Talk:The Exodus/Archive 9

Date for the Exodus
(I've attached a recent conversation with Tgeorgescu below after my editing was not accepted on the grounds that it was "original research." It was suggested to me by PiCo that others might want to contribute.)

The Exodus

The article is not academically balanced and I wanted to present a counter view. It is academically careless to argue that something is impossible when clearly there is disagreement in academic circles. The article as presently crafted reads that a date of 1406 for the beginning of the conquest is "impossible," and I wanted to ensure readers that there are many who believe it is indeed possible and even likely. Perhaps my comments were "original research," which can be easily remedied, but again I think it is also "original research" to state that an early date for the exodus is "impossible" when many think otherwise. - Dr. Daniel McCabe College of Biblical Studies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ (short text, reads easily). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the link. I'm not trying to present an evangelical view. I'm trying to temper the majority view which has its detractors even among non-evangelicals. John Garstang in the 1930s who dug at Jericho believed in an early date of 1400 for the destruction of Jericho though it was Kathleen Kenyon whose views have been popularized. Professor Peter Parr (hardly an evangelical) who himself worked with Kathleen Kenyon in Jericho believes that an early dating of Jericho (in disagreement with Kenyon) is an open question. If those views were presented, would they be allowed to be published to present a balanced view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that a "no" to Garstang and Parr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * First, I am not making the call by myself, so what I say here is just my view (but cited policies are Wikipedia's rules). If you want to improve the article, you may add information to The Exodus and see if it stays there. Wikipedia does have a very strong preference for the majority view of the mainstream scholars in all its articles, that's not negotiable, see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, it's just that it would be terribly disappointing for Garstang's view in particular to be completely overlooked simply because the mainstream may have preferred Kenyon's view. We both could agree that "bias" affects even a "mainstream" viewpoint as Thomas Kuhn pointed out well in his classic, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the abstract claim that the mainstream can be or is biased does not change Wikipedia's rules. All Wikipedia articles present mainstream scholarly consensus as fact, and this only becomes a problem where there is no mainstream consensus; in such a case Wikipedia simply presents all notable views, proportionally to the support they have in mainstream sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I get your point. On the other hand, my point remains that mainstream "fact" should not argue without warrant that other views are "impossible" as does the article as presently crafted, for otherwise we would still be living on a "flat" earth with the sun orbiting around the earth. Archaeological interpretation is hardly an unassailable science. If a mainstream position believes itself to be unassailable and opposed to any scholarly dissent by well-studied men whether like myself or certainly by men like Garstang and Parr, then it becomes in danger of protecting its views at great risk of missing "possibilities" which may later be determined to be true by a subsequent "mainstream" or at the very least becomes jaded to its own potential biases. Thanks for the exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"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"

