried over and over to insert this 430 year nonsense for the duration of the First Temple. Now you're justifying it in the text of a Wikipedia article by calling it a "dead reckoning" of the Hebrew text. Have you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? I really think you should. And if you have, please consider rereading them as a refresher.

Second of all, a "dead reckoning", while irrelevant, doesn't even give 430. It gives 369. Plus 36 years for Solomon (counting from his 4th year when he started building the Temple) gives you 405. The 430 number comes from an ambiguous number in Ezekiel. You don't know for sure what that number refers to; claiming that it's the duration of the First Temple is pure conjecture.

Third of all, a "dead reckoning" is silly, because the book of Kings relates interlocking regnal data of both Judah and Israel, and everyone who has ever studied the subject seriously (Tadmor, Thiele, etc.) recognizes that you can't just add up their stated regnal lengths.

PiCo, I get that you see it all as fiction, so adding the numbers is as good as anything else in your view. But that's your view. Maybe you should read WP:NPOV as well, because your view is far from neutral.

I've removed all of the material on criticism of the chronology of the kings. Even if it wasn't highly POV (you claim that simply adding the reign lengths of the kings of Judah and Israel "should" add up to a matching number, which is silly), the place for it is History of Israel and Judah, and not this article. I've also changed the first (and now only) paragraph of the section to be NPOV by including Thiele, Tadmor, Barr and Seder Olam. That's called being balanced. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked closely at the edits in question, but if what's going on here is an editor taking the bible, reading various parts of it, adding up the lengths of the lives or reigns of various kings and concluding that the first temple lasted a certain time based on that, that's as clear a case of original research as there could be. We don't do that on Wikipedia. We allow scholars to do that, then we report on their work if and when it becomes notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think PiCo is saying that Barr adds the years up like that. And since he's citing Barr, it's a little more complicated than that.  The problem is, most of the work that's been done on the topic says otherwise.  And while it may be okay to cite Barr, it certainly isn't okay to cite his conclusions as fact when they aren't even the dominant view in the field. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For Steven J. Anderson: As LisaLiel says, it's not me who's saying this, it's James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. I've been very careful to provide reliable sources for everything. Lisa, when I check on Barr, the reigns of the kings of Judah do indeed add up to 430, as follows:
 * solomon     36 (from foundation of the Temple to death:40-4)
 * rehaboam    17
 * abijah	      3
 * asa	     41
 * jehosaphat  25
 * jehoram      8
 * ahaziah      1
 * athalia      6
 * joash	     40
 * amaziah     29
 * uzziah	     52
 * jotham	     16
 * ahaz	     16
 * hezekiah    29
 * mannaseh    55
 * amon	      2
 * josiah	     31
 * jehoahaz     0
 * jehoiakim   11
 * jehoiachin   0
 * zedekiah    11
 * TOTAL:     429 (The extra year is Jehoahaz+Jehoiachin, 3 months each, rounded up)

So it's not accurate to say that the 430 years is a POV, not even Barr's: it's a verifiable fact. Please note also that Barr and Thiele are doing different things. Barr is talking about sacred time, the mystical meaning contained in the raw numbers; Thiele is trying to interpret those numbers to arrive at a secular chronology. Thiele has a pov (an important one, that needs to be mentioned, but which is open to question and refinement), but Barr is simply pointing out what's there. There is no material critical of the chronology of Kings in what I've written - again, it's a simple, verifiable fact that the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah don't add up to the same number. If they did, there'd have been no reason for Thiele and others to do their work. Anyway, I don't find your reasons for deleting the material persuasive, and I believe that readers deserve and would appreciate the fuller explanation of what's in the chronology and why it's proved so difficult to arrive at a date for the Exodus from this source alone. By the way, may I thank you for the courteous way you've conducted this discussion. But if you think I believe the Bible is fiction, you're doing me a grave disservice. PiCo (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * PiCo, you don't get to decide that "sacred time", rather than actual chronology, is what's relevant to the chronology of the Exodus. You can claim that Thiele has a POV, but it's a major POV that's dominant in the field.  Tadmor is a major view as well.  Barr is playing numerology games.  You can mention him if you like, but you can't declare his "sacred time" thing to be the NPOV fact.  The text you reverted was NPOV.  It contained Barr and Thiele and Tadmor and Seder Olam.  If you revert it again, the next step in dispute resolution would be a RfC.  You can initiate it if you want, or I will.  It doesn't matter, but you can't keep pushing one agenda to the exclusion of all other views here. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also changed the name of the section from "The Biblical chronology" to "The Biblical date of the Exodus", since a section on biblical chronology in general belongs elsewhere. PiCo, if you want to go to History of ancient Israel and Judah and create sections about the chronology, possibly with a subsection about the "sacred time" theory, that's fine.  But this article is about the Exodus.  Giving the biblical date for the Exodus according to a number of views is fine.  Insisting that the numbers are meaningless themselves and that they only reflect "sacred time" is not.  That's one view among many, and is not the dominant view in the field.  You can't keep trying to give it undue weight like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa: Here's your prefered version of the section on the Biblical chronology, and I just want to note for you why I believe it isn't quite what we need:

According to 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple, which was in the 4th year of his reign.1 Kings 6 Kings also lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple, which has been reckoned by various sources as anywhere from 380 years (TadmorTadmor, H., "The Chronology of the First Temple Period: A Presentation and Evaluation of the Sources", in A. Malamat – I. Eph‘al (eds.), The World History of the Jewish People. First Series: Ancient Time. Vol. Four – I: The Age of the Monarchies: Political History (Jerusalem: Jewish History Publications, Massada Press, 1979) 44-60, with notes on 318-320. and ThieleEdwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings'', New Revised Edition, Zondervan 1983, p. 217) to 410 years (Seder Olam Rabbah, the traditional Jewish chronology) to 430 years (Barr[http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:kR9A9VmjJV4J:www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/chronology_barr.pdf+james+barr+biblical+chronology&hl=km&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=kh&client=firefox-a James Barr, "Biblical Chronology: Legend Or Science? The Ethel M. Wood Lecture 1987" (University of London, 1987)]). The destruction of the Temple can be dated on non-Biblical evidence to 587/586 BCE, and a simple arithmetical calculation -- 586 + [duration of the Temple] + 480 -- places the fourth year of Solomon's reign somewhere between 1016 and 966 BCE, and the Exodus between 1496 and 1446 BCE.''

