Talk:Book of Exodus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit war

@Fajkfnjsak: Are you Fretheim? Then what do you change the abstract of what Fretheim stated? Do you think that the WP:CITEd WP:RS does not WP:Verify the claim? Then say so, instead of going into wild tangents about objectivity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Wikipedia is not a record of anyone's interpretation of purpose of religious text, Fretheim or anyone else. The article should remain neutral. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia, presents educational information about Exodus, from Freithem or otherwise. The rest of that sentence is an analysis of Exodus from Fretheim. But "the purpose" is a subjective personal religious experience. Fretheim's personal belief about what he thinks the purpose is should not be included as it is not an academic analysis. The way I phrased it and the citations I include present a neutral academic view.

I cannot find this in our WP:RULES: avoid the word "purpose" although Fretheim clearly states that the Book of Exodus "is not socially or historically disinterested". Your view of WP:NPOV has been called "the view from nowhere". Also, for a newbie to lecture a 16+ editor about WP:RULES is strange. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

not "avoid the word purpose", avoid proselytizing a given personal belief about what the purpose is of a religious text. You brought up, WP:NPOV. Describing ones' subjective opinion of the purpose of a religious text is not a neutral viewpoint. (i.e. some people subjectively view the purpose as communicating literal truth). Stating Frethiem's religious beliefs (i.e. what is the purpose of the religious text), is not a NPOV. I broke up the sentence and included citations to make it neutral and academic. I left in the neutral, academic, analytical part of Fretheim's work.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Not having the word purposes leaves the sentence saying that it reflects the experience of the exile, which suggests it's a historical record. @Fajkfnjsak: you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for this. Doug Weller talk 05:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: okay, shouldn't we at least put quotes and attribute it to Freheim, so that wikipedias voice isn't saying the purpose? Its then clear the Freheim is giving his opinion of what the purpose is? Also, what does it mean to say I don't have WP:consensus? Does that mean you are making the final decision? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we can quote and attribute if the quote is short enough. Not quite, it means that at the moment you don't have enough support and as I said in any case it would be a violation of NPOV. Please don't use carriage return without adding more colons to stay at the same indent. Doug Weller talk 05:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Can I edit the sentence from:

Its purpose is not to...but to...

to

In Exodus: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching, Terrence Fretheim argues that the purpose of the Book of Exodus is not to...but to...

or

In his commentary book Exodus, Terrence Fretheim argues that the purpose of the Book of Exodus is not to...but to...

So that Wikipedia's voice is not stating the purpose. This modification will make it clear that this is Fretheim's commentary.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: Which of your WP:SOURCES say that this information would be controversial in mainstream Bible scholarship? We only attribute stuff when needed, see WP:YESPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Hi Tgeorgescu, I never said it was controversial. The book by Fretheim has the words "interpretation" and "commentary" in the title. This is not research in biblical scholarship, i.e. the "purpose" of a religious text is not research nor NPOV. Stating the purpose with Wikpedia's voice would imply the opposite.

I am making it NPOV as @Doug Weller: did by avoiding Wikipedia's voice claiming that the Book of Exouds "reflects the story..." which is too close to saying it is a historical record. If Wikipedia's voice is used to state "the purpose" of the Book of Exodus it is stating that the purpose of a religious text is somehow fact, which is not NPOV at all. The link you listed: WP:YESPOV has a section "Avoid stating opinions as facts":

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.""

The purpose of a religious text is a subjective opinion. The content and analysis of the text is NPOV. As is stated on NPOV link page you posted, WIkipedia's voice should not be used to state opinions like Fretheim's about what he views the purpose of the Book of Exodus to be. "Rather, they should be attributed to the text to particular sources...". This is what my 2 options listed above will do.

Fajkfnjsak (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was not very clear before: you are ill-advised to lecture us about WP:NPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"us", I was talking to you about it.this is where you told me to come to discuss this with you. And yet you keep saying I shouldn't "lecture" you about it. I just brought in the text from the link you sent me. I think it supports the 2 versions I gave, which attribute Fretheim's opinion to Fretheim, instead of using Wikipedia's voice. You already told me that you've been editing for a long time, but the condescension is not appreciated. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean: I have seen how WP:NPOV works in practice, in full detail. When from Ivy Plus to state universities all professors toe the line, we don't render it with attribution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I get it, you've edited a long time. we don't render "it" with attribution. If by "it" you mean a fact then yes. If "it" is a subjective opinion like that of "the purpose" of a religious text, then it should not be presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice according to WP:NPOV

I posted the text from the WP:NPOV link you sent. It states that "...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice...they should be attributed in the text to particular sources... or where justified, as "widespread views".

"The purpose" of a religious text is an opinion. Research does not state "the purpose" of a religious text as a fact. Research presents content and analysis. As @Doug Weller: pointed out, "it reflects a story..." is not NPOV and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. NPOV requires attributing opinions and not using Wikipedia's voice for them. You tell me not to talk about WP:NPOV since you've been here longer, but you keep sending it to me as your reasoning why the sentence does not need to be adjusted. I gave 2 versions of the sentence, that work better according to the rules listed on the WP:NPOV link. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You have failed to show that his analysis would be controversial (except for the WP:FRINGE scholars), therefore I see no WP:NPOV violation. The fringe will always disagree with WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholarship. If in any US state university you're going to hear taught a similar opinion, there is no need of attribution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states, that it should say "widespread views". So how about this? @Tgeorgescu:

It is the widespread view of biblical scholars that the Book of Exodus does not record what really happened, but instead tells the story of the exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem, facing foreign captivity and the need to come to terms with their understanding of God.

My issue with the sentence is that it uses wikipedia's voice to say "the purpose". Which is very vague and subjective. It should instead state the analysis in a clear neutral way, like above.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If it's not disputed by the WP:MAINSTREAM there is no need of attribution, you misunderstand WP:NPOV in this respect. Otherwise we could not stop attributing facts to those who have stated them, and all articles would look like a mess. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Does this work? @Tgeorgescu:

The Book of Exodus does not record what really happened, but instead tells the story of the exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem, facing foreign captivity and the need to come to terms with their understanding of God.

Otherwise what is the difference between, "the purpose is not to tell the history" and "the story is not historically accurate". It seems like "the purpose" is subjective, which is why it is in Fretheim's personal book and not a research paper.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Some academic fields prefer books to papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

papers have peer review whereas books do not. why would an academic field prefer books to paper? Which field does? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Books and peer-review aren't mutually exclusive. I don't know which those fields are, but I know that some do that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You said some academic fields prefer books to papers. Which academic fields prefer books to papers? Do you know of a book that is peer reviewed? Papers are peer reviewed, which is why they are preferred by every academic field I have ever heard of.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

E.g., there are books consisting of papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

lol, so papers are preferred, wherever they are

If you don't want to list an academic field, can you instead address the other stuff I wrote a few comments back? The alternative way to phrase the sentence. ThanksFajkfnjsak (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, another example: during my study at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Zygmunt Bauman's Liquid Modernity trumped lots of papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not an academic field, nor a response to my alternative sentence. There is no doubt that good ideas can come from books. However, its reasonable to say that academic fields universally prefer papers, largely due to peer review. Still waiting on that alternative sentence response thanks. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll let others answer that question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay thanks anyways.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@A. Parrot:what if I changed it to:

...but instead tells a story about an exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem, facing foreign captivity and the need to come to terms with their understanding of God.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why so much effort to change a tiny phrase? Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My problem is that Exodus doesn't "tell a story about an exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem", because it's not talking about an exile community in Babylon or Jerusalem! The Babylonian captivity influenced the way the Exodus story developed, but the text is about captivity in Egypt. Wording it this way is likely to confuse lay readers, most of whom aren't familiar with the way the Bible projects the agendas of the eras in which it was written onto the eras it purports to describe. And I'm not just talking about literalists; most people, religious or not, don't realize that this is what the Bible does because they've never looked at the academic work that studies all that. There has to be a concise way of clarifying that the book purports to be about Egypt but is shaped by the anxieties of the exilic period. A. Parrot (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I find the topic interesting. No need to watch the page if you're not interested. @Tgeorgescu:Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting points A. Parrot, thanks for the info. I'll keep looking into it.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think Tel Aviv University and the New York Times are not reliable sources? @PiCo: . Why did you remove all the sources about the lack of any historical evidence?Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does it keep making my edits Tag:visual edit? I'm not clicking "minor edit".Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I deleted Tel Aviv University and the NYT as sources because in articles on subjects relating to the bible (books of, incidents from, etc) the sources we use are books and articles by relevant scholars - Tel Aviv Uni and the NYT are institutions, not people.If you want to add a line about the lack of support for the exodus narrative I suggest you look at the article the exodus, and perhaps specifically the Moore and Kelle book in the bibliography there - or in this article, the Finkelstein and Silberman book. If you want to go down that road, you need to mention only that the exodus is not mentioned by any supposedly contemporary sources nor has any archaeological evidence been found (see the most recent book by Dever, published in 2017, I believe). PiCo (talk) 09:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @PiCo:. I added in the academic sources you requested and a single sentence summarizing the info from them.Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Fair point. Can I make a section summarizing the academic view on the lack of historicity? Then add that sentence back in to the lead?Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please forget about the lead for now. We are here to improve the article, not to make points in the lead. It may well be possible to add some text to the article based on the sources you used, provided the sources (which I have not yet examined) are good and the conclusions are WP:DUE. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Use of the word "myth" in referring to the Book of Exodus