- Peter Enns


 * I have no doubt that the theological view that "the Exodus happened because God wanted so, as written in the Bible" is notable and should be rendered (as theology, not as history). However, the view that "we know the Exodus has happened because there is historical evidence for it" is a fringe view. And Enns is much closer to evangelical Christianity than I am or most mainstream historians are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even arguing the question of whether or not the Bible is true or not in our exchange. That's peripheral to my point. I'm pointing out the striking statement on the Wikipedia page that a date for the Exodus of 1446 is "impossible" based in part on archaeological evidence. If the mainstream is arguing against the very historicity of the Exodus, then that's one thing, and it's a position which I can honorably acknowledge, but to argue for the impossibility of a 1446 date BASED ON the archaeological finds at Jericho is academically ingenuous given the dissent of Garstang, one of the three premier site archaeologists in Jericho's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You should both be having this discussion on the article talk page at The Exodus so that others can contribute. Dr McCabe, you should add a "citation needed" tag to the end of that paragraph and explain on the Talk page why you did so. (I.e., because the paragraph makes a series of claims without saying where they come from, the claims being: "Egyptian records of that period do not mention the expulsion of any group that could be identified with over two million Hebrew slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues, and digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BCE — in fact many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.") PiCo (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (You add the "citation needed" tag by putting two curley-brackets, typing in cn, then closing it with two more curley brackets, . Please don't leave any messages on my personal talk page as I don't talk to anyone. PiCo (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Event vs. Myth
Remember, regardless of your beliefs (IE: regardless of whether Christian, Jewish or atheist) Wikipedia is not truth. Rather it is verifiability. It is easily verified that the exodus is a founding myth. If you can provide WP:RS to verify that exodus was an event we can discuss changing it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Seems like alot of drama over two little words. In my edit, quickly reverted by Dougweller, I wasn't trying to imply that it was "something that factually happened" (despite Doug's and Simonm223's assumption that by using the word "event" I was definitively calling it a Historically verifiable happening) - just that calling it a "myth" seemed to be inserting non-NPOV as it is insulting to Jews and Christians to call it a myth. It looks like its been changed again to "traditional story" - which I guess is ok, but it lacks the right emphasis IMO of the word "Foundational". I changed it to "foundational story" and deleted the Wiki link as I thought it was too much of a stretch to connect "foundational story" to "traditional story". Probably needs further discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * How is myth more "insulting" than story? It's not inserting an WP:NPOV - it's an accurate description of what Exodus is, supported with reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There are various phrases used to describe it as a myth, but I think that "charter myth" seems to be used a lot in academic sources. Eg |origins+myth&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OrodU8PdMMLwhQfopYHwAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Exodus%20Founding|origins%20myth&f=false,, , etc, more at  or we could use "myth of origins" which also has numerous sources.. It would clearly be NPOV not do this. And of course, we already call it a charter myth with a reliable source. I don't understand why it isn't mentioned in Myth of origins. It's a classical example. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 - why is myth insulting? Because the term "Bible/Biblical Stories" is used quite often in Jewish & Christianity spheres to refer to tales from the Bible. The word "story" does not make an overt assumption of historical accuracy while the term "myth" clearly does. Pretty obvious. Also contrary to your edit note, you don't create "concensus" by making one edit and then posting your opinion on Talk. Considering the lede and the whole page has gone through many many changes in just the last 6 months, I don't see how you can claim "any" concensus since it appears that the first edit you made on this page was 6 March...
 * Dougweller - Sounds fine. I should have looked at what was in the body of the text first - I didn't realize that it had changed so much.Ckruschke (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Thanks, Ckruschke - to make it more obvious we agree and not look like I'm edit warring, could you please make the edit? Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep - no problem - no warring intended or implied. Ckruschke (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
 * Appreciated. I wasn't suggesting you were trying to state it was a real historical event, just that the wording made it appear we were saying that. This is always tricky. Dougweller (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not agree that the use of any phrase with the word "myth" in it is appropriate. It seems to me that the basis to the insistence to its use is a determined refusal to give the bible any historical value, under the cover of a "non-reliable source". In fact, for some "events" the bible is the only source though outside sources may bring some aspects of it into question. It is not right to trash the whole story, which is so important to Jewish identity, as a myth or fable. You might as well delete the whole article if it is a myth. You might as well say that Jews are living a fantasy. One after another, the Bible Minimalists are trashing all articles which rely on the bible arguing that it as based on an unreliable source. I thought traditional story was a good compromise, but it went back to myth. What about "a story [or an event] believed by Jews and by others to be...". Enthusiast (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To not use the word at all in a clear NPOV violation, given the number of reliable sources, some by theologians and other religious (in the sense of believing) scholars. Dougweller (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What about, as a compromise: "an event described in the Hebrew a Bible, which some scholars describe as a foundation myth,..." Enthusiast (talk) 22:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The consensus among mainstream historians is that the Exodus was no event at all (at least in the way that it got described in the Bible). Wikipedia simply renders what mainstream scholars have published. We do not decide the facts, scholars decide them for us and we are simply their scribes. See WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If only life would be so simple. There are scholars and there are scholars with other opinions. The weight of numbers is also not in issue. There are specific articles which discuss the historicity of the bible. Perhaps a reference to those articles would satisfy others. I thought my compromise wording would cover that point. Otherwise, I have nothing else to add, and will bale out of the discussion. Enthusiast (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Enthusiast - I agree with you that it is frustrating to see this called a myth. However, Tgeorgescu & Dougweller are 100% correct that The Exodus, as opposed to other Biblical events, has no historical or archeological proof to date. As Tgeorgescu has correctly related, Wiki needs to reflect current scholarship and although there are many suppositions about The Exodus, many of which I have personnally read, there is no hard proof. Ckruschke (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * For some reason the Ipuwer Papyrus was not even mentioned on this page until now!? Obviously we cannot know to a 100% exact certainty the Exodus was a myth, since the Ipuwer Papyrus, while by no means proving the Exodus, calls that assertion into reasonable doubt. The claim that the Exodus is definitely a myth is clearly WP:POV. I find the repeated, and blatantly false assertion on this page that absolutely no archeological evidence has ever been found that could lend support for the Exodus, and the presumably intentional exclusion of the Ipuwer from this article, as well as the lack of sufficient information about the papyrus on its own page, unscholarly, disingenuous, deceptive to readers and extremely distasteful. Especially in light of many Jews, Samaritans, and other people connected with the Israelites, feeling the Ipuwer Papyrus is at long last the found extant traces of their national origins. Like a scene from Roots, I believe this best illustrates how many of them feel about the discovery of the Ipuwer: [copyvio link removed] --Newmancbn (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You don't understand what is meant by "charater myth" or "foundational myth". The article doesn't even call it a myth, so this is a red herring. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly well what is meant by 'charter myth' by scholars, it is a an ancient national origin legend that may or may not be based on historic events. That is not what the common reader understands by the word 'myth', which is a term that has implications of 'a made up fairytale' to the lay person. The completely neutral term 'event' is a far more appropriate choice of words for this article, especially in light of the Ipuwer, which casts some measure of doubt over the assertion the Exodus is devoid of any historical bases or any supporting archeological data.--Newmancbn (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, you understand. And we don't call it a "myth" but a charter myth with a link to that. You are asking us to dumb this down and treat the phrase "charter myth" as identical with myth. Are you actually denying that this is a charter myth? Are you really questioning the idea that charter myths can be charter myths and have some historical basis? All sorts of people have come up with claims for a historical basis, there is nothing special about the Ipuwer Papyrus from that viewpoint. And 'event' is about as unneutral as you could get. Everyone thinks that the word describes things that really happened, Dougweller (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed it to read 'contested event', which I hope is satisfactory. I am not the only one who raised objections to the use of the term 'charter myth' to describe the claimed national origin of Israel in the opening sentence. I do not think the article should be 'dumbed down', there is obviously a place for the term 'charter myth', in the proceeding lead paragraph on the way scholars view the Exodus. I just think it should be as clear and simply stated as possible.--Newmancbn (talk) 07:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/838. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Bible translations are copyright material. The juxtaposition of the two texts on the source page is also subject to copyright. -- Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Date of the Exodus
I have questioned the use of the word "impossible" in this section regarding the date of the Exodus and even requested a citation, which was supplied; however, no matter what source one might use for the claim of "impossibility," the claim is ill-founded. The argument in the article continues to be that the absence of any evidence for an exodus in any historical records AND the archaeological evidence of the 1930s makes a date of 1406 for the conquest and 1446 for the exodus an impossibility. First, I would suggest that the ABSENCE of an historical record does not make something an impossibility--only that it has not yet been confirmed by history. Second, the claim is made that the archaeology of the 1930s prohibits the possibility of a conquest around 1400, which is in complete disregard of John Garstang's conclusions regarding Jericho in his digs during the 1930s. He actually wrote, "The date of Joshua's invasion of Canaan would fall about 1407 B.C." (John Garstang, Joshua-Judges, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1978 reprint of 1931 edition. Garstang, John, "Jericho: City and Necropolis." Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20 (1933), pp. 52-55). Furthermore, Zondervan, the very source that is now being cited in support of the "impossibility" of a dating around 1400 actually reads that "a correlation is probable" between such a date and Joshua's conquest (The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Tenney, vol. 2, "The Chronology of the Old Testament). It has been intimated in my dialogue with the individual who eliminated my editing (to exclude the word "impossible") that my view is fringe, but I would suggest that it is no more a fringe view to argue for the "impossibility" of a dating of 1400 as proposed by Garstang in the 1930s (and by subsequent scholarship) than it is to argue for the "impossibility" of a dating of 1200 as proposed by Kenyon in the 1950s (and by subsequent scholarship).  I would further add that any fear that "evangelicals" might hijack this Wikipedia page with arguments that would agree with the biblical record is unnecessary. I have not argued for the credibility of the Bible, but neither is that an academic disqualification as long as any arguments are measured and well-founded. I am only arguing for a balanced scholarship that recognizes that scholarly men both past and present agree that an early date is indeed possible. I would respectfully ask that any claim of impossibility be removed from this section. It is unbalanced and unnecessarily dismissive of careful research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.174.235 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks to the OP for bringing this here.
 * The paragraph under discussion is this:


 * 1 Kings 6:1 states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, which would imply an Exodus c.1446 BCE, during Egypt's Eighteenth Dynasty.[35] By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological record made this date impossible[36]: Egyptian records of that period do not mention the expulsion of any group that could be identified with over two million Hebrew slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues, and digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BCE — in fact many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time or, in the case of Jericho itself, "small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified. There was also no sign of a destruction."[37]


 * There's a source for the first sentence and it looks ok though I haven't checked it. Then comes the statement that by the mid-20th century it was apparent that this date (1440) was impossible. It's sourced (footnote 36), but I can't access the source - I'll assume the source does say this date is impossible.
 * Next comes a single sentence with two lines of evidence, the first the absence of Egyptian records for the exodus in or around 1440, the second the absence of archaeological evidence for the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan forty years later. I gather we take it for granted that everyone knows the desert wanderings took up forty years. A single source is given for all this, Finkelstein&Silberman, p.82. This one I can access, and frankly it doesn't support all that's said, just the bit about Jericho, and I'm not even sure of that (is it really talking about the 1400 period? - not doubting, just can't quite follow the argument in the book at that point).
 * So, sourcing is needed for all the statements in that long sentence (maybe break it in two, one on Egyptian evidence, the other on Canaan?) I suggest looking in Meyers' book, Dever 2003, and more closely in Finkelstein/Silberman. Even Kitchen is useful, but he's another one I can't access.PiCo (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, while not strictly relevant, it's worth remembering that the only reason anyone even considers 1440 as a date for the exodus is because 1 Kings 6:1 says it happened 480 years before the Temple was built - without that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. So you need to look at how much faith you can put in 1 Kings 6:1.PiCo (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Tenney, who was active in the mid 20th century, is used to support the claim about the mid 20th century rejection of the 15th century BCE date. I mean he is a reliable source for the scholarship in mid 20th century, not for present-day scholarship.

"... the view is no longer tenable that nonoccupation of that area from the eighteenth to thirteenth centuries B.C. makes a fifteenth-century date for the Exodus impossible."

- Douglas and Tenney


 * Well, I guess I got this wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

"a fifteenth-century BCE date for the exodus very unlikely"