Basically it's not one I'd reject in toto, but it does have some problems. I'll go through it line by line. You say that I'm saying that we should take the 430 figure as the Bible's date for the Exodus. I'm not saying that at all. Nor is Barr. What I'm saying is that the 430 is there, in the text, but is obviously not a number in real history. It's presence lies at the root of the work of Thiele and Tadmore - they wanted to get past this "sacred history" number and down to the real-time chronology concealed beneath it. Barr would totally agree with them that if you want to find the genuine historical date, you can't use 430. It's the beginning of the problem of the dates of the kings, not the end. I'm sorry if you feel we need to take this to dispute resolution. So far as I'm concerned, we've been having a civilised and mutually respectful discussion. You seem to have been willing to listen to what I say and argue constructively with me, and I've certainly taken a great deal of what you've said on board, notably your references to Thiele and the Seder Olam. Might I therefore suggest, since there's no hostility between us, that we ask a mutually respected person to offer an opinion? Might I suggest that you (since it's you who feel we need to go outside this forum) approach Slrubenstein (Talk), an editor whom I certainly respect, for an opinion? PiCo (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple, which was in the 4th year of his reign. We can agree on this.
 * Kings also lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple, which has been reckoned by various sources as anywhere from 380 years (Tadmor to 410 years (Seder Olam Rabbah), the traditional Jewish chronology) to 430 years (Barr) Actually this combines two quite separate ideas:
 * first, that Kings lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple - we can agree on this also.
 * second, that this period of time has been reckoned by various sources at 380 years (Tadmor/Thiele), 410 years (Seder Olam), and 430 years (Barr). This is highly misleading. Barr isn't reckoning anything, and he isn't the origin for the idea that the sum of the years given in Kings is 430. In fact the idea doesn't have a source, it's a simple statement of fact: if you add up then reigns given in Kings, it's 430. I demonstrated this in the table I gave yesterday (see above), and you haven't disputed it.
 * Given this, it's only Tadmor/Thiele and Olam Seder who do any reckoning. Tadmor/Thiele recognise the problems with the Kings chronologies (problems which are both internal, between the king-lists for Judah and Israel, and external, between Kings and the Assyrian chronology) and try to resolve them into a plausible secular chronology. Seder Olam takes a different approach, and tries to reconcile them within a religious framework based on, inter alia, the 70-week prophecy in Daniel. But both are interpretations based on the 430 year chronology explicit in Kings.
 * The destruction of the Temple can be dated on non-Biblical evidence to 587/586 BCE Agreed - but note that Seder Olam doesn't accept this: it dates the destruction to 490 years prior to the fall of the Second Temple, i.e., 420 BCE (actually 423 - they didn't date the destruction of the Second Temple to 70).
 * a simple arithmetical calculation -- 586 + [duration of the Temple] + 480 -- places the fourth year of Solomon's reign somewhere between 1016 and 966 BCE, and the Exodus between 1496 and 1446 BCE. Yes for two of our estimates, but not for the Seder Olam, which, because it places the fall of the First Temple in 423, must place the Exodus in 1313 BCE - 423+410+480.


 * PiCo, it doesn't matter if adding the lengths of reign of the kings of Judah gives 430 years or not. The book of Kings does not contain only the reigns of the kings of Judah.  They are all given according to corresponding years of the kings of Israel, and cannot be taken out of context like that.


 * Or rather, the only way they can be taken out of context like that is by dismissing them as history and labeling them as mere "sacred numbers". And clearly, that view exists.  But it's not the dominant view in the field.  It's one view, and you cannot continue to paint it as the primary one when it is not.


 * I didn't argue with you about your addition because it's not relevant. Taking things out of context is shoddy scholarship.


 * Neither Tadmor or Thiele (or any of the other sources who have worked on the chronology of the kings of Israel and Judah) are basing themselves on any "430 years". As I said, you can't just add the Judahite reigns while ignoring the Israelite ones.


 * As far as your point about Seder Olam, I disagree. The question of the Persian period is a separate issue.  Seder Olam does indeed give 410 years for the duration of the First Temple period.  If you'd like me to cite sources which use this figure while not using the low dating of the destruction of the Temple, I'd be happy to oblige.