As you can see, the Exodus article, as it is currently written, takes a non-neutral view of the book by using the word "myth" to describe it. While certainly many scholars may hold to that view, there are also many who find that term pejorative. Would not a more neutral term be "story"? The current lead sentence reads as follows: "The Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah and the Old Testament, tells the founding myth of the Israelites delivery from slavery in Egypt through the hand of Yahweh their god, their encounter with God on the holy mountain (biblical Mount Sinai), and the "divine indwelling" of God with Israel which follows.[1]"

With this change the beginning sentence would read: "The Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah and Old Testament, tells the story of the Israelites delivery from slavery in Egypt through the hand of Yahweh their god, their encounter with God on the holy mountain (biblical Mount Sinai), and the "divine indwelling" of God with Israel which follows.[1]

I also propose that the word "delivery" be changed to "deliverance." Delivery is something that a mailman does, deliverance is to be set free. Also the word "Israelites" is possessive, and should have an apostrophe at the end of the word.

I also propose eliminating the phrase "through the hand of Yahweh their god" as redundant to the following phrase "their encounter with God".

Also, the phrase "the holy mountain, biblical" I propose should be eliminated so that it reads simply "Mount Sinai", since to call it a holy mountain is a value judgment.

Lastly, I propose replacing the phrase "Old Testament" with the word "Bible" as that is more recognizable to the majority of readers, some of whom may not know that the Bible is composed of two parts.

With these changes the beginning sentence would read: "The Book of Exodus, the second book of the Torah and the Bible, tells the story of the Israelites' deliverance from slavery in Egypt, their encounter with God on Mount Sinai, and the "divine indwelling" of God with Israel which follows.[1]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerbyrials (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC) 

The article uses the scholarly meaning of "myth", which is "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events". That's why it links to founding myth. I think you are correct about "deliverance". Zero^talk 19:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed "Old Testament" to "Bible" as that seems uncontroversial. Also "deliverance" and the apostrophe s. As far as "myth", that is part of the phrase "founding myth", which phrase tells us something important about the book, which is lost by telling us that it is merely a "story". TomS TDotO (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

We need to avoid statements such as "their encounter with God", at least in the current context, which seems to have Wikipedia stating it as fact. We should also use "Yahweh" IMHO as more accurate. Doug Weller talk 20:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If the author of Exodus had meant to say that the Israelites had encountered God he would have used the word "Elohim", which is the Hebrew equivalent. He used "Yahweh" instead, which is the name of a specific god, the god of Israel (as opposed to the gods of various other peoples, whose real existence he accepted).124.171.77.89 (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure these say it is not a myth, after all myth just means "a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.", you would need a source explicitly challenging its as a myth.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

myth:

"a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events."

"a widely held but false belief or idea."

the sources are very clear in identifying the Exodus as myth. They explain the lack of any evidence for it, the evidence/logic against it, which is why they call it a myth. the sources clearly state that there is consensus on this Fajkfnjsak (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

John Bright

@Springnuts: Bright was a great name, but that source is almost 50 years old. Many things there were then taken for granted are no longer done so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

What are we doing with this: Mass Exodus. Redirect, merge or separate article?

The instance in which a large group of people, animals, or objects attempt to leave, evacutate or move to a different location.

• Some famous exodus include the jewish exodus from Egypt to the promised lands.

• Refugees ussally partake in exodus from troubled lands.

It’s not an exodus unless it’s a mass exodus.

Redirect, merdge or seperate article?

Che!

Book of Exodus

Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.

Leave as is

Because of its controversy there is a lot of scope for expanding it, so I believe it should not be merged.

Lead image

@Wallyfromdilbert: what do you consider would be an appropriate lead image for this article? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Onceinawhile, given the picture for the Tanakh box, I think a map or another text-based image is not going to look good at the top. The page now also has a lot of images and looks cluttered, but what if one of the pictures below was moved up, such as Departure of the Israelites or Crossing of the Red Sea? The rest of the images could then be rearranged to replace one of those below. What do you think? – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wally, I am happy with your suggestions. I agree with you that it can not look great all with too many pictures at the top: see Book of Genesis. What I do feel is that these book-of-the-bible topics have so many powerful and historically important possible illustrations, it would be a shame not to use them at the top. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bible After Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age

Here is the statement from the Wikipedia article that I want to remove: The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the Exodus story is best understood as a myth and does not accurately describe historical events.

Here is what WP:RS/AC says, A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Here is the quote from the book: There is then a remarkable consensus, to which all but conservative apologists such as Kitchen and Provan would subscribe, that the foundation stories of exodus and conquest are best understood as myths.

Collins does not say “most scholars”. According to WP:RS/AC, he has to say “most scholars”. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and it needs to be removed. Could someone other than Tgeorgescu or Ermenrich please join in this discussion? Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think the statement in the article could be better written, but the underlying factual claim is accurately representing the cited quote. The specific words "most scholars" is not a requirement, and the phrase "all but conservative apologists" is functionally equivalent to "the overwhelming consensus among scholars". I would suggest finding some additional sources that may provide a more well-rounded view and suggest an alternative wording, and see what feedback you get on it. If your intent is to challenge the underlying fact from the quoted book, I don't think that is going to be successful given the phrasing "all but conservative apologists". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC: "directly says that most scholars hold that view." I agree that the author doesn't have to use the exact words "most scholars", but he needs to say something equivalent. Collins says there is a consensus, but that's as far as the claim goes. Collins was only referring to the people whom he discussed in the book, not the entire scholarly community. Jgriffy98 (talk) 05:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

At [1] there is a report upon Hoffmeier's speech during the 'Archeology and the Bible' conference at University of Liverpool, stating that Hoffmeier (among other speakers) tried to show that the scholarly consensus upon the historicity of the Exodus must be false. Well, that's and oblique way of admitting that there is a scholarly consensus and that Hoffmeier disagrees with the scholarly consensus. Q.e.d. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A year before that, Kitchen was there, arguing that the scholarly consensus must be false. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. To sum up: you're clutching at straws, you seem pretty desperate to deny the secret of Polichinelle. Source archived at [2].

Quotes about the nature of Wikipedias stance on evidence

We're following Wikipedia's guidelines as close as we can here. The root of the complaint (although the complainers may not understand it) is that Wikipedia is heavily mainstream-science based. Since homeopathy is so widely rejected by the mainstream, there is really no chance that it's going to be treated in the way the proponents wish. Like most of these kinds of debate, it all comes down to "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia". We don't have to apologize for taking the mainstream science view...that's what Wikipedia is. The simple answer for people who don't like our rules is to set up their own encyclopedia with the rules they like...and indeed, there are several efforts to do exactly that out on the Internet. The problem with that is that the pro-fringe folks realize that these other encyclopedias are getting very little readership...so they want to put their views into Wikipedia, where they'll be seen more widely. What they don't get is that the reason that Wikipedia is the fifth (or so) most popular site on the Internet is precisely because we have the rules and values that we do. In effect, the public has voted for Wikipedia and against encyclopedias with different rules...and that's why we shouldn't change our rules...and if the rules don't change - then we're not going to change this article to be more friendly to the Homeopathists. SteveBaker (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC) So opinions on homeopathy, no matter how firmly held are not facts. So even if the entire population of India has the opinion that Homeopathy works, it's not a fact until it's been tested using mainstream science. That test has been done, many times, and homeopathy fails that test. So, the opinion of those people cannot be described as fact, no matter how numerous they are - no matter how firmly held that belief is. We can say "Lots of people in India use homeopathy" (assuming that's a fact for which we have reliable sources) - but we cannot use that enormous weight of opinion to counterbalance the smallest degree an actual fact. That would NOT be "neutral". User:Cla68 needs to actually read the WP:NPOV guidelines...not just guess at what "neutral point of view" might mean. We're not talking about the normal English language usage of that phrase - we're talking specifically about what Wikipedia takes to mean by that phrase in this context. Again...there is zero chance of this article saying what you want it to say. For that to happen you'd either have to overturn a major Wikipedia guideline - which has been affirmed by the 'supreme court' of Wikipedia ("ArbCom")...or you'd have to somehow find a mountain of mainstream science that definitively shows that not only says that Homeopathy works but which also meets the WP:MEDRS standard. Since neither of those things are remotely likely - this article will continue to say pretty much what it says right now. You're truly wasting your breath trying to change it. Wikipedia's rules are quite deliberately set up to make sure that articles like this don't say that nonsense ideas like Homeopathy are anything other than the junk that they truly are...the rules are heavily weighted against you - and we make no apologies for that. We're an encyclopaedia. SteveBaker (talk) 04:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. See also WP:Wikilawyering. The germane point: your POV is not supported by the bulk of recent WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, so it is germane to your edits that the rules are heavily weighted against you - and we make no apologies for that. We're an encyclopaedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(Since I was quoted here - I get to chime in!) In my view, we should indeed change "The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the Exodus story is best understood as a myth and does not accurately describe historical events." - but what I'd strongly recommend (and in line with my comments above) - it should read "The Exodus story is a myth that does not describe historical events." - evidently, we can find plenty of scholarly/scientific references that say that and which contain proof that this statement is true - so presumably, this is a referenceable fact.