- D.A. Knight and A.-J. Levine


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I rewrote the first paragraph extensively to make it as succinct as possible while getting the essential information across. I can't find anyone saying the 15th century date is "impossible"so took that sentence out, but many/most say it's improbable, or words to that effect, and I've reflected that. The two strands of argument for this are the schematic nature of the 1 Kings material (the whole 15th century idea hinges on that) and the lack of archaeological evidence. Ok? PiCo (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for eliminating the word "impossible" which I have held all along to be without scholarship and biased. Even if a source can be found that quotes such a "finding," it would have been inappropriate to make such a conclusion based on the archaeological evidence which has been historically debated by Garstang and Kenyon. I am pleased with the increasing integrity of the paragraph. I have been left to wonder if the fact that I am supportive (along with Garstang) of an archaeological dating of 1400 for the destruction of Jericho based on pottery studies while also having a confident view in the matching historical veracity of the Bible's dating of 1400 has prejudiced my input on this matter in the eyes of some given a widespread support for a thirteenth century dating, but I would encourage all to study Garstang and study the pottery evidence at Jericho in depth before concluding that the widespread opinion is grounded in some unassailable paradigm. Nothing could be further from the truth. But again, thank you for making those necessary changes if Wikipedia is to have a scholarly reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.175.128 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Each time that I propose measured phrasing to the "dating of the exodus" paragraph, the edits are rejected. I'm not trying to edit the article to present an evangelical viewpoint. I'm merely trying to present the scholarly opinion that a date for the 15th century conquest of Jericho based on the pottery findings is plausible. The opening line of the paragraph has been rightly edited to state that there are two "major" proposals for the dating of the exodus, and for that the editors should be applauded, but any extrabiblical information that might support the 15th century view or any information that might attempt to temper a zealous defense of the 13th century view is met with resistance. That is troubling and there is no reason for it. If the scholarship of Garstang and others cannot earn representation in this paragraph and if the editors of this page cannot permit even the slightest wording changes to present a more balanced approach and one that attempts to honor one of the two "major" views, then scholarship suffers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.175.128 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * mainstream scholarly thinking is that there was no "conquest" led by Joshua - the archeological record shows no widespread destruction reflecting what is described in Judges. It is not maintream history to discuss the "conquest" like it really happened, much less to reference it in trying to establish a date for whatever sort of exodus happened. Jytdog (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It was I who reverted your recent edit. One problem with it was that it changed the words used by the sources to words not used by the sources. For example, Moore and Keele p.81 say that it's "recognised" that the 480 years in 1 Kings is symbolic (and it says this recognistion comes from "sceptical and conservative interpreters alike", hence the gloss "widely recognised"). You changed this to "widely held." A small change, but away from accuracy and it weakens what's in the source. You then say "in this view" the number is symbolic, when there's no evidence of any other mainstream view. Cumulatively, you're taking a pretty-well universally held view and making it seem contested.


 * Similarly, you took Silberman and Finkelstein's discussion of obstacles to a 15th century date (page 81 in toto) and turned it into a statement that on that page they support a 13th century date. They don't, not on that page or any other. In fact on that same page (pages 81-82) they expressly say that there are major problems with a 13th century date for Jericho, in that Jericho wasn't inhabited in the 13th century.


 * In brief, sentences that cite sources have to reflect what those sources say.


 * The fact is that Garstang's conclusions have been rejected long ago due to Kenyon's later work. Kenyon's dating is now the one accepted by archaeologists and historians, and for that fact it's the one we have to reflect. PiCo (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was just cleaning up after a massively disruptive editor. I have no dog in your hunt yet. and by the way, DO NOT EDIT OTHER EDITOR'S COMMENTS. There are very limited cases where it is OK to do that (fixing indenting or other things that actually affect other editors). Outside of that, ask first. See WP:TPG. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a scholarly website, meaning that Wikipedia editors don't indulge in original research in order to second guess mainstream consensus. We simply take this consensus for what it is and render the scholarship done by mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Israelites might ally themselves with foreign invaders seems unlikely in the context of the late 2nd millennium"
The Hyksos page is quite clear that their invasion of Egypt, for those who agree that there was such an invasion, happened well within the first half of the 2nd millennium. That would make the subject line above, a quote from this Exodus article, in severe contradiction with with the majority of scholars. 2601:9:8400:6510:218B:13F6:CAC2:1660 (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * that's your own original research and we don't publish original research in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit war debate
A debate upon the recent edit war took place at User talk:173.238.79.44. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It was not only misquoting Dever, as shown by User:Dougweller, it is also misquoting the other source: "The archaeological data relating to the Exodus are subject to differing interpretations. But at no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai, and Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus (or, for that matter, conquest) account in the Bible. No archaeological evidence from Egypt can be construed as representing a resident group of Israelites in the delta or elsewhere, unless one accepts a general equation of the Exodus group with the Hyksos. Nor is there any evidence of an early Israelite presence anywhere in Sinai. The Mediterranean littoral was heavily used by the Egyptian army during the New Kingdom, and the remainder of Sinai shows little evidence of occupation for virtually the entire second millennium BCE, from the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age to the beginning of the Iron Age or even later. Even the site currently identified with Kadesh-barnea provides no evidence of habitation prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy."

- Carol A. Redmount

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

So, there is a joke in very bad taste to claim that "current wording not in line with what source says", since no person who has actually read the two sources could come up with such a ludicrous claim. Another joke in very bad taste is "despite this source, interest in this area has exploded since release of the Exodus Decoded", since it is a documentary being a paragon of pseudohistory, just take a look at the ludicrous claims which get debunked in its Wikipedia article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Proof for the Exodus?
About the recent series of removal of verifiable information: I think that it is obvious that only insane people would deny clear-cut evidence about the Exodus. The quoted scholars aren't insane and nothing new in this respect surfaced since they have written their texts. I mean definitive evidence, not mere possibility (advocated by Kitchen and Hoffmeier). We don't need "maybe, could, would, should", but real evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
About the chariots from the bottom of the Red Sea, read http://www.snopes.com/religion/redsea.asp. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

See also Ron Wyatt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

'Palestine'?
The mention of Palestine in the context of a pre 135 AD history of the region is indicative of a revisionist history being introduced.

Palestine was the Roman Empires replacement name for the Kingdom of Judah following the Bar Kochbah revolt.

Palestine is a derivative of Philistines/Phishtim which is the Hebrew for foreign invader.

The Philistines were Greeks who invaded the coastal plane of the Land of Israel.