 * And in terms of dispute resolution, going to a third party is certainly the next step. I'm taking out the 430 year, out of context, agenda-pushing.  I hope you'll understand why now.  The article needs to be encyclopedic; not polemic.  I'll contact some third parties to get involved. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Stephen Anderson. PiCo responds with two points: (1)"So it's not accurate to say that the 430 years is a POV, not even Barr's: it's a verifiable fact."  This is irrelevnt.  Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.  It is not up to Wikipedia articles to say barr is reporting a fact or a view.  ALL we present are "views."  That PiCO thinks Barr's view is a fact or right is irrelevnt.  We report views, and Barr's is one of them.  PiCO gos on to say "Please note also that Barr and Thiele are doing different things. Barr is talking about sacred time, the mystical meaning contained in the raw numbers; Thiele is trying to interpret those numbers to arrive at a secular chronology."  If Barr and Theile use this language, we ought to report it as a way of further explaining their respective views - this would be appropriate and helpful.  But it is not that one is right and the other wrong, or one accurate and the other inaccurate - they have different interests and different views. Lisa, if you know of other sources that provide different dates for the length of the Temple it would be good to add them too (of course, as views, not "truths!") Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm quite happy to accept Slrubenstein's opinion - I better be, since I asked for it. I've made a further edit to Lisa's text of the section, to correct a few points and make what I believe are improvements. First, I've removed all reference to Barr and the 430 years - Lisa, you had the 430 years as Barr's opinion on the length of time involved, but it's not, he simply mentioned it in passing in the context of making quite a different argument. I've also removed the Seder Olam - the date I've seen used is always Thiele's, never the Seder Olam, and I think we'll only confuse readers by introducing it. My other edits are matters of style, aimed at producing a fluent text. PiCo (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thiele is only one view, even if he's one that I brought into this. You can't remove Seder Olam, because it's a notable view, and certainly not fringe, as it's the position of Orthodox Judaism.  And if the 430 year view exists at all, it should probably be mentioned.  I don't think it will confuse readers to have a range of views represented. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lisa, if you want to include the 430 years, it shouldn't be referenced to Barr - he's merely mentioning it in passing.PiCo (talk) 05:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks PiCo - as in many cases, I think our core policies tell us how to resolve this dispute. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The "archaeology" section
I've re-organised the material in this section so that like is with like - essentially moving the Hyksos material so that it was all together, and likewise the material dealing with the archaeological evidence pertaining to the bible-date for the Exodus (1446 BCE). But, as others have noted, there are still problems. The major problem is that absolutely nothing is referenced, meaning nothing is verifiable. A second problem is that it seems to go on and on at great length without actually arriving anywhere. I'm wondering whether a major re-write might be in order. I'd like to suggest a structure for the section as a first step - deal with the archaeology by geographic area, Palestine/Sinai/Egypt, rather than chronologically (which is the way it is at present). I'm not sure this would work, but it might be worth trying. Ideas? PiCo (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * No one has replied - anyway, I've started a rewrite along these lines, trying to make it succinct and to place it in an archaeological context - it's important to know of Albright's role in the "late" Exodus, for example, and what the current status of that idea is. PiCo (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

" The destruction of the Temple can be dated on non-Biblical evidence to 587/586 BCE, "
What is the source for this? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a multitude of sources confirming this date, although I would have to look stuff up. Basically everything after the sacking of Waset in 664 BC by the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal is pretty sound when it comes to confirmed historical dates (with an uncertainty of 2 years at most). Cush (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Without the benefit of looking it up, I believe the capture of Jerusalem is mentioned in Babylonian records, and that the modern equivalents of dates in Babylonian records are regarded as sound. Still, if you want references, I suppose we better find them. PiCo (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'New Chronologies'
I do not wish to re-open wounds regarding the dating of the exodus, but I do feel the article should make mention of the so-called new chronologies of David Rohl etc. Whilst such views are not mainstream, they are significant, verifiable and notable. I wouldn't advocate a whole section, but a sentence or two explaining that many of the objections raised to dating the exodus to certain pharoahs would be eliminated by Rohl(etc)'s chronology, by simply moving the exodus to some other pharoah.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just be bold and write a new section. NC rulez. Cush (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it simply because of the source, hopefully FimusTauri has Rohl's book, we can't use someone's summary as a refrence, we need to give readers an actual book reference with page numbers. I have no objection to it being included. dougweller (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I don't have the book (yet - its on the shopping list), which is why I started this talk section. I was hoping that someone might be able to give a better citation and that it would be better to actually include the information and wait for that cite than to leave it out altogether.--FimusTauri (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which book? I have them. Cush (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "A test of Time" is the most relevant. It's been a long time since I read it, so, unfortunately, I can't give you any more details.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, either put it back with a citation tag, or wait until Cush can find something in A Test of Time, which I know will have what's needed. dougweller (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Have restored it with tag. If Cush can supply the citation, that would be great, as I am not sure when I will get hold of a copy for myself.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In "A Test Of Time" (ISBN 0-09-941656-5) chapter thirteen, especially pages 341 to 348, deals with the exodus during the reign of king Dudimose (Tutimaos) of the 13th Dynasty. The book "From Eden To Exile" repeats and refines the issue. In "The Lords Of Avaris" the period following the Exodus is examined (Hyksos rule). Cush (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW there really should be a clear distinction between the Velikovsky stuff and the work of Rohl. Right now it seems to be lumped together under "Glasgow Chronology". Cush (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that, Cush. You are also right re Velikovsky Rohl. As I understand it the 'Glasgow Chronology' is pretty much 'old hat' now anyway, with most of its proponents now going seperate ways. I will look into it further, but, again, this may take me a little time.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done. An acquaintance runs the Yahoo group on Rohl's chronology, you could join that (if you don't belong already) and ask. dougweller (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

@PiCo: Referring to the Dynasties is just as important as giving "absolute" dates. Especially when the assignment of biblical events to certain Dynasties is so messed up as in the current orthodox chronology. I mean, right now the Exodus is placed somewhere in the period from the Hyksos to Ramesses 2, which is a span of over 400 years (OC). This is a clear indication that academia has no whatsoever clue about when the Exodus took place, if it did. Cush (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Cush I didn't see your note addressed to me. My concern is to fit the Rohl material into the current structure of this section - there are thrre subsections, one for the Biblical date (the date derived from the Bible), and one each for dates either earlier or later than that. Seems logical. Rohl must surely fit into one of these. If we can be so clever as to explain his ideas apt dynasties and relate this to dates BCE that the casual reader will be able to understand, all the better. PiCo (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I could produce a chart for the Rohl chronology. However, I don't know whether this article would be the right place for it. The New Chronology is a completely new approach to the matter. (oh, and I corrected a typo in your text :-) ) Cush (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice that the current version of the Rohl section has been trimmed down to the point where it almost has lost its relevance. Surely it should include the fact that using this chronology removes many of the problems associated with the other chronologies (eg Dudimose's death is unknown and Egypt fell into a period of chaos after him). I am reluctant to alter it myself without input from others, as this is one of the points that has been trimmed out.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry FT, didn't notice this post. It would have been me who did the trimming. I'm trying to trim everything down to basics - it's a encyclopedia, not an essay, it just needs to state facts and views, not make arguments. Well, it's Cush's point really, so I'll let him re-expend it and maybe make a cut again if I think it can improve things. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding references, wikifying and organizing as per Wkipedia style sheet
It seems Rktect is completele re-shaping this article as well as the Exodus article. Can any admin please get this mass editing under control? Cush (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On my talk page, there is discussion of a number of books listed as additional reading and a request that they either be deleted or inserted in the article as references.