There is no need to soften the message to support the millions of people who believe (without evidence) otherwise. Now, if there is sufficient hard evidence out there to prove that it is not a myth - then perhaps we need a section someplace that summarizes the minority countervailing viewpoint - but this would need to be actual hard evidence...not just bible stories and people interpreting bible stories. It would need archeological proof.

It doesn't matter if the whole of christianity believes it - just one scientific paper with evidence that they are incorrect overturns that mountain of belief. That's why Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that's backed by science...and if you don't like that - go make your own encyclopedia.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

SteveBaker, The reason for the current wording is that a majority of scholars believe that the Exodus has some historical basis, i.e. it is not a myth in the popular sense. Cf. Kenton Sparks (bibliographic info at The Exodus

I should point out that the use of "myth to describe Exodus is potentially confusing. Scholars often use the term as shorthard for "stories about the gods," but it is sometimes used - as it is here - to refer to any story that serves a foundational role in society. Also, though it is true that "myth" nearly always implies "invented" in the fictional sense, this does not mean that the Exodus story reflects no history. Most scholars would concede that the Exodus tradition reflects genuine history in some form or fashion, so one might speak here of "mythologized history."

Your proposed edit is therefore not reflective of the position of the scholarly comunity.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, people interpreting Bible stories (aka historical criticism or "the Wellhausen school") were way ahead of archaeologists, and archaeology later confirmed their basic outline. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Scholarly Consensus Claim

In the "Historicity" section of the article, the first sentence claims that, “The overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the Exodus story is best understood as a myth and does not accurately describe historical events.” I take issue with that claim, because the source being cited does not exactly make that claim. I think the statement should be removed from the Wiki article, and I'll explain why.

To make such as statement based on what Collins wrote in his book is an overexaggeration of what he actually meant. Collins was not stating that “most scholars” doubt the historicity of the Exodus. The exact quote being used from the book to justify the claim is on Page 46, where Collins states the following: “There is then a remarkable consensus, to which all but conservative apologists such as Kitchen and Provan would subscribe, that the foundation stories of exodus and conquest are best understood as myths.”

First off, the word “overwhelming” is absent from the quote. The difference between "remarkable" and "overwhelming" might seem trivial, but it's a distinction that should be made.

Secondly, the word “scholar” is also absent from the quote. When Collins was talking about a “consensus”, he was only referencing a handful of scholars, whom he discusses on Page(s) 43-46. In other words, he was stating that there is a consensus among the people mentioned in his book. He never claimed there was a consensus among the entire scholarly community. Even if that was the intended meaning of what he wrote, there's no way he could possibly know that for sure. There are hundreds of thousands of historians, archeologists, and Egyptologists who have studied the Exodus story, and Collins only cites a handful of scholars in his claim of "consensus". Collins was not speaking for the entire scholarly community. I do not believe that was his intention. Jgriffy98 (talk) 07:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:RS/AC and WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You're incorrect when you say Collins does not mean to summarize the consensus of all scholars. That is obviously his intention, Tgeorgescu is right, you should review WP:RS/AC. You don't have to specifically cite every single scholar. Additionally, Colins specificially says that "all but the most conservative apologists" meaning that most scholars believe that the Exodus is best understood as a myth. As for "remarkable" vs. "overwhelming" that appears to be a distinction without a difference: we are paraphrasing, not quoting.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Ermenric. You're the one who's incorrect here. I can definitely see other ways of interpreting the quote from the book. He cites a handful of scholars and says there is a consensus among them. He never said "the entire scholarly community", nor did he even use the word "scholar". What if he was just referring to archeologists? Not all historians are archeologists, and archeology can only tell us so much about historical events. As for your "Tgeorgescu is right" statement; no, Tgeorgescu is not right. I've already read through the guidelines he sent me and they do not pertain to this discussion in any way. I am not promoting a fringe theory, and to say otherwise is ridiculous. I'm also well aware of the guidelines on "consensus". I don't like Wikipedia's standards for evidence, but it's something I've come to accept as an editor.

The main problem I see is the insistence on keeping the word "scholar". The word is a generalization, and it doesn't seem appropriate to use in the context of the quote. It's rather silly that everything is being phrased as "most scholars" when we're only talking about one specific field of academia. You can't just assert the word "scholar" if you don't even know what specific field Collins was referring to. Do I really need to list every discipline in the field of history to prove my point? Paraphrasing does not involve changing the definition of words. "Historian", for example, is not synonymous with "scholar".

I know Collins said, "all but the most conservative apologists". Notice how he didn't say "all but the most conservative scholars", "all but the most conservative Egyptologists", or "all but the most conservative archeologists"? If Collins was truly speaking for the entire scholarly community, which is made up of thousands of people from all different fields of academia, that would be a pretty absurd claim to say the least, especially since he only cited a handful of individuals. I know he doesn't have to get an opinion from every single scholar to make a claim like that, but using the opinions of a handful of people as evidence for the consensus of the entire community seems silly. That's why I don't think Collins was trying to do that in the first place. Jgriffy98 (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, we already have a note explaining the word myth. Bermicourt, you still haven't grasped that scholars agree that the story in the bible is a myth, not a historical record, and that if it has any basis in history it's very distant and very tenuous - not a single event, because the Israelites were never in Egypt (they emerged in Canaan from a Canaanite population), but more a distant and very confused "memory" of the Hyksos episode, which served as an element of the story written about 450 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.122 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The Exodus is a legend. It is quite likely inspired from one or more real events, but it nevertheless is a legend. It's like the historicity of King Arthur. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant comment, as usual. Thank you, Tgeorgescu. You added nothing to the discussion. Jgriffy98 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

You're playing a semantic game. The fact that he is referring to most scholars is made abundantly clear, academics do not quote every scholar in the field in order to establish consensus. You're being stubborn about something that is extremely clear in WP:RS/AC: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Collins states that. Wikipedia guidelines do not require him to specify anthropologists, Egyptologists, or any other specific group. He clearly states that "all but the most conversative apologists" hold this view.

Compare also Grabbe, 2017, p. 36 in the bibliography of The Exodus:

The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.

You're just not going to find any mainstream source that says that any large portion of scholars believes that the Exodus is not a myth.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I'm going to respond to your comments piece by piece, because there's a lot to unpack:

You're playing a semantic game. Yes, I am playing a semantic game. What's your point? Semantics (i.e. language and logic) are important.

The fact that he is referring to most scholars is made abundantly clear. No, it isn't. You have yet to explain to me why that is the case. "All but the most conservative apologists" is not synonymous with "the overwhelming majority of scholars".

Academics do not quote every scholar in the field in order to establish consensus. I already said that. I'm well aware that scholars are not obligated to do that, but Collins never claimed anything about the entire scholarly community. Jgriffy98 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You're being stubborn about something that is extremely clear in WP:RS/AC: A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Collins states that. No, Collins never stated that. Explain to me how you got that interpretation, instead of saying I don't understand WP:RS/AC (which I do). Jgriffy98 (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines do not require him to specify anthropologists, Egyptologists, or any other specific group. Wrong. It seems like you're the one who doesn't quite understand the guidelines. According to WP:RS/AC, the author must directly say that all or most scientists or scholars hold the same view. In other words, Collins has to directly say "most scholars" or something equivalent. Collins did not directly say that "the overwhelming consensus among scholars is that the Exodus is a myth." The author has to make a distinction between specific groups of people and the entire scholarly community. For example, "most archeologists" is not synonymous with "most scholars", because not all scholars are archeologists. Collins has to use the word "scholars". That word was falsely attributed to the quote, which is why it needs to be removed. There is no scholarly consensus on the Exodus, and that's okay.

You're just not going to find any mainstream source that says that any large portion of scholars believes that the Exodus is not a myth. I agree with that statement. The same also holds true for scholars who believe that the Exodus is in fact a myth. I'm not arguing whether or not the Exodus actually occurred. I'm simply arguing that there isn't a scholarly consensus on the matter.