Palestine only became associated with Arabs/Muslims after 1964 at the instigation of the KGB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.217.131 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You do not make the call, reliable sources make the call. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The Date section
This section reads a little strange. The article begins by establishing in some detail that the Exodus most likely never happened. Then it continues in this section with "these are the two proposals for the date..." At the end of this section, we conclude once again that it most likely never happened, but why are we trying to date it then? Was this done before the current scholarly consensus was reached? KarlFrei (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The deal is this: some date has to be inferred from the Bible in order to show that no such event took place at that time. This is what makes the Exodus different from, say, the return from Babylonian captivity. By the Exodus we don't usually mean an event which took place 10000 years ago and it cannot be shown that it did not took place 10000 years ago. So, you have to have at least a vague idea of when it was supposed to happen in order to state that it never happened. Besides, Wikipedia only renders scholarship, it does not second guess it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * agree with the explanation, but it could indeed be explained more clearly in our article. anybody game? Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I made Route and Date subsections under Historicity, so they can be discussed in those terms. Does that go some way towards a solution? Maybe more editing needed - the Route (the stations) are in fact highly schematic and their names are often symbolic, for example, but that's not mentioned in the article.PiCo (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Neherz123 changes
has wanted to make the change in this dif, and i've reverted. Neherz123, please discuss your reasoning. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with that this change cannot be made without discussion, and I encourage  to discuss and to avoid edit warring. At the same time, it seems to me that one sources  uses would seem to satisfy WP:RS. I'm of course not talking about Roth, who completely fails WP:RS and cannot be used as a source for anything. Bietak is different, as his academic credentials are quite strong, and I would not dismiss him out of hand.Jeppiz (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

There are numerous shortcomings of this article in its present form. First, at the beginning it ambiguously states, "This article is about the events related in the Torah. For other uses, see Exodus." The story of the Exodus is represented on two separate Wikipeda pages, one which describes the biblical narrative, or Book of Exodus, and this one, which is mainly geared towards establishing an historical context. I think this point of differentiation should be highlighted in the first paragraph to prevent confusion, and subsequently the content should exclusively deal with the historical placement and cultural significance.

As such, this page should incorporate the full breadth and depth of archaeological evidence and historical commentary as opposed to mere vacuous statements such as "The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus", followed by very limited supporting statements in the body relative to the wealth of information available in the literature. If indeed a comprehensive analysis was presented in this Wikipedia page, it would be acceptable to include this decisive statement as a concluding or introductory remark. In absence of such an analysis, it is fair to at least point to the works of other reliable sources, in order to provide Wikipedia users a platform for a fuller investigation. I welcome Wikipedia users to add more information to this page, both contradicting and supporting the biblical account. By including my edit, this dif, I incorporate other valid perspectives, backed by primary sources, which is completely in line with Wikipedia's policies and values. The current reference list points largely to secondary sources, and even omits a major contributor to the archaeological evidence, Manfred Bietak of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, who pioneered the excavations at Rameses since as early as 1966. My aim is not to establish as fact the biblical account, rather to present the various viewpoints of historians and archaeologists. It is reasonable to offer multiple professional opinions concerning events that transpired several thousand years ago and are naturally shrouded in uncertainty. Neherz123 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are valid, but even if you were 100% right, you still wouldn't have the right to edit war. Please wait for a consensus in the discussion before adding anything. Jeppiz (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Agreed. Let me therefore add some insight to support that the Exodus is not fiction. The following is an excerpt from an interview with Richard Elliott Friedman, who holds a Th.D from Harvard, is the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, and was a visiting fellow at Cambridge and Oxford and a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem :


 * Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence. They assert that we’ve combed the Sinai and not found any evidence of the mass of millions of people whom the Bible says were there for 40 years. That assertion is just not true. There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai, and we most certainly have not combed it. Moreover, uncovering objects buried 3,200 years ago is a daunting endeavor. An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand. Fifty-two feet in 40 years!


 * Still, all of us would admit that two million people—603,550 males and their families, as the Torah describes—should have left some remnants that we would find. But few of us ever thought that this number was historical anyway. Someone calculated long ago that if that number of people were marching, say, eight across, then when the first ones arrived at Sinai, half of the people would still be in Egypt!


 * There is no archaeological evidence against the historicity of an exodus if it was a smaller group who left Egypt. Indeed, significantly, the first biblical mention of the Exodus, the Song of Miriam, which is the oldest text in the Bible, never mentions how many people were involved in the Exodus, and it never speaks of the whole nation of Israel. It just refers to a people, an am, leaving Egypt. Neherz123 (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Neherz, the place to start working is not the lead. but the body of the article.  Please read WP:LEAD - it just summarizes what is in the body.  So perhaps start there. Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * So, let's assume that 600 slaves have flown from Egypt, instead of 600,000. Would that event still be called the Exodus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that Neherz's reverted edit had three prongs:
 * He deleted the characterisation of the exodus as a founding myth and replaced that with a description of it as "the biblical account of the origins" of Israel. The description of the exodus as Israel's charter myth/foundation myth is sourced and is very well established in critical literature. ("Critical" meaning biblical scholarship).
 * At various points he's amended references to "most" archaeologists and to the scholarly consensus to make "some" archaeologists and to make it seem that the consensus is weak. To do this he's ignored the wording in the sources.
 * Since those two points are sourced his edits there can't stand. The third point is more securely based, as he cites a reliable source (Beitak 1986) to the effect that "the physical evidence of Asiatic peoples at Rowaty (later named Rameses) as early as the mid 19th century BC correlates well with the biblical narrative." This seems well-founded at first glance, but in fact there were no Israelites in the 19th century BC - Israel only emerges in the very late 13th century. Beitak, in short, represents a maverick opinion, as for that matter does Friedman.