 * Going over them I realised that they captured most of the perspectives germane to the article. I took them and referenced in something like 117 of them and then I broke them down by sections as to whether they addressed the original srory, or its commentaries on dates, history, geography, archaeology, linguistics were classical sources, comments on religious teaching.

I'm not demolishing the article, I'm organizing it following the Wikipedia style sheet. I'm not adding anything that wasn't there and if the style sheet isn't the proper way to edit then change that and I'll follow it. Addmittedly the article does not address the views of David Rohl, Zachariah Sitchin, Graham Hancock, or some of the other authors offering hype in place of facts. If there is a good reason to add unreliable sources I'd like to hear it.

I'm interested in what you all have to say but you should realize I didn't spend a day putting in references to hurt the article. Rktect (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rktect, What's with the ref tags? Cush (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition of references to published material such as books helps give a reader places to go to get additional information, shows the disscussion isn't WP:OR, and introduces as wide a range as possible of different views Rktect (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Why I revert Rktect alll the time
I revert Rktect - and let me point out I never revert to version of my own, this isn't personal - but I revert Rktect because his edits are, to put it bluntly, just plain bad.

So, here's his version of the lead:

''Exodus "derives from the Greek Ἔξοδος (Greek: έξοδος, exodos = "departure. The main character is Moses[1] who is born in a time of war, [2] when there is a new Pharoah who Knows not Joseph. [3]

''Moses is said to have been abandoned by his mother as a baby [4][5] on the river [6] in an ark of bulrushes to protect him. [7] from the killing [8] of the first born, [9] [10]. Pharoahs daughter finds the infant floating in a basket [11] in the river Nile and names him Moses [12] Moses gets in trouble as a youth [13][14] and has to flee into Midian [15] and flees to Midian [16] where he tends the flocks of Jethro[17] at Mount Horeb for forty years and talks to a burning bush[18][19] [20] which tells him he must return to Egypt. Moses then returns to lead his people out of Egypt and across the Red Sea to the Mountain of God.[21][22][23][24][25] Hatshepsut rails against the Hyskos and demands something be done to curb banditry, brigandry, and vagrancy rules c 1473-1458 BC as regent for Thutmosis III [26][27] [28] [29]

''There, through Moses, the people receive the laws and commandments. [30] The Israelites receive their laws and enter into a covenant to be law abiding. They then leave Horeb to compass the land of Edom heading Northwest through Kadesh Barnea and Mount Seir to the Brook of Egypt. Heading easterly following the Kings highway south of the Dead Sea to Moab they return to Horab heading through Petra. Finally they enter the land of Canaan heading north up the Arabah between Edom and Midian to Moab continuing along the eastern shore of the Dead Sea to Jehrico. The story ends with Joshuah crossing the Jordan leaving Moses behind.

''On Moses' return to Egypt, God instructs him to appear before Pharaoh and inform him of God's demand that he let God's people go. Moses and his brother Aaron do so, but Pharaoh refuses. God causes a series of plagues, but Pharaoh does not relent. God instructs Moses to institute the Passover sacrifice among the Israelites, and then God kills all the firstborn children of the Egyptians. Pharaoh agrees to let the Israelites go. Moses explains the meaning of the Passover: it is for Israel's salvation from Egypt, so that the Israelites will not be required to sacrifice their own sons, but to redeem them.

''The Israelites were led by Moses and Aaron, the goal was to return to where their forefathers had lived and which, according to lore, they had been promised by their gods. The Exodus forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover.''

So what's wrong with this? Well for a start, it's largely just a summary of the narrative line. W'allahi (you know that phrase?), there's more to the Bible than a narrative. The original version of the lead has that "more", and Rktects does not: therefore a revert is called for.

What more? Well, there's all those footnotes. Most of them are pointless, all of them are cluttering up the ntext. Look at the first line of the second paragraph - two footnotes to explicate upon the word "baby", another for the word "river". This is totally unnecessary. In the next line are four more pointless footnotes. Therefore revert.

What else? Look at the quality of the prose - it's bad!: ''The Israelites were led by Moses and Aaron, the goal was to return to where their forefathers had lived and which, according to lore, they had been promised by their gods. The Exodus forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover.'' If you don't see why this is bad prose - and Rktect doesn't - I can't help you, but believe me, that's bad. So revert.