The bottom line is this; Collins states that there is a consensus. He does not state that there is a consensus among most scholars. WP:RS/AC requires any claims of consensus to specify "all or most scholars". Simply using the word "consensus" does not automatically imply "most scholars". That's why the claim in the Wiki article needs to be removed. Jgriffy98 (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for your change and you appear to be POV pushing. You arent going to get anywhere posting mountains of text arguing over minor semantic details when the meaning of a statement is clear. --Ermenrich (talk)

I won't change it again without a consensus. I'm not POV pushing. I deleted it because it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:RS/AC. As for the "mountain of text", how about you actually read it and respond to it? If my posts are too long, I can shorten them. It's just one of my writing habits. Also, I ended my statement by saying "the bottom line is this", so you wouldn't have to read the entire mountain of text.

You clearly don't understand WP:RS/AC, and I hope other editors can see that. The claim violates the guidelines and needs to go. You continue to say that the statement in the book is clear, but that's not true. You have no argument, so you're just repeating yourself and making blanket statements without explanations. Just admit that you're wrong here. I already explained why the quote from the book is not clear. "You're being semantic" isn't a valid argument. "You're writing too many words" isn't an argument either. Now I'm getting pissed off. Use some logic, or get off this talk page. You're not even engaging in the discussion anymore. I spent all that time responding to your points sentence by sentence, and you respond to me like I'm just some trouble-maker trying to push an agenda. Jgriffy98 (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:Wikilawyering. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Another WP:RS: Meyers, Carol (1 March 2018). Coogan, Michael D.; Brettler, Marc Z.; Newsom, Carol A.; Perkins, Pheme (eds.). The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Fifth ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-19-027605-8. HISTORICAL CONTEXT The diverse materials in Exodus are situated within a story line describing the departure of a group of oppressed people from Egypt to a sacred mountain in Sinai where they enter into a covenant with the God they believed rescued them; then, at that God's direction, they construct a portable shrine for their deity before continuing their journey. The historicity of that story has been questioned, partly because the literary strands comprising Exodus date from many centuries after the events they purport to describe. The events themselves, which involve the escape of a component of Pharaoh's workforce, the disruption of Egyptian agriculture, and the loss of many Egyptian lives, are not mentioned in Egyptian sources (although the Egyptians would not necessarily record such events). Similarly, the larger-than-life leader Moses is not mentioned in contemporaneous nonbiblical sources; and no trace of a large group of people moving across the Sinai Peninsula has been found by archaeological surveys or excavations. In addition, features of the story—such as the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, the exceedingly large number of people said to have left Egypt (see 12.37n.), and the huge quantities of precious metals (e.g., ca. 2,482 pounds of gold; see 38.24) used to construct the tabernacle and other ritual objects—defy credibility. Virtually none of the places mentioned in Exodus, including the holy mountain, can be identified with sites discovered in Sinai or with names known from other sources (see 12.37n.; 19.1n.). Finally, the Exodus story culminates in the book of Joshua, with the conquest of the land of Israel; here too the archaeological record does not corroborate the main biblical narrative.

As someone noticed, the excrement of two million people for 38 years at Kadesh Barnea would have fertilized the whole desert (unless the angels of God teleported their excrement to another planet). Rivers of pee and poo would have been flowing through the desert, ultimately rendering it fertile. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

It is clear from reading this section that those supporting the wording in the article, and indeed the source itself, are motivated by their own activism and bias. The argument from ignorance (it can't be proven, therefore it didn't happen) is a logical fallacy, and is being used to justify the statements. The rules about academic consensus and reliable sources are clearly being violated. As well as Recentism. And probably several others. Very disappointing, but not surprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.242.66 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

As told before, we are biased for what WP:CHOPSY teach as historical truth. You have a problem with them not with us: change what they teach in order to change Wikipedia articles, not the other way around. As for getting rid of all that pee and poo, major architectonic works were needed, far surpassing the Second Temple, as restored by Herod. The peak number of soldiers of the Roman Empire: 450 thousands. The number of Hebrew soldiers during the Exodus: 600 thousands. So, who's making up stories? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@DLWyer: We kowtow to Ivy Plus, we don't kowtow to true believers, be them Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu. If you think that the history, religion and archaeology departments of Ivy Plus, Tel Aviv University and Bar Ilan University are actively preaching antisemitism, then you don't belong among us, if you insist admins will show you the door. E.g. it is highly unlikely that a full professor from BIU or TAU would tell his/her students that the Exodus really happened, precisely as reported in the Torah. The position that the Exodus happened as described in the Bible is WP:FRINGE/PS at Ivy Plus, it is WP:FRINGE/PS at BIU and TAU. And this is how every experienced Wikipedian knows that you have already lost this debate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge. StAnselm (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge The Exodus into Book of Exodus. I think that all the content should only be explained in the context of the one narrative in which it appears, and the Book of Exodus article is of a reasonable size that the merging of it will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. GPinkerton (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I didn't come across any mergerdiscussions in the archive's of either article (didn't look very close), so maybe it's time to have one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The book of Exodus is only one book in the Exodus narrative, which encompasses the last four books of the Pentateuch. We can't really merge them unless we're also going to merge The Book of Numbers Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The (supposed) event just happens to share the name of this book.

I believe that the OP has fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the article The Exodus.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: And what is the basis for your beliefs? The "Exodus narrative" ends with the crossing of the Red Sea - the simultaneous liberation from Egyptian Captivity and exeunt from Egyptian territory. What has the rest of the Book of Exodus or the remainder of the Pentateuch got to do with it? I believe you must have fundamentally misunderstood the nature of "The Exodus" ... which the OED defines (an its etymology dictates) as:

1.) The title of the book of the Old Testament which relates the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt

2.) A going out or forth.

a.) spec. The departure of the Israelites from Egypt.

b.) gen. (more or less consciously transferred from 2a.) literal and figurative.

c.) esp. The departure or going out, usually of a body of persons from a country for the purpose of settling elsewhere. Also figurative.

Where is the basis for including any texts besides Exodus? GPinkerton (talk) 22:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at the sources already linked at The Exodus. I don’t have any on hand at the moment. And I’d suggest linking this topic at project Christianity and project Judaism, maybe pinging involved editors. I can assure you that the book of exodus and the exodus are not the same thing.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, here's my basis: See [3] The Exodus sage in the Bible incorporates events in Egypt after the death of Joseph through the Israelite departure, the wilderness wanderings, and the Sinai revelations, up to be not including the conquest of Canaan. The account, largely in narrative form, spreads over four books of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible..--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Forgive me for not being at all convinced by that glancing reference! Here are some definitions of "The Exodus" produced by numerous works:

The Jewish liberation from slavery in Egypt. The story of the Exodus is contained in a series of narratives in the book of Exodus. It became the epitome of God's power to rescue his people.

- The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (2000)

The biblical traditions concerning the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt are mostly preserved in the second book of the Hebrew scriptures.

- The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (2001)

The Exodus, the escape of the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt under the leadership of Moses, is the central event of the Hebrew Bible.

- The Oxford Companion to the Bible (1993)

Israel's departure from Egypt.

- Oxford Dictionary of the Bible (2 ed.) (2010)

To me, it rather seems as though Exodus is named after the exodus of the Jews from Egypt ... GPinkerton (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

It's hardly a "glancing reference," it's an article specifically about the Exodus as a historical event.

See also [4]: The story of the Israelites establishing themselves in the Land of Canaan commences with the Exodus from Egypt. It is the beginning of the history of Israel as a nation, and it is recounted in lavish and dramatic detail in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

[5]So important is this story of the Israelites liberation from bondage that the biblical books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy--a full four-fifths of the central scriptures of Israel--are devoted to the momentous events experienced by a single generation in slightly more than forty years.

[6] The Exodus occupies the overwhelming bulk of the Pentateuch, and it is physically central to the Pentateuch. The overwhelming bulk is clearly not just one book...

[7] The Exodus-Conquest narrative(s), which describes the scape of the Israelites from Egypt, their 40 years' wandering and their conquest and settlement of Canaan...

[8] And what event is the climax of the Exodus story: the triumphal exit from Egypt or the theophany at Sinai or the entry into the land of Israel?

[9] Inasmuch as the exodus begins in Egypt, and the Bible lists several toponyms prior to reaching Sinai, Egyptologists have also played a central role in the investigation of the route of the exodus. The reason most scholars have researched toponyms is that it seems logical that if the story of the trek from Egypt to Mt. Sinai and on to Kadesh barnea (as presented in Exodus and Numbers) was historical rather than mythical...

At the very least you can't deny that a number of scholars do not limit "the exodus" to events in the Book of Exodus.