I'll go a little further into what Friedman says. Neherz, you should first read carefully what the article says. It doers not say that nothing whatsoever happened - it recognises (or rather, quotes scholars who recognise) that Asiatic peoples were forever moving into and out of Egypt. Such movements have been going on for millennia. They are the exodus, which is a literary narrative. To say that that narrative is realistic is one thing, but to say that it's history is quite another. PiCo (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * "Those archaeologists’ claims that the Exodus never happened are not based on evidence, but largely on its absence." Well of course - the many millions of Israelites and their animals would have left traces (campfires for a start), and there are none.
 * "There have not been many major excavations in the Sinai." Not true. After the 1967 war, when Israel captured Sinai, a massive survey of the Sinai was carried out, and nothing was found.
 * "An Israeli colleague laughingly told me that a vehicle that had been lost in the 1973 Yom Kippur War was recently uncovered under 16 meters—that’s 52 feet—of sand." Friedman is apparently unaware that the Sinai desert is largely rock and gravel.
 * "There is no archaeological evidence against the historicity of an exodus if it was a smaller group who left Egypt." True, but that's not what the bible is describing. Our article is about a literary narrative, the one in Exodus-Numbers, not a hypothetical alternative.
 * "the Song of Miriam, which is the oldest text in the Bible, never mentions how many people were involved in the Exodus, and it never speaks of the whole nation of Israel. It just refers to a people, an am, leaving Egypt." True again, but again that's not the story in Exodus.

(Note on Neherz's sources: He cites two books by Beitak, but simply as "Bietak 1986: 237; 1991b: 32". What he's actually using for his source is a website called christiananswers.net - christiananswers in turn cites these two books in full, as Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta (London: The British Academy, 1986)", and Egypt and Canaan During the Middle Bronze Age (Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 281). Neither is available online, unfortunately. Neherz, it would be helpful if you could include your online sources.


 * We should expect editors to use sources directly - especially when they are using a very non-academic source which may have its own spin on the original search. Claiming to cite Bietak when you haven't read him is unacceptable. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller is right that I did not confirm the Beitak source, and I apologize. Secondary sources may be misleading. That's why I changed the wording in the later edit to "Historians have uncovered the physical evidence of Asiatic peoples at Rowaty (later named Rameses) as early as the mid 19th century BC [5]. Without identifying inscriptions, it is difficult to know if the earlier people were Israelites". Probably better phrasing would be "...it is difficult to know if the earlier people were to become Israelites", given that the demonym would have emerged later, as PiCo reminds us.

Regarding the change to "founding myth": I undid that change as well in the second edit and explained why I had changed it to "the biblical account of the origins". I wanted to highlight that the Wikipedia page, "The Exodus", pertains to the historical placement of the events described in The Book of Ester. It isn't immediately clear that there is a separate page referring to the biblical retelling.

The change of "most archaeologists" to "some archaeologists" is reasonable considering, for one, what Friedman has to say. Friedman's credentials have been well-established: has a Th.D from Harvard, is an Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego, and was a visiting fellow at Cambridge and Oxford and a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. Furthermore, I think PiCo unfairly diminishes Friedman's credentials, in addition to Beitak's. He merely states "Beitak, in short, represents a maverick opinion, as for that matter does Friedman", without much backing. What makes the other scholars more reliable?

PiCo's strategy is clear. He tries to undermine Friedman's credentials at the onset so that he could lethargically pluck away at Friedman's argument without supplying references. PiCo suggests that since the Sinai is difficult to excavate because it is largely rock and gravel, any evidence of The Exodus would be already exposed. This ignores thousands of years of weathering, in addition to the fact that the second principal region of the Sinai and two-thirds of the total land area is characterized in part by broad western and northern coastal plains that have extensive sand dunes.

PiCo dismisses the argument that The Exodus may represent a smaller population by stating "that's not what the bible is describing. Our article is about a literary narrative, the one in Exodus-Numbers, not a hypothetical alternative." If we've decided to refer to The Exodus as a literary narrative, then it is only fair to assume that The Exodus is subject to literary devices, including metaphors, foreshadowing and especially hyperbole, like many other literary narratives. Would you read Ulysses at face value? As such, it is fair and necessary to include the analysis of Friedman and other scholars who suggest The Exodus population was lower.

If, on the other hand, we've decided to refer to The Exodus as a "biblical" (divinely inspired) narrative, it becomes subject to all the norms of biblical writing. These again include, metaphors, foreshadowing, and hyperbole. Most critiques of the written Torah outright fail to consider the Oral Torah, which represents those laws and textual interpretations that were not recorded in the Five Books of Moses. The Oral Torah was passed down orally in an unbroken chain until its contents were finally committed to writing in 70 CE, when Jewish civilization was faced with an existential threat. The Mishnah, one such oral repository, contains tons of examples of alternate textual interpretations.