Ah me! PiCo (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone who mass-edits articles and uses dubious sources is suspicious. Rktect on his user page displays maps of a very fringe (and plainly false) interpretation of the Exodus story, where the Israelites set out from Thebes and get to the Red Sea through the Wadi Hammamat. What also bugs me is the amount of OR that Rktect pours into his edits. Cush (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is becoming pretty silly. His footnotes are dreadful. OR, unnecessary interruptions, unreferenced statements, etc. His bad prose is a problem, I agree. But the biggest problem is his OR. I have only intermittent access to Wikipedia at the moment, but I'll have time next week and I think it it time to think about what should be done about his continual OR. It's not as though he hasn't been warned and even blocked innumerable times.  dougweller (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most folks here (including me) are just too lazy to refute the amount of nonsense he posts. I won't sift through pages and pages of invalid material to pick out the accurate pieces. Rktect should be kept from editing without prior discussion. Cush (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I fully understand all of the views expressed here and agree that in many instances it is easiest to simply revert Rktect's edits. However, I must say a little in his defense. I have had occasion to work with him (on Chedorlaomer) after discovering a 'typical Rktect' edit on that page and, initially, simply reverting. I then decided to assume good faith and got into a discussion with him. I found that he is actually very well read, intelligent and, above all, well meaning. It is unfortunate that his writing style is so cumbersome and verbose; equally, he is clearly struggling to understand OR and NPOV fully. I am trying to guide him with some of the nuances (as are others) and I fully believe that he will become a valuable editor in time. All I ask is that you have a little patience and, maybe, be a little less aggressive in your comments - this is someone you can talk to with positive results.--FimusTauri (talk) 10:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then tell him to stop flooding every article and talk page he visits with his abundance of OR and POV text. Right now the Avaris and Canaan articles are under attack by him. Cush (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I added some cites to the Avaris article referencing a list of nomes and a map. I added cites for the fact that it was destroyed by Kamose at the end of the Seventeenth dynasty and not inhabited during the Eighteenth dynasty and a graphic of the Beni Hasan inscription. Thats not a "flood" or an "attack". Perhaps your edits should try adding cites or references from reliable sources rather than removing them. If your comments were on the article Avaris rather than Exodus that might be more fruitful.Rktect (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * FT, I have no doubts about Rktect's good faith. Nor do I doubt that he's read a lot, nor that he's well-meaning, nor even do I doubt his intelligence. What's in doubt is his ability to understand the meaning of the phrase "original research." He doesn't understand that an encyclopedia doesn't exist as a vehicle through which he can present his discoveries to the world. Yes, I suppose this constant total reversion of everything he offers must seem to him aggressive, but unfortunately the problem is fundamental: look at his response, immediately above, to your comment in his defence: we get yet more OR! Instead of adding cites to notable secondary and tertiary sources, he cites primaries! He just does not understand. PiCo (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which of the following do you consider "primary sources" or OR?
 * {{blockquote|text=Holladay, John S. Jr. (1997). "The Eastern Nile Delta During the Hyksos and Pre-Hyksos Periods: Toward a Systemic/Socioeconomic Understanding." In Eliezer D. Oren (ed.), The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives. Philadelphia: The University Museum, 183-252. Avaris was once thought to be located at Tanis, in the 19th nome of Egypt at the juncture of the (8th),(14th),(19th) and (20th Nomes Baines and Ma'lek "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" p 15 nome list and map, p 167 enlarged map of the delta. Michael Grant "Rise of the Greeks" Gerard Herm(1975). The Phoenicians. William Morrow Co. Inc.. {{ISBN|0-688-02908-6}}. One text, the Carnarvon Tablet I, relates the misgivings of the Theban ruler’s council of advisors when Kamose proposed moving against the Hyksos, who he claimed were a humiliating stain upon the holy land of Egypt. The councilors clearly did not wish to disturb the status quo: The independent native rulers in Thebes reached a practical modus vivendi with the later Hyksos rulers. This included transit rights through Hyksos-controlled Middle and Lower Egypt and pasturage rights in the fertile Delta. {{quote|we are at ease in our (part of) Egypt. Elephantine (at the First Cataract) is strong, and the middle (of the land) is with us as far as Cusae [near modern Asyut]. The sleekest of their fields are plowed for us, and our cattle are pastured in the Delta. Emmer is sent for our pigs. Our cattle have not been taken away… He holds the land of the Asiatics; we hold Egypt…" name = "Pritchard 232">Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ANET), pp 232f. }}Rktect (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Some vs Many
Oh, come on. "Many" is opinion? No. Many is from the source that was deleted. It doesn't say "all", it doesn't say "most", but it is a far more than "some" and the article confirmed that. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The religious folks around here just want to diminish the criticism that exists. "Some" sounds as if those who think the Exodus story is bull were a fringe minority. But of course among serious (which of course excludes Kitchen) archaeologists the whole biblical stuff is not more than a laughing number. If there were some truth to this wishful Jewish historization then there would be no question about who the pharaoh of the Exodus was and when exactly it happened. But instead we have a dozen possible pharaohs and a timespan of 400 years. Ridiculous. Cush (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It happened at the end of the 6th Dynasty. -LisaLiel (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not even funny. Cush (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

LisaLiel, are you going to explain your edit, or just assert? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

''After a century of excavations trying to prove the ancient accounts true, archeologists say there is no conclusive evidence that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, were ever enslaved, ever wandered in the Sinai wilderness for 40 years or ever conquered the land of Canaan under Joshua’s leadership. To the contrary, the prevailing view is that most of Joshua’s fabled military campaigns never occurred–archeologists have uncovered ash layers and other signs of destruction at the relevant time at only one of the many battlegrounds mentioned in the Bible.''

''Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan–modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel–whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt–explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say. As they expanded their settlement, they may have begun to clash with neighbors, perhaps providing the historical nuggets for the conflicts recorded in Joshua and Judges.''

“Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we’ve broken the news very gently,” said William Dever, a professor of Near Eastern archeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona and one of America’s preeminent archeologists.

''Dever’s view is emblematic of a fundamental shift in archeology. Three decades ago as a Christian seminary student, he wrote a paper defending the Exodus and got an A, but “no one would do that today,” he says. The old emphasis on trying to prove the Bible–often in excavations by amateur archeologists funded by religious groups–has given way to more objective professionals aiming to piece together the reality of ancient lifestyles.''

This is from the source. Find a source to counter it if you want to, but it does support there being more than "some" archaeologists supporting this. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above is the opinion of one rabbi. Let me offer another:
 * 'In his comments, Dr Sacks draws on the book of Exodus in the Bible which tells Jews not to "ill treat or oppress" others because "... you were strangers in the land of Egypt". "You cannot ignore a command that is repeated 36 times in the Mosaic books," said Dr Sacks. "You were exiled in order to know what it feels like to be an exile. I regard that as one of the core projects of a state that is true to Judaic principle.'
 * This is from . I am sure opinions from all sides can readily be found and cited. "Some", "many", "most" are all weasel words. I am sure we can do better than that.--FimusTauri (talk) 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying, and failing, to see how your quote is relevant to the issue at hand. The point being made is that there is a sizeable amount of archaeologists who disbelieve the Exodus story as written, and an article recording that fact has been given as a reference. And "many" has the advantage over "some" in that it's not wrong. Of course, I'm open to suggestions.


 * Recently, archaeologists have moved towards a more skeptical approach to the historicity of the Exodus. These archaeologists, including Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever, regard...