I've posted notice about this discussion at Wikiprojects Ancient Egypt, Judaism, and Christianity--Ermenrich (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: I can very easily deny that several of the quotations you produced above support your argument in any way at all, and I can easily prove that the works you have cited often use the term "Exodus" as a separate event to the wanderings and the conquest of Canaan. Your first citation: The story of the Israelites establishing themselves in the Land of Canaan commences with the Exodus from Egypt. It is the beginning of the history of Israel as a nation, and it is recounted in lavish and dramatic detail in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. appears to show that the narrative of the Pentateuch commences with the Exodus from Egypt and then turns to other stories that come after the Exodus, namely the 40 years in the wilderness, etc. So nothing about this supports your argument. Your second quotation speaks of the the momentous events experienced by a single generation, not the Exodus itself, and doesn't mention Exodus except as a book title. Your third quotation is from a book that, throughout, uses the term Exodus to mean that event commemorated by Passover. There is absolutely no suggestion, either in the words you have quoted or the subject of the book itself, that the Exodus means anything other than the end of the Egyptian Captivity. The fact its narration occupies so much of the Pentateuch is because of the limited inclusion in the latter books of actual narrative, padded out as they are with the various revelations, imprecations, genealogies, exhorations, and legalist harangues that constitute so much of the text. It's hardly surprising that the actual action takes place in the Biblical book named for its description of the exodus, and the source you have quoted in no way contradicts this. Your fourth also properly treats the term Conquest as separate from the Exodus and only forming a narrative when compounded as The Exodus-Conquest narrative(s) and so supports my arguments and not yours. Your fifth does not help your position that the Exodus is unquestionably separate from the exodus from Egypt. Your sixth also does not support your position; no-one is denying that the Exodus begins in Egypt - it could hardly begin anywhere else, since the Exodus describes the process of departing from Egypt. That's why it's called an exodus.

If there are details relevant to the Exodus outside the Book of Exodus then that is not an argument for the narrative of the Book of Exodus to warrant a whole article all of its own. GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I've said what I think and I've supported why. I will note that I don't say (and neither do the quotes) that the exodus includes the conquest. I'll leave it to others to debate this further. So far I'd say you have an uphill battle.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. If "the Exodus" is defined as slavery and the escape from slavery, that forms less than half of the Book of Exodus, with the remainder devoted to other subjects. If it is defined to include the entire desert experience as well, the Book of Exodus is only one of four Biblical books on the topic. No matter how you slice it, their topics are not the same. Ar2332 (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ar2332: The first way you have sliced it looks very much as if the narrative belongs in the Book of Exodus article. The second way looks like misapplication of the word "exodus". GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the Exodus is a much broader subject that any one book in the Bible. Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: How? It is an even more narrow subject than one book of the Bible! It's one part of one book of the Bible (albeit referenced elsewhere in scripture and with a wide legacy). GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The impact, importance, influence, etc of this origin myth is much wider than the impact of any other part of the Torah, and you're simply wrong in your reply to Ar2332. It's influenced people, groups, etc who know little or nothing about the book itself. It lives outside the book. Doug Weller talk 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The Book of Exodus contains other material that is not necessarily related to the specific event of the Exodus itself. The article about the book should describe all the contents of the book. The separate article on the event itself includes historical, anthropological, and archeological material about the event and its wider cultural significance that is not in the second book of the Pentateuch. There should be pointers in both articles to the other, cognate one, but they are not one and the same. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Warshy: Would you not agree that the narrative and its wider cultural significance are both inherently dependent on the existence and contents of the Book of Exodus? In which case why does it merit its own article? We already have Historicity of the Bible, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam which about covers the cultural impact already. GPinkerton (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the Exodus as origin myth comes from the book, and that is precisely why I said that the two cognate articles must reference each other. But the Exodus as origin myth does deserve its own separate essay, where it is purposely and specifically studied as such: as a historical, anthropological, and cultural origin myth. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with Doug Weller, the Exodus is a wider topic than a single Biblical book. Dimadick (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Doug Weller and others. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per Doug Weller, Gråbergs Gråa Sång and others.Smeat75 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is about on the level of proposing a merge of Trojan War and Iliad. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Andreas Philopater: Nonsense! The Trojan War encompasses 10 years and the narrative is related by numerous ancient epic poems, like the Iliupersis, the Aethiopis and the Cypria. The Iliad covers around 40 days of the ten-year war. By contrast the Exodus is finished at Exodus 15. GPinkerton (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer. What I mean is: this proposal was clearly spun off from a discussion elsewhere in order to make a WP:POINT and has succeeded merely in wasting the time and depleting the good will of a dozen editors who might have been doing something more useful. An internet troll would regard the attention as a "win". Assuming your good faith, what do you regard it as? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: the Book of Exodus is a single book, the Exodus takes up four books. Achar Sva (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: As per the rest, the exodus and Shemot are not the same thing. They just share an English name. 198.52.130.137 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inclusion of Faust material

An editor has opposed some edits I made including material from Faust. Almost no scholar claims the Israelites were only from native Canaanite groups. They quite clearly state that Israel's ethnogenesis involved, first, Shasu pastoralists, and the other groups of settlers, including one group which came from Egypt:

"It appears that while many individuals, families, and groups were involved in the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age,and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origins, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group that left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own. Traditions and practices that were useful in the active process of Israel’s boundary maintenance with other groups were gradually adopted by all Israel. It appears that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was one such story." (Faust, p.467 [10])

"While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt." (Faust, p.476, [11]) Greumaich (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

How does this justify our saying in Wikipedia’s voice that a group came from Egypt when all he can say is “probably “ and he offers no evidence? You seem to have missed an important point: all scholars agree that Israel originated in Canaan, not all scholars agree that the exodus had any historicity.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Greumaich, please do not edit war. Please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thank you. El_C 00:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, in terms of the pastoralists, he does not say 'probably' at all in the quotes above. He quite clearly says there is not continuity between sedentary Canaanites and the highland settlers. He states quite clearly the first, core group were pastoralists from southern transjordan, and NOT Canaanites. It is also stated that most scholars agree that some of the highland settlers did come ultimately from Egypt, not "may have" and not "probably". Faust elaborates here that there is evidence for discontinuity in highland settlement, not continuity from native Canaanites:

"The first “positive” line of argument of the Canaanite origins school is based on material evidence of continuity with the Late Bronze Age Canaanite society. If this continuity in mate-rial traits would be complete and uninterrupted,then there would be no real doubt that we are discussing the same peoples. But it is clear that such is not the case. There are some marked differences between the Late Bronze Age mate-rial culture and that of the Iron I highlands. The differences are expressed in almost every aspect—settlement form and patterns, burials,ceramic repertoire, etc. (more below)—and it is clear that one cannot speak of straight forward and complete continuity...Consequently, the first Israelites may have been “local” in a loose meaning of the term, but they were most likely not settled Canaanites, and it is clear, at least, that the evidence does not suggest this.

"While I agree that many Canaanites became Israelites in the course of the Iron Age (and that in the bottom line they might have even been the majority, see below), and that as far as the “later” Israel is concerned the above reconstruction (which views the Canaanites as the main population source from whom the Israelites evolved) might be correct, it is clear that they did not constitute the original “core” of this group— Merneptah’s Israel". (p.473)

"It follows then that the first settlers were, to a very large extent at least, seminomads, as all of the above qualities are expected to be found among them and were not present, as far as we know, among any known Late Bronze Age sedentary Canaanite group. These seminomads came, most probably, from among the Shasu groups (perhaps including small groups of “local” Apiru, or outcast Canaanites). This is, most likely, the core of Merneptah’s Israel." (p.475) Greumaich (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So, Faust not only states that seminomadic pastoralists were part of Israel's ethnogenesis, he specifically says the archaeological evidence does NOT support Canaanite continuity in the highland settlers. He also very clearly states that "most scholars agree that...some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt." In other words, there is NO evidence for complete sedentary Canaanite continuity, which is what the section stated before my edits. Greumaich (talk) 00:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please do not write WP:WALLs of text. He most certainly does say probably, look at your quote one. No one says with 100% certainty that the Israelites included an Egyptian group. It’s a fairly controversial idea.—Ermenrich (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In the case of the pastoralists, he does not say 'probably'. The original content in question in the Book of Exodus article said there is only evidence for Canaanite continuity. As Faust says above, that is false. The evidence says clearly there was major discontinuity, involving Shasu and other seminomadic pastoralists. As for the proto-Israelite including a small group from Egypt, it is not 'controversial' at all - most scholars assert there was a small group among them from Egypt. The majority of scholars is not 'controversial'.