It is a major blunder to analyze a part of the bible in isolation, especially when numerous other sections, such as The Song of Miriam, and accompanying texts, such as the Mishnah, shed light on murky descriptions. Either way we look at it, PiCo's outright dismissal of incorporating Friedman's suggestion that The Exodus actually refers to a smaller population is unjust. A fuller analysis of his position should be included in The Exodus Wikipedia page.Neherz123 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Look, we don't care one bit what PiCo says about the Exodus or what you say about the Exodus. The only thing we care about are what established, respectable sources say about it. If you cannot put forward sources meeting the requirements in WP:RS, then this discussion is going nowhere and could be removed as per WP:SOAP. We're not here to argue our own thoughts.Jeppiz (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to reach a consensus through discussion as mandated in WP:CON, and this discussion cannot be removed before dispute resolution as per [WP:DR]. Unless someone provides strong evidence against Friedman's assertions, I will commit to incorporate his opinion in the article, and reword the summary appropriately to reflect consensus.Neherz123 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC) "Neherz don't get so confrontational and wikilawyer-y. You are just getting started here. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Neherz, Friedman is simply wrong to say that there hasn't been any archaeological investigation of the Sinai. The Israelites are supposed to have stayed at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years, and 2 or 3 million people and their animals would leave quite a record in that time in one small space, but when Israeli archaeologists investigated they found nothing. (See, for example, William Dever). Friedman should have known that. Perhaps he's been misreported, I don't know, but the statement is factually incorrect as it stands. See also (and read in full) this section from Megan Moore and Brad Kelle's 2011 review of the current state of biblical scholarship regarding the historicity of the exodus story. (They say that "no clear extra-biblical evidence" - meaning archaeological evidence - exists for the Egyptian captivity, the exodus, or the wilderness wanderings).


 * I don't know what Friedman was trying to say in that interview, but when I read it I can't see that he's arguing that the exodus story is historical. He says that archaeologists who deny its historical validity do so on the basis of what hasn't been found. Of course they do - if 2 million people camp at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years they'll leave campfires, cattle corrals, rubbish pits. There's nothing there. That's evidence that there were no people there. Friedman is right about the negative nature of the evidence, but it's evidence. (As I noted above, he's wrong to say nobody has investigated.) In the last two paras Friedman seems to say that a much smaller number of people could have left Egypt. Of course they could, but that's a different story, not the one in Exodus, and a hypothesis for which there's just one single piece of rather circumstantial evidence. (The evidence is the apparent fact that several of the Levites in Exodus have Egyptian names, or seem to). So to sum up, Friedman doesn't seem to me to be arguing that the exodus was historical, but that something historical may have lain behind it - but our article already says that.PiCo (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if we won't use Friedman directly, then I would like to move up a section on the historicity to the summary page. It comes directly from a reference you just quoted above. This passage emphasizes the (1) uncertainty of recoverability, and (2) ongoing investigation. I still think the page has a lot of gaps. For example, the Chronology section seems lacking. Neherz123 (talk) 14:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * (Neherz123's edit is this para, inserted as the new 2nd para in the lead: "Most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about the Exodus recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence.[3] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historicity of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention." The figure 3 is a citation to Moore/Kelle, which is in the bibliography).


 * I'm happy with the sentence based on Moore/Kelle, but the second sentence was intended simply as an intro to the section on historicity and could be misleading - it means that lay-people take a continuing interest in the question of historicity, and isn't meant to imply that scholars do. I'd take out the "Nevertheless" and merge it with the following para, to read something like :"The discussion of the historicity of the exodus has a long history and continues to attract attention, but the archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus..." etc. PiCo (talk) 06:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Friedman interview was just last year, and he's a scholar. That's one non-layman who is still interested. There's also another source that came out in 2010, which talks about how 600,000 may refer to a different sum. Also this article,, was published in March 2015 by Professor of Bible at Bar-Ilan University. The article is called: "The Exodus: Many are sure that one of Judaism’s central events never happened. Evidence, some published here for the first time, suggests otherwise." None of these discussions are present in the current Wikipedia article.

I'm sure we all know that history is filled with cases where the majority got it wrong. Take Einstein's General Theory which completely contradicted the majority of scientific opinion bent on an ether-like medium to explain light propagation.Neherz123 (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Short note Could I just point out that regardless of whether Friedman is an authority or not, the website reformjudaism.org is not an WP:RS source for this topic and cannot be used. The same goes for mosaicmagazine.com. We need academic sources if we are to talk about the views of academics.Jeppiz (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Einstein's view in now the majority view (he wasn't a maverick). According to WP:BALL, Wikipedia does not speculate about scientific consensus at present time plus fifty or one hundred years, since there is no way to know it now. What we follow here is WP:RS/AC, that's the relevant policy. See e.g. . Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"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"

- Peter Enns


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Neherz123, we already cover all those points about the 600,000 number - see the second para of the section on numbers and logistics. It's true that we merely note them, but they're cited and sourced and it's not unreasonable to expect our readers to go further on their own - we're an encyclopedia, not a library.


 * I've now read Joshua Berman's article in Mosaic magazine, which I hadn't been aware of, and I thank you for the link. I'll say something that may surprise you: Berman's attempt to make the exodus historical is, I believe, ultimately atheistic. As told in the bible, the story of Israel's enslavement and escape and their meeting with the God of the Covenant is a story that places God and his greatness at its centre. If you take God out, as Berman is doing, what's left? A few things happened in Egypt that can be explained naturally but the silly ancient people thought their god was behind it, then a perfectly natural wind pushed back some marches and they escaped in a perfectly natural way and some silly people, much later, thought it had happened at the Red Sea. Then a bit later they came across an erupting volcano but, being silly ancient people, they thought it was god again. That's definitely not where Berman wants to go, I know, but it's the direction he's taking. PiCo (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The 600,000 Israeites number
I just added a sentence and a reference on this because I'd never come across the idea before, namely that an army of 600,000 Israelites would have nothing to fear from any enemy, Egyptian or Philistine. Quite true and obvious, but the sort of thing you just don't think of.