 * This is more acceptable? Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest a slight re-working of that suggestion. As it stands, it implies all archaeologists, so I would suggest
 * Recently, archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever have moved towards a more skeptical approach to the historicity of the Exodus.
 * thus stating exactly who. By listing three (prominent) archaeologists, it gives due weight, but does not necessarily imply that all archaeologists adhere to this view.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tenor of article implies historicity of the Exodus
There is a lot of debate about the nature of the archaeology and history of the Exodus, but even the most fervent zealot on either side of the debate could not seriously suggest that the historicity of the Exodus is not a contested concept.

Given this, the introduction (especially) of this article is entirely inappropriate: it implies/presupposes that the Exodus was in fact an historical event. Even before any semi-definitive resolution to other sections of the article is reached, the introduction should at least be changed to reflect the contested nature of the Exodus as a whole.

At the moment the introduction states: The Exodus (Hebrew: יציאת מצרים, Standard Yetsi'at Mitzrayim Tiberian jəsʕijaθ misʕɾajim ; "the going out of Egypt") is the departure from Ancient Egypt of the Israelites described in the Hebrew Bible; narrowly defined, it refers only to the events in Book of Exodus, but also frequently takes in the subsequent wanderings in the Wilderness described in the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. The Israelites, led by Moses and Aaron, departed from bondage in Egypt to return to the Land of Israel where their forefathers had lived and which they had been promised by Yahweh. The Exodus forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover.

As a minimum this should (for the sake of accuracy and eliminating bias) read "the alleged departure from Ancient Egypt", "takes in the story of the subsequent wanderings" and then "The narrative of the book of Exodus claims that the Israelites, led by Moses and Aaron...". It should be noted that this is a minimal amount of change - it still involves being quite unquestioning in a lot of the ideas/terms used (it does not bring up many of the contested/established gaps/problems in the narrative of the Exodus, including the historicity of Moses and Aaron, the historicity of the presence of an "Israelite" people and the idea of forefathers living in "Israel" for example)

Overall, it seems that the whole article would be much better off written with an emphasis on the Exodus as a narrative account which is important for religious/cultural reasons, rather than as an historical event which 'some' question.

Mxmlitvinov (talk) 10:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely. There seems to be a feeling that just mentioning the Bible in the lead is sufficient, but I think that is simply wrong and that the lead is still heavily weighted on the assumption of historicity side. Writing it the way you suggest in your last paragraph is I believe the way to go. Thanks. dougweller (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not about to make any reverts or changes myself, but I can foresee that some editors will strongly disagree with the version as it stands. Whilst the introduction should certainly mention the dispute over the historicity, I suspect many editors will object to this being introduced in the opening sentence. Because of the obvious parallels to the Noah's Ark debate, I am not going to get involved further. I simply offer this advice - think about a better way to say what you want to, before this sparks into another heated debate.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't put all those weasel words into the article. It already says that it's talking about something written in the Bible. -LisaLiel (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not enough. Since the article gives possible dates it implies that the events indeed happened. Cush (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [1] An introduction should be an introduction and thus, while the historicity is clearly contested, I acknowledge that droning on about the fact that it is might make the article less readable. It is for this reason that I suggested very MINIMAL changes in the introduction that make it clear that the Exodus refers to the *narrative* in the Book of Exodus: a narrative that may or may not be historically accurate. [2] The introduction has been edited back at this point by LisaLiel to make it LESS FACTUAL. This is not acceptable. The first sentence: "The Exodus... is the departure from Ancient Egypt" quite clearly describes it as though it is an historical fact. So too does "The Israelites, led by Moses and Aaron, departed from bondage in Egypt". Without reference to these facts being contested, this introduction is now quite clearly biased again. [3] LisaLiel's justification for rejecting my changes was that the Bible was 'already mentioned' in the introduction. This is a poor justification: there is a difference between saying "this is what happened and the Bible tells us about it" and "this is what the Bible says happened". The introduction tended towards the former and should not. [4] I am open for other ways of reflecting the contested nature of the event in the introduction, but again made MINIMAL changes which clearly REMOVED BIAS without having to use clunky language or mire the introduction down in a lot of discussion about the historical truth of the Exodus. [5] I have taken a second stab at an introduction for the sake of negotiation/conciliation. This time I have not used the word 'alleged' or the word 'story', but have instead (with minimal changes) pointed out that the Exodus refers to a Biblical narrative and that "according to the Biblical account" it happened as earlier described. Mxmlitvinov (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion, but a slight re-working may solve some issues here. How about "The Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, is the departure...".--FimusTauri (talk) 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is there an article for this at all? The article on the biblical book already covers what happens. This article is solely here to establish historicity for the Exodus by assigning wandering paths and dates to events in the narrative. So if the historicity is doubtful in the first place, why have an article about it? After all, there are no such extension articles for other biblical books on WP.
 * On a side-note: why do you folks always refer to "the Hebrew Bible" as if other bibles would narrate a different story. And "the Hebrew Bible" normally refers to the Masoretic text, which is medieval and not reliable as an ultimate source anyways. Cush (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the article Exodus should deal with the book itself, whereas this article should deal specifically with the (alleged) event. As a major pillar of Jewish thought, the event is WP:NOTABLE in itself; it is not a question of historicity. (That is my understanding of how it should be - not saying that's how it is)
 * Regarding "Hebrew Bible", I believe this was established as the most neutral term, as any other implies a specifically Jewish or Christian text - see WikiProject Judaism for more info.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I should add that some of what you say is valid; this article is an unfortunate victim of user Rketct's ramblings and could do with a makeover.--FimusTauri (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The book/story of Exodus may be a "pillar of Jewish thought" because it constitutes the alleged source of Judaism with its alleged descent from Israelitism (which I doubt). But none of that has any standing in the archeological or historical record of the timespan in question. All attempts to reconcile jewish doctrine with known history has miserably failed (except maybe what Rohl proposes, but that is yet fringe). So this article must make unambiguously clear that it deals with something that is most probably pure fiction.
 * Regarding "Hebrew Bible", I would say that the term refers to something exclusively Jewish, simply because Christians have never used any Hebrew and because only Jews really have ever used it. And since the Masoretic text (to with the tern usually refers) has many discrepancies to genuinely ancient texts (cf. Septuagint with the oldest extant biblical writings), it is certainly not a text that should form the basis of any discussion that needs ancient sources. Cush (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the text as it currently stands is much better than it was a week ago, so am thankful for that. In terms of the purpose of the article, there is clearly a distinction to be made between an article on the Book of Exodus and the historical idea of the Exodus. In terms of the wording suggested by FimusTauri, while I'm happy others are suggesting options, I think that "The Exodus, as described in the Hebrew Bible, is the departure" still presents the Exodus as being factual - "The Exodus is the departure, and this is mentioned in the Bible..." To draw an analogy, it's like saying "King Arthur, as described by Malory, was a ruler in England" - it implies that Arthur existed and that Mallory simply tells us about him. I agree with the person that removed "refers to" from the first sentence - "is" is more powerful and straightforward. Nevertheless, the first sentence is still leaning towards presenting the Exodus as historical fact Mxmlitvinov (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To say "this article must make unambiguously clear that it deals with something that is most probably pure fiction." is just as wrong as saying "this article must make unambiguously clear that it deals with something that is most probably true." There is no certainty for either view - and, more importantly, both are points of view. Further, this is not a "scientific article", so the issue of "archeological or historical record" has no bearing on whether the article should exist. It does have bearing on what the article says, because it is perfectly correct to include the archeological (and other) criticisms of the story. This is another example of some editors who seem to think that every article on Wikipedia should be "grounded in science". Religious articles start out as religious articles and are rightly given examination from a scientific viewpoint, but they are still, fundamentally, religious articles.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedic article. So it is supposed to present the facts without getting too much into speculation. And this is not a religious article, but one presenting alleged history. History is subject to scientific research, and subsequently everything that goes against the biblical story must be included in a way that it becomes clear that the biblical text may be inaccurate ore simply wrong. To talk about the biblical story in epic proportions whithout making the connection to reality is unacceptable. This is indeed like presenting a story about King Arthur as real.
 * BTW, lack of evidence for the biblical story is no POV. Cush (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that is nonsense. This is a story from the Hebrew Bible. If you are going to treat the Bible as a historical record then there are plenty of articles that will need a lot of revision. Whilst the general consensus is that there are germs of truth in the Bible, few mainstream academics treat it as a history. This argument was thrashed out when WP:SPOV (scientific point of view) was attempted, but that proposal was rejected because it placed "scientific" points of view "ahead" of religious ones, in contravention of NPOV policy. It is perfectly acceptable to present the scientific (historical, archeological etc) arguments, but not as the primary purpose of the article.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I must stress that I do believe that this article is in dire need of revision.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this article (as it is) except to give religionists a good feeling? The article is written in in-universe style so that it presents doctrine as history, just as the Bible does. But I suppose the purpose of the article is not the same as that of the Bible, is it? Cush (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent for clarity)