There is no evidence that the first proto-Israelites - the 'core' group - were a continuation of the native sedentary Canaanites. Faust clearly states this above. That is what I corrected, and included the majority view of scholars that the first group were seminomadic pastoralists, and included a small group who came, in some way, from Egypt. Greumaich (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If the majority of scholars are stating that the first, 'core' Israelites were seminomadic pastoralists, not native sedentary Canaanites, then that is what we should state in the article. If the majority of scholars are stating that some of the groups who came to be part of Israel came ultimately from Egypt, then we should state that too. Greumaich (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I propose to change the wording in the article to this instead, which is the current consensus from the majority of scholars:

"Modern archaeology suggests significant continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlement, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, but which nevertheless includes the settlement of semi-nomadic pastoralists and probably a small group who ultimately came from Egypt". Greumaich (talk) 01:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

William G. Dever, who is himself at the conservative side of mainstream archaeologists, stated about Faust: "This view may seem to be unfashionably conservative; but it is still mainstream scholarship." So, yes, the source from Faust can be used, but with caution that he does not speak for all mainstream archaeologists. Even if there was a tiny core of immigrants, they became assimilated by the Canaanites who left the crumbling cities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Dever is certainly not at the conservative side of mainstream archaeologists. Not even close. He's neither a maximalist or a minimalist, which are the the fringe extremes. The source from Faust is based on multiple other sources and authors, which are cited, not just his own. It is the majority view of scholarship. And the core (or first group from southern Transjordan) was originally only the immigrants - the semi-nomadic pastoralists - as Faust outlines concisely. The original proto-Israelites were certainly NOT the sedentary Canaanites, but were the semi-nomadic groups - this is not in question. That is what the archaeological evidence shows definitively (i.e. there was no complete continuity). The majority of scholars then also assert that this early 'core' group was probably joined by a small group ultimately from Egypt. These highland settlers later merged with the sedentary Canaanites fleeing the cities later on. Greumaich (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The minimalist debate of the late 20th century is essentially over, but when it was a live issue it applied to the books of Samuel and Kings, not to the Pentateuch, whose historicity has been rejected since the 80s.Achar Sva (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. According to "The Truth About Solomon's Temple" Israel Finkelstein on YouTube, minute 27, Finkelstein's camp is 2 or 3 times greater than Dever's camp, with half of Amihai Mazar in both camps. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"not to the Pentateuch, whose historicity has been rejected since the 80s". According to what scholars? There's ongoing discussion and debate about which elements are part of a historical core and which are not. This is not a scholarly source. There are extremes of maximalists and minimalists on historicity, with the majority of scholars taking more moderate positions and accepting varying degrees of a historical core. And Finkelstein's "camp" is no more 'minimalist' than Dever's. Finkelstein asserts a significant historical core, and is part of the majority view as outlined by Faust. Greumaich (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva is a historian and he is right most of the time. I hope that he will chime in with sources. See e.g. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/01/minimalists-versus-maximalists-and-contemporary-scholarship/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He's not a valid or unbiased source if editing on Wikipedia. See WP:No Original Research. I've never heard of him. Patheos is a blog, not a valid source. And he is wrong about the rejection of historicity of the Torah. The majority view is that there is a disputed historical core of some degree. And who is Alephb?? His claim that Dever is on the 'conservative' side has no basis. And that comment there is about Moses as a figure presented in the Bible, but not of a Moses-like figure as the core, and certainly not about the ethnogenesis of Israel or groups of pastoralists and a small band of exiles from Egypt - these are different discussions. The discussion in this thread here is not about Moses. Greumaich (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion was about Dever and about minimalism. Bokovoy's blog post gives a broad quote from a WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is part of the quote from that link: "Recently, Mario Liverani has offered a history of Israel that neither fully adopts what he calls the traditional format, which, in his opinion, does not understand the biblical sources fully in their context (which he sees as the Persian period), nor entirely endorses minimalist ideas, which, he says, do not recognize the importance of the ancient material that the biblical authors used." Greumaich (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As previously stated, the minimalism-maximalism dispute is no longer actual for mainstream scholars. With the observation by Grabbe, Lester L. (23 February 2017). Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It?: Revised Edition. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-0-567-67044-1. The impression one has now is that the debate has settled down. Although they do not seem to admit it, the minimalists have triumphed in many ways. That is, most scholars reject the historicity of the 'patriarchal period', see the settlement as mostly made up of indigenous inhabitants of Canaan and are cautious about the early monarchy. The exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account. On the other hand, there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists. There are few, if any, maximalists (defined as those who accept the biblical text unless it can be absolutely disproved) in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.

That tiny core of immigrants is relevant for cultural reasons, not for population genetics (DNA). Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not a "tiny" core of immigrants, as Faust clearly states, at least in terms of the semi-nomadic pastoralists (the founding or 'core' group). The group from Egypt was probably tiny though. Your quote from Grabbe is a fairly succinct summation of the current state of affairs. However, he conveniently ignores the fact most scholars also see the highland settlements to not be a simple continuation of sedentary Canaanites (with the archaeological evidence clearly showing discontinuity), but to also consist of semi-nomadic pastoralists and probably a small group from Egypt, as Faust correctly summarizes. And above all, the majority of scholars also agree that the 'core' or original group of first proto-Israelites ("Merneptah Stele Israel' as Faust classifies them) were the semi-nomad pastoralists, who may have mostly come from southern Transjordan. The only group that was likely 'tiny' or 'very small' (either a few hundred or a few thousand according to Faust) in number is the group from Egypt. Greumaich (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:EXTRAORDINARY. I have never read a mainstream scholar saying the core of Israelites were immigrants. You're advocating that the academic consensus has changed drastically in the past five years. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No I'm not. You are misunderstanding what 'core' means. The core, as in the original or first proto-Israelites, ARE the semi-nomadic pastoralists. That's the majority consensus:

"While I agree that many Canaanites became Israelites in the course of the Iron Age (and that in the bottom line they might have even been the majority, see below), and that as far as the “later” Israel is concerned the above reconstruction (which views the Canaanites as the main population source from whom the Israelites evolved) might be correct, it is clear that they did not constitute the original “core” of this group— Merneptah’s Israel". (p.473) Greumaich (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"It follows then that the first settlers were, to a very large extent at least, seminomads, as all of the above qualities are expected to be found among them and were not present, as far as we know, among any known Late Bronze Age sedentary Canaanite group. These seminomads came, most probably, from among the Shasu groups (perhaps including small groups of “local” Apiru, or outcast Canaanites). This is, most likely, the core of Merneptah’s Israel." (p.475) Greumaich (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Yup, the bulk of Israelites were of Canaanite origin. That's the WP:RS/AC. I have no problem with a tiny core of immigrants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The majority scholarly consensus is that later Israel were mostly Canaanites, but not the original proto-Israelites of Merneptah's Israel. Those were mostly the semi-nomad pastoralists, as I just quoted above from Faust, and they were not 'tiny' in number when they settled the highlands. It was only the small group from Egypt that joined them that is said to be comparatively 'tiny' in number by Faust. The bulk of the first, core Israelites were the semi-nomad pastoralists from southern Transjordan, not Canaanites. That's the WP:RS/AC. Greumaich (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It's your assumption that semi-nomad pastoralists could not be of Canaanite origin. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Have you actually read the pages from Faust I provided you. He says that a few were, but that most were from southern Transjordan:

"Consequently, the first Israelites may have been “local” in a loose meaning of the term, but they were most likely not settled Canaanites, and it is clear, at least, that the evidence does not suggest this." (p.473) Greumaich (talk) 04:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We're arguing about large core of immigrants vs. tiny core of immigrants. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"These seminomads came, most probably, from among the Shasu groups (perhaps including small groups of “local” Apiru, or outcast Canaanites). This is, most likely, the core of Merneptah’s Israel." (p.475) Greumaich (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no question that the semi-nomad pastoralists were not tiny. Faust, and the majority of scholars, only few the group from Egypt that probably joined them as being tiny. Regardless of this point, the original (i.e. first or 'core') proto-Israelites were the semi-nomad pastoralists, not the Canaanites. Greumaich (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not arguing about semi-nomad pastoralists, we're arguing about tiny vs. large. I know that Faust says large and tries to dodge the question through evasive language. But his view is not the consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

His view is the consensus, as he quite clearly states with numerous sources. The semi-nomad pastoralists from southern Transjordan were large in number, and initially formed the majority of the highland settlers. Only the group from Egypt was tiny. Greumaich (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is what Greumaich added to the article:

Modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlement, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, but which nevertheless includes the settlement of Shasu pastoralists and a small group who ultimately came from Egypt.

But Faust doesn't actually support that. This is what he says on page 476:

While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt… Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds (some give it more weight, e.g., Hoffmeier 1997). Still, despite the limited size of this group, it appears that during the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis its story became part of the common history of all the Israelites… Archaeology does not really contribute to the debate over the historicity or even historical background of the Exodus itself, but if there was indeed such a group, it contributed the Exodus story to that of all Israel. While I agree that it is most likely that there was such a group, I must stress that this is based on an overall understanding of the development of collective memory and of the authorship of the texts (and their editorial process). Archaeology, unfortunately, cannot directly contribute (yet?) to the study of this specific group of Israel's ancestors.

So most scholars believe there was a group that came from Egypt, but that conclusion is not based on archaeology. And there are significant dissenting opinions, such as that of Nadav Na'aman in the same volume as Faust.