I was then browsing Hoffmeier (his book's in the bibliography) and came across his investigation of the number. It's quite even-handed (I have respect for Hoffmeier, but not for Kitchen - Hoffmeier always tries to look at every argument, Kitchen never does). One thing that struck me there was that Hoffmeier links the 600,000 number to a Sumerian base-6 counting system. He's slightly wrong, the Mesopotamian counting system was base-12, not base-6. (It works like this: using the thumb of your left hand, you count off the joints of the four fingers, which gives you 12; with the fingers of your right hand you count off groups of 12; this allows you to count to 60 on two hands - I saw this being done in Iraq in the 90s). Anyway, Hoffmeier is only slightly wrong, and it's possible that the use of 6, half of 12, points to a Mesopotamian locale for the originator of the Exodus story. I don't mean by that that he was a Bablyonian, but that he may have been a Jew living in Babylon, or who had lived in Babylon. Lemche has put this idea forward in a rather joking fashion, but there could be something to it. (See Hoffmeier's Ancient Israel in Sinai, page 157). PiCo (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

William Dever on proto-Israelites
"recent archaeological discoveries in Israel and the West Bank have shown that the majority of the proto-Israclitcs had probably never been in Egypt. They were displaced Canaanites who had fled the Late Bronze Age city-states and had colonized the sparsely settled hill country frontiers of central Palestine. There was no military conquest of Canaan, only a socioeconomic revolution. Furthermore, the emergence of early Israel must be placed not in the fifteenth century bc, but shortly before and after 1200 bc. Thus the Biblical story of the exodus and conquest of Canaan has little basis in fact. The Egyptian elements in the Biblical story—the Joseph saga, a few Egyptian names like Moses, references to the “store cities of Pithom and Ramesses” in the Delta—can all be shown to be literary devices. They are most easily accounted for in the Saitc Dynasty (26th Dynasty) or Persian period (27th—31st Dynasties), precisely when the Biblical tradition was being edited into its final form. In summary, the patriarchal and exodus/ conquest narratives in the Bible may rest on genuine oral traditions, or even on distant memories of a few actual historical events, of the Hyksos and Ramesside (19th 20th Dynasties) eras. Later tradition, however, has set Israelite prehistory into a supposed Egyptian context that greatly exaggerates any real role that Egypt could have played in the formulation of the Israelite people and state."Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"The revelations at Sinai"
Jytdog reverted my reversion of ... it gets a bit complicated. Anyway, the point is that the phrase "revelations at Sinai", as a description of part of the contents of the Exodus story, has been piped to the article on the Ten Commandments, and I reverted it because I say the revelations relate to more than that. They revelations do include the Commandments, but they include more.

This phrase is in the second sentence in the lead, and is intended to outline the Exodus story: "It (the exodus) tells of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan." The source, as noted, is page 59 of Carol Redmount's 1998 contribution to the Oxford History of the Biblical World, "Bitter Lives: Israel In And Out of Egypt". (The link opens to page 58).

Note first that Redmount uses the plural - "revelations", not "revelation". Why she does this becomes clear as you read the chapter. On page 60 she describes what happens at Sinai: So there are at least three revelations at Sinai, YHWH's revelation of his own self (his glory and his strength to stand beside his people); his laws (two codes, not just one); and his earthly dwelling prior to the Temple.
 * 1) God appears to all Israel (a theophany, or revelation of the god to his worshipers - always an important event in the bible)
 * 2) God hands down two law-codes to the Israelites, one being the Ten Commandments, the other the Covenant Code (Christians aren't even aware this exists!)
 * 3) God reveals the specifications for the Tabernacle, where he will dwell with Israel (later comes the Temple, but for many centuries the Tabernacle is where God manifests his strength to his people).

This is why Redmount says "revelations", and, in my modest way, I'd like to shake Bible-believeing Christians up so that they actually read the bloody book!PiCo (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, The motivation to "shake people up" is not what we do here.  With regard to what the Exodus story says happened there, you are (as usual) accurate.  This is easy to fix by having the lead say something like ""It (the exodus) tells of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai including the Ten Commandments, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan."  Does that work for everybody? Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Works for me :) PiCo (talk) 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection on my part.--Jaconiah 74 (talk) 03:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing that I think is a significant issue, here, is that the body of the article does not even mention the ten commandments, let alone give much of a inkling of the other revelations. Thus, in those respects, with the lead mentioning both the ten commandments and other revelations, we have an inconsistency between the lead and the body of the article. This, I think, needs to be fixed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Taking the exodus story, rather than just the Book of Exodus, the ten commandments aren't all that significant. The really central element is the Book of Leviticus and the law-code of Deuteronomy, which between them set out the commandments for holiness and the laws for living as part of the holy community of Israel. PiCo (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * PiCo, Well, obviously, not everyone sees it exactly that way, but my main point is that you listed a number of revelations, and you wanted them to be mentioned in the lead. I actually like the lead, as it is now, but the lead must be consistent with the body of the article. That is a problem that needs to be addressed. Perhaps you can add a paragraph on this subject?
 * I don't want them listed in the lead, it would be too much detail. I was happy to just to mention "revelations at Sinai", it was others who wanted to specify what the revelations are. The details should go in the body. But the whole thing comes from sources, not from me - so long as there are sources, anyone is welcome to edit.PiCo (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)