I repeat that this article needs a major re-write. The point I am trying to make is that such a re-write should begin as a religious article (i.e. describing the events - although certainly not in an "epic style") After that there will be plenty of room for presenting the various views as to the historicity of the story, including a significant representation of the view that it is, at least as presented in Exodus, unhistorical. Don't forget that the question of the historicity is still debated; very few (although growing in number) simply state "it didn't happen". The majority view remains that something happened that started the story, but which was later much embellished before reaching its current version. In that context it would be as wrong to use "it is unhistorical" as the start-point as it would be to start with "it really happened". I would be more than willing to begin the process of re-writing, in the hope that other editors can have general agreement about the direction that the article should take.--FimusTauri (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably a religious article would start by making clear that it is not history but a story based on in this case a religious book. Or something like that. Don't we talk about things not being written 'in-universe'? Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to have this discussion over and over again?? The Bible talks about events that allegedly happened almost a millennium before Judaism existed at all. The story serves a religious agenda, and I refuse to read an encyclopedia that just repeats the doctrine without putting it into proper perspective. If this article is religious, then keep out any speculative dates and speculations about the identity of the involved persons (Moses, the pharaoh, etc). Just condense what the Bible states. If this article is about a event in real history, then keep out references about God and Holy land and other ideologically charged contents. If this article is supposed to by a hybrid, then make clear the speculative nature of the presented material about the historicity of the narrated events. Cush (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring Suggestions

 * I am beginning to wonder if you are misunderstanding me. There are plenty of good examples of the format for articles of this nature. The one that springs to mind is Noah's Ark; but rather than the current version (which is undergoing an overhaul), consider the version that was awarded FA status. You can find it | here. This illustrates what I mean about the structure. To offer another example: I was asked to help with the article on Abraham. Consider what the "Genesis narrative" section looked like before I got to work on it, | here and look at it | after. This still needs a little work, but I am sure you can see how it has been made more "encyclopedic".--FimusTauri (talk) 10:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think people are coming to the debate with the right general agenda - making the article better - so that is good. I agree with FimusTauri that the article needs a rewrite and with Cush that it is uncomfortable in its attempt to steer between historical and religious narratives. At the moment, for instance, it starts with a general outline of the sources, before talking about routes, numbers and dates. Then there is one paragraph after 20 or so that points out historical challenges (although it should be noted that the earlier sections would also raise doubts in the reasonable reader's mind). To me, this is all scientific/historical stuff and not really religious/cultural stuff at all. So it's grounding the Exodus as a scientific/historical article and then raising little to do with challenges to it. But there is little to nothing about why the Exodus is important - how the story is vital as establishing Israelite identity as God's chosen people, united in their long struggle to emerge from persecution by foreigners, the granting of the area of Canaan to these people by God, the importance of legendary figures like Moses, the way that the story has informed Jewish cultural practices etc. (I'm no Exodus/Jewish expert, so these examples are guesswork). I suppose that is what I meant earlier about presenting the Exodus as an important Biblical narrative, rather than as an historical event - not only does that seem a better focus for the article, but it would seem to partially resolve a lot of these problems.
 * I have little confidence in myself to rewrite the article, although FimusTauri seems to be an old hand at working through good layouts for articles. If that's the way things are going, might I suggest something like ... [1] Introduction [2] Details of Biblical Narrative [3] Cultural Importance of the Exodus - symbolism, importance for Jewish identity, significance for other groups [4] The Historical Record - ideas about how the story fits in and doesn't fit in to the record. Mxmlitvinov (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That is, essentially, the sort of structure I would envisage. Unfortunately, "real-life" issues mean my online time for the next few weeks will be severely restricted, so I probably won't have time to deal with this article myself. If I put some flesh on the bones of that structure, maybe someone else could have a go at it:


 * Introduction
 * Narrative. Just a summary. I don't think the "in the prophets" section adds anything.
 * Cultural significance. This need not be massive. There should be a sub-section on the Passover, but this should have a "main article" link and be a short summary.
 * Historicity
 * The Route. I suspect this can be knocked down to one or two paragraphs, since most of it is "we don't know". Rather than go into details, include a few "main article" links (e.g. to passage of the red sea)
 * Logistics. Essentially, the "numbers involved" section, probably trimmed a bit.
 * Date. I think the three sections can be readily trimmed down to about two or three paragraphs and just one sub-section.
 * Challenges to the historicity of the Exodus. I dislike this title (mostly because it is unwieldy) but cannot think of a better one at present. The current section is about the right size for the information it presents, but I suspect it ought to be expanded to include a few other views. (No info at hand, but I know there are some who view the Exodus as having a foundation in some event, but on a much smaller scale, for example)


 * The above is a "first look" and going on memory. I am sure there are details that can be added in if need be.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * At first glance, that looks good and hopefully will be both more readable and more useful. I think that 'Issues' might be beter thatn 'Challenges' but that needs more thought. Dougweller (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about 'critical evaluation'? --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's ok - it is the term used in other articles. Since this would be a sub-section of "Historicity", there is no need to add "(of) the historicity of exodus" on the end.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me. --Taiwan boi (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you include a Route section, what will happen to the (weird) Stations list article?
 * And I would call the section just "Historicity" Cush (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should have a "main article" pointer to Stations list and then a fairly brief summary of the main issues. The last section is called "Historicity" with sub-sections called "The Route", "Logistics" etc.--FimusTauri (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So now what? Who will do the changes? Cush (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to do some of it, but my online time is severely restricted at the moment. I think this is quite urgent, so I will go ahead and restructure. This will involve taking out some parts of the current version, but if anyone thinks I have gone too far, please re-insert, by all means.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With reference to the "Cultural signifcance" section. I have added this, but at the moment only included the Passover. I would appreciate it if anyone can expand this and add refs.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Have trimmed the worst of the fat off the "route" section, but you may wish to reduce it further.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The dating section is now greatly reduced, although I suspect we could take more off it.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. That's a very "rough" re-structuring based on the model above. Lack of time means I can't refine this too much, but please get to work on it if you see any problems. I suspect the "extra-biblical" section can be simply removed.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Weaselly passage
I've removed the following statement: There are increasing numbers of scholars who question the historical nature of the Exodus story, with some stating that it did not happen at all. It was not sourced, and is a very vague and inexplicit comment. I recognise that any major issues should be commented upon, but in the spirit of Jimbo's comments here and here, I think that it needs to be written more clearly, and appropriately cited.

If it's such a serious debate, it should be easy to find appropriate sources. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence I have just reinstated is a summary of the debate as to the historicity of The Exodus. Refs and more details are given in the "Historicity" section of the article. Such a summary is exactly that which is required by the MoS--FimusTauri (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please re-read WP:CITE and WP:WEASEL. It is a weaselly statement without an in-line citation. By all means rewrite it; by all means add a reference as is required. But the Manual of Style does not mandate adding vague, unverified claims.
 * Alternatively, feel free to request comment on this issue. However, I would be interested to hear which part of the Manual of Style requires contentious, unsourced, weaselly assertions (do you agree it's weaselly, by the way?) to be placed in article headers. ╟─ Treasury  Tag ► contribs ─╢ 14:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI - Lead section requires a summary of the article. A major section is devoted to the historicity and this includes inline cites and refs. I am going to reinstate that line and the refs.--FimusTauri (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite the line so that it sticks to WP:WEASEL. You'll notice that I put that page in bold. That's because I think you need to read the entire page at least twice, because you still seem to think that There are increasing numbers of scholars who question the historical nature of the Exodus story, with some stating that it did not happen at all, is encyclopedic. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 14:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * How about a phrase like "The only ones who still adhere to the historicity of the Exodus story are those who do so out of religious motivations." Is that weaselly as well? Because that's how it really is. Evangelicals like Kenneth Kitchen are the only remaining scholars who still try to combine Egyptian history with biblical tales, all others have recognized long ago that with the current chronology of Egypt and the Levant there is simply no room for the Israelites. The evidence is exactly zero. The only hope is David Rohl, but his chronological model is considered fringe and thus not necessarily encyclopedic. Cush (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source that says explicitly that, then by all means include it in the article. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that I would rather exclude all the speculative stuff that is in the article. If the positions held by academia were verifiable then there would be no question about the exact date of the Exodus and the identity of the involved persons. I find this whole article dispensable. Cush (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. But as far as I can tell, it's balanced and cited properly. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 09:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but pointless, as it holds no real information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cush (talk • contribs).
 * OK. On a completely unrelated note, do you think you could try to avoid marking so many edits as minor? Replying to comments on a talkpage isn't really a minor issue (see this page for ideas of what is) - and it makes keeping track of one's Watchlist more difficult. Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that checkbox is set by default and I never paid attention to that. Is that something that makes your life difficult? Cush (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't set it to default, if it means that you're marking edits wrongly. The guidelines say that marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, and, indeed such an offence was one of the prime reasons for opposing this user's adminship (see Q6). Yes, it makes it harder to keep track of edits on my watchlist; it's not necessary to make others' lives more difficult, please only mark edits minor if they're minor. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)