It's legitimate to say that most scholars think that there was a small group from Egypt, but not that archaeology supports that claim. There seems to be growing agreement that the archaeology points to a "mixed multitude" of West Semitic peoples, both those already living in Canaan and people migrating in from various neighboring areas (see Grabbe pp. 120–130), but scholars disagree about which of those groups were most significant, and it's not something this article should get bogged down in. A. Parrot (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Greumaich: I think that arguing further is futile, since A. Parrot nailed it down to a few thousands, or even hundreds. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@A. Parrot:You need to read the rest of this thread, and the rest of what Faust says, especially on p.467, but in multiple places between 467-477. He says quite clearly that the core and original proto-Israelites were the semi-nomadic pastoralists, most likely from southern Transjordan (the Shasu). These were the majority of the highland settlers. This IS based on archeology, again as I have already stated multiple times above with various quote from Faust. The archaeological evidence supports discontinuity, and the settlement of the semi-nomad pastoralists. The only thing that the archaeology isn't directly supporting is the probable small group from Egypt:

""It appears that while many individuals, families, and groups were involved in the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age,and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origins, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group that left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own. Traditions and practices that were useful in the active process of Israel’s boundary maintenance with other groups were gradually adopted by all Israel. It appears that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was one such story." (Faust, p.467)

"The first “positive” line of argument of the Canaanite origins school is based on material evidence of continuity with the Late Bronze Age Canaanite society. If this continuity in material traits would be complete and uninterrupted, then there would be no real doubt that we are discussing the same peoples. But it is clear that such is not the case. There are some marked differences between the Late Bronze Age material culture and that of the Iron I highlands. The differences are expressed in almost every aspect—settlement form and patterns, burials,ceramic repertoire, etc. (more below)—and it is clear that one cannot speak of straight forward and complete continuity...Consequently, the first Israelites may have been “local” in a loose meaning of the term, but they were most likely not settled Canaanites, and it is clear, at least, that the evidence does not suggest this.(p.473)

"While I agree that many Canaanites became Israelites in the course of the Iron Age (and that in the bottom line they might have even been the majority, see below), and that as far as the “later” Israel is concerned the above reconstruction (which views the Canaanites as the main population source from whom the Israelites evolved) might be correct, it is clear that they did not constitute the original “core” of this group— Merneptah’s Israel". (p.473)

"It follows then that the first settlers were, to a very large extent at least, seminomads, as all of the above qualities are expected to be found among them and were not present, as far as we know, among any known Late Bronze Age sedentary Canaanite group. These seminomads came, most probably, from among the Shasu groups (perhaps including small groups of “local” Apiru, or outcast Canaanites). This is, most likely, the core of Merneptah’s Israel." (p.475) Greumaich (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the mixed multitude claim, either. But the WP:ONUS is upon you to show that Faust's argument about the size of the group of Shasu immigrants is broadly accepted, and A. Parrot says it's not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The original argument is that the semi-nomad pastoralists were the the original, core group who formed the first Israelites - which they are, according to the consensus of scholars. As for the size of the Shasu immigrants, it is also the majority view that these semi-nomads were the majority of the settlers. A. Parrot did not make any claims about the semi-nomad pastoralists at all, let alone the size. He is only referring the small group from Egypt - which is NOT the same group as the Shasu or semi-nomad pastoralists. I do not know what the size of the pastoralists was. 'Large' and 'small' are imprecise terms, but Faust does not say anywhere they were tiny, nor does anyone else in the majority view, as they formed the majority of settlers. Only the tiny group that came from Egypt is what is said to have been very tiny.

But A. Parrot is only referring to the group from Egypt, not the semi-nomad pastoralists. The archaeology support the settlement of the semi-nomad pastoralists, and for discontinuity. It is the majority view of scholars (including archaeologists) that there was probably also a very small group from Egypt, but this is based on textual sources and not archaeology. Greumaich (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He said it's disputed which were the most significant groups, and Shasu were only one of those groups. Also, discontinuity does not mean they were Shasu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have read Faust, but I'm not relying on Faust alone. Grabbe, p. 125: "At the moment, there is considerable debate between those who say that the early Israelites were mainly 'Canaanite' and those who argue that they arose from the Shasu." Faust is among the latter group, and his position, while it is that of a mainstream RS, should not be treated as universal. But the relative importance of the migrants and the local Canaanites isn't even relevant to the Book of Exodus, which doesn't deal with the settlement of Israel in Canaan, only with the movement out of Egypt. It's the small hypothetical Egyptian group, not the migrants in general, who are relevant here. Meanwhile, Achar sva has excised the entire section on historicity—I don't agree that historicity is irrelevant to this article, but it does need to treat the Book of Exodus primarily as a book. Detailed arguments about history belong at The Exodus. A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The archaeology, as outlined by Faust, supports that the settlers were semi-nomad pastoralists. That is not in doubt, and is part of what I included in the content about Israel's origins: it wasn't simple continuity from Canaanites, but involved major discontinuity, and Israel's ethnogenesis involved the settlement in the highlands of semi-nomad pastoralists, whatever their origins, who are agreed to be the first, 'core' group of proto-Israelites. Faust asserts the majority view that this most likely included groups like the Shasu from southern Transjordan, and in his own view, were the majority of this first core group. The original content I changed had claimed Israel's origins and ethnogenesis was a simple continuity from Canaanites, which as Faust clearly states, is FALSE and not the majority scholarly view. The Exodus overlaps with the period in southern Transjordan, and the period before the entry into Canaan. The seminomad pastoralists like the Shasu are important to this.

But what I also included is that the majority scholarly opinion includes an assertion that there was probably also a very small group from Egypt which became assimilated into these semi-nomad pastoralist settlers and was involved in Israel's ethnogenesis. That is stated by Faust, even if this majority view is based almost completely on textual evidence and not archaeological, the majority view of the archaeologists is still that this small group probably existed. Greumaich (talk) 05:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

He quoted as WP:RS for showing that while "the core of Israelites were all Shasu + a small group of fugitives from Egypt" is a mainstream view, it is not the consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the archaeology shows that the core or first group of Israel's ethnogenesis involved settlement of semi-nomadic pastoralists, and which likely included (to whatever extent) groups from the southern Transjordan like the Shasu. That is what I included, and is not in question. They only dispute which group formed the majority of these semi-nomad pastoralists, whether Shasu, "Canaanite" or other groups. I then also included the view of the majority of scholars, but based mostly on textual evidence, that a very small group from Egypt was probably included in this ethnogenesis as well. The majority of scholars have this view (i.e. consensus). What is the problem here?? This is what is stated in Faust. Greumaich (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated, "At the moment, there is considerable debate between those who say that the early Israelites were mainly 'Canaanite' and those who argue that they arose from the Shasu." So, yup, "they arose from the Shasu" is a mainstream view, but it is not the consensus. You have claimed previously that it were the consensus. That's the rub. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It is the consensus that the first Israelites were semi-nomadic pastoralists, NOT a continuity of sedentary Canaanites, and the archaeology supports this. That is not in question. It is also the consensus among scholars that they likely included at least some groups from southern Transjordan, like the Shasu (who in Faust's view, were the majority of this group), and that it probably included a very small group ultimately from Egypt. That's what I entered. That's the majority view of scholars. What's the problem? Greumaich (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, the dispute isn't about semi-nomadic pastoralists, it's about Canaanites vs. Shasu. Faust says the core of Israelites were overwhelmingly Shasu, but that's not the consensus. It may well be that the consensus is being revised, but it is not where Faust wants it to be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is that the core was the semi-nomadic pastoralists, not settled Canaanites, AND that at least some of these were Shasu or similar West Semitic groups from southern Transjordan (Faust claims most of them were). The consensus is ALSO that there was probably a small group that, one way or another, came from Egypt. Greumaich (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Greumaich is quite definitely engaging in wp:ICANTHEARYOU at this point. It’s obvious that Faust does not represent the consensus view and that we can’t say archaeology indicates that the Israelites included an Exodus group. We already cite him for the AC that most scholars hold the exodus to have a historical core, that doesn’t mean those scholars hold to the “exodus group” theory.—Ermenrich (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:This is a ridiculous statement here. Faust has some views of his own, but also states the views of the MAJORITY of scholars. You clearly have not read his book, from p.467-477 in particular, and many of these statements ARE the view of the majority of scholars, as other users above already admit. He says this specifically (i.e. 'MOST SCHOLARS'):

"While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt...Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds " (p.476)

Therefore, please stop removing the majority view of scholars. Greumaich (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Not only are you removing the majority scholarly view on The Exodus and Hyksos, but you are re-inserting a FALSE representation of the scholarly community. There is NO EVIDENCE for simple or complete sedentary Canaanite continuity, but only evidence for discontinuity and settlement in the highlands of semi-nomadic pastoralists:

"The first “positive” line of argument of the Canaanite origins school is based on material evidence of continuity with the Late Bronze Age Canaanite society. If this continuity in material traits would be complete and uninterrupted,then there would be no real doubt that we are discussing the same peoples. But it is clear that such is not the case. There are some marked differences between the Late Bronze Age material culture and that of the Iron I highlands. The differences are expressed in almost every aspect—settlement form and patterns, burials,ceramic repertoire, etc. (more below)—and it is clear that one cannot speak of straight forward and complete continuity...Consequently, the first Israelites may have been “local” in a loose meaning of the term, but they were most likely not settled Canaanites, and it is clear, at least, that the evidence does not suggest this.

"While I agree that many Canaanites became Israelites in the course of the Iron Age (and that in the bottom line they might have even been the majority, see below), and that as far as the “later” Israel is concerned the above reconstruction (which views the Canaanites as the main population source from whom the Israelites evolved) might be correct, it is clear that they did not constitute the original “core” of this group— Merneptah’s Israel". (p.473)

Please stop removing the archaeological and scholarly consensus. There is no archaeological evidence for simple continuity (which is what you have reinserted in articles). Greumaich (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, so from I can make out from all of the above, we have agreement on the following:

1. The bulk of the original Israelites came from resident Canaanite peoples;

2. There were a small number of Egyptian fugitives as well, who contributed some of the myth;

3. There were also some nomads wandering in from various other bordering lands.

There is also the claim, backed primarily by Faust, that the nomads were the "core" of the original Israelite group, and that they were probably part of the Shasu culture – whatever that actually means. There seems to be some dispute around whether Faust accurately represents the consensus here?

Still to be clarified please:

1. What exactly were the Shasu? Were they nomadic Canaanites, were they nomadic Egyptians, were they Hyksos, were they Philistines, were they perhaps Hittites or what?

2. What is meant by "Israelite core"? Is this about the god Yahweh originating in Midian, where Moses found refuge with Jethro originally, and where Mount Sinai and the Burning Bush are presumably situated? PS: Scripture says that Abraham (and Yahweh) came from "Ur of the Chaldees", which is more Babylon than Midian?

3. The Midianites were also direct descendants of Abraham, who also worshipped the god of Abraham – does that also make the Midianites Israelites, or maybe Canaanites?

4. How big was the "core" group – were they 30-40% of the original Israelites, or 5-10%, or what?

5. When did all this actually happen? Egypt's powers varied over time, and Merneptah ruled when Egypt was relatively powerful.

6. Which RS's openly support Faust on this Shasu point?

7. What impact does all this have on the article about the Exodus? Is Faust suggesting that the Exodus story is part Egyptian, but also part Midianite, and the two have been conflated?

Scripture says that the Israelites were:

• a Chaldee family,

• who settled in Canaan,

• who moved on masse to Egypt because of a famine,

• who left Egypt after 10 plagues and went to Mount Sinai, in Midian,

• who were well received by the Midianites (Exodus 18),

• who invited the Midianites to join them in the Promised Land (Numbers 10),

• but who then genocided the Midianites in Numbers 31, seemingly because an Israelite man had sex with a Midianite woman.

Where does this leave space for the Shasu of Midian as the "core Israelite group"? Wdford (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Shasu part is contested by other scholars, as is the “exodus group”. We can and do include the hypothesis that there was an exodus group, but we can’t say in Wikipedia’s voice that there is scholarly agreement that there was one.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I am moving this discussion to the articles where the dispute is ongoing, namely Talk:Hyksos. Secondly, I will address your points individually:

1. "The bulk of the original Israelites came from resident Canaanite peoples"; ---

No, that is not what there is any agreement or consensus on, and Faust and many others disagree, including the citation from Shaw, 2002, p.313 which you are using in the current format in articles, which actually states the first Israelites were Shasu or seminomadic pastoralists (see p.313 [12])

2. "There were a small number of Egyptian fugitives as well, who contributed some of the myth;" ---

Yes, this is the MAJORITY VIEW OF SCHOLARS, as Faust says clearly on p.476. You are, for some reason, opposing the inclusion of this majority scholarly view: "... most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (cf. Bietak 2003; Gottwald 1979; Herrmann 1985: 48; Mazar 2001: 76; Na’aman 1994: 245; Stiebing 1989:197–9; Friedman 1997: 82–83; Halpern 1992:104, 107; Halpern 2003; Dever 1993: 31*;1995: 211; Tubb 1998: 169; Williamson 1998:149–150; Hoffmeier 1997; Weisman 1984:15–16; Malamat 1997; Yurco 1997: 44–51;Machinist 1991: 210; 1994; Hendel 2001, 2002;Knohl 2008; see also Levy and Holl 2002; and see many contributions to this volume)...Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds." [13]

3. There were also some nomads wandering in from various other bordering lands.---

No, the seminomad pastoralists are part of the highland settlers, and most likely include Shasu pastoralists from southern Transjordan. This is again the scholarly majority view that some of the settlers are seminomadic pastoralists. Not only does Faust state this clearly, but SHAW, 2002, p.313 -- the current citation for the format you are reverting to --- ALSO STATES THIS [14]

"There is also the claim, backed primarily by Faust, that the nomads were the "core" of the original Israelite group, and that they were probably part of the Shasu culture – whatever that actually means. There seems to be some dispute around whether Faust accurately represents the consensus here?"

By CORE, Faust clearly states he means the FIRST (he says this specifically on p.467 -- also states clearly he means the Israelites and Israel as mentioned in the Merneptah Stele) or ORIGINAL group of Israelites (the highland settlers and those originally in south Transjordan). His view is that the bulk of these core or first Israelites were the semi-nomad pastoralists. There is disagreement on this. However, there is NOT disagreement that these semi-nomad pastoralists did form AT LEAST SOME component of these earliest of Israelites. Again, the citation you have in your version from Shaw, 2002, p.313, states this VERY SAME THING, that the earliest Israelites included seminomadic pastoralists, and specifically Shasu.

"It appears that while many individuals, families, and groups were involved in the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age,and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origins, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group that left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own." (p.467)

"1. What exactly were the Shasu?" ---

Faust discusses the in detail between p.467-476, so I suggest you read that, as does Shaw, p.313. It is clear they were not just pastoralist 'Canaanites'. But 'Canaanite' is a very broad term that, in a cultural and linguistic sense, includes all or most of the native peoples from Phoenicia to southern Transjordan, and would include most of the Semites in the Sinai and in Egypt. But Faust does not deny that the pastoralists also included those who were Canaanites and adopted this lifestyle.

But the size of the seminomad pastoralists, Shasu or otherwise, is irrelevant to the discussion here. The point I am making is that the majority consensus is that the first, earliest Israelites (the core) were not simply a continuation of the sedentary Canaanites. The archaeological evidence does not support this, but supports discontinuity. The consensus is that this core group consisted of seminomad pastoralists, including at least some from other regions, like the Shasu, and that the majority of scholars agree that at least a very small group ultimately came from Egypt --- that is all that I have entered. Greumaich (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

"I believe that Shasu part is contested by other scholars, as is the “exodus group”."

Neither of these things are contested by the majority of scholars (i.e. consensus view). The majority of scholars agree that seminomad pastoralists, including at least some Shasu, and at least some very small group from Egypt (whether affiliated with an exodus group or not), were part of the first, core group of proto-Israelites.

The only thing that is contested by the majority of scholars is how much (the bulk) of these first Israelites that were Shasu pastoralists, other seminomad pastoralists or those of various 'Canaanite' origins (sedentary or otherwise), not that they were part of it or not. Greumaich (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Not according to anyone but you. The only thing Faust states is the majority view is that the exodus has some historical core, not what that core is.—Ermenrich (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

No, according to most scholars, which I have shown with Faust (and his list), as well as Shaw (p.313) and Redford [15]. You do not get to override Faust, Shaw and others because of your own POV. You clearly did not read p.467-477 of Faust, or even Shaw, p.313. Faust states quite clearly the consensus view that seminomad pastoralists were at least some of the the first, core group on P.467-475. And did you read the quotes from P.476??? He says (with citations): "most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, AND that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt (cf. Bietak 2003;Gottwald 1979; Herrmann 1985: 48; Mazar 2001: 76; Na’aman 1994: 245; Stiebing 1989:197–9; Friedman 1997: 82–83; Halpern 1992:104, 107; Halpern 2003; Dever 1993: 31*;1995: 211; Tubb 1998: 169; Williamson 1998:149–150; Hoffmeier 1997; Weisman 1984:15–16; Malamat 1997; Yurco 1997: 44–51;Machinist 1991: 210; 1994; Hendel 2001, 2002;Knohl 2008; see also Levy and Holl 2002; and see many contributions to this volume)....most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds." [16]

I have gone to dispute resolution because you think your own opinion somehow overrides a highly respected scholar like Faust, and most scholars in the field. You are ignoring and not reading these direct quotes. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. You are not an authority, and do not get to remove academic sources without anything to back it up but your own opinion. Greumaich (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response.

Actually, Shaw offers three alternatives – that the early Israelites were "an oppressed rural group of Canaanites"; or that they were survivors of declining Canaanite settlements. The third alternative (following Redford) is the Shasu option. Shaw does NOT state that this is the correct view or the consensus view - in fact Shaw states that "strong arguments" have been made AGAINST this identification (pg 313).

I accept that this original group MAY have included "a small number of Egyptian fugitives" – and it seems that this has been thoroughly discussed in the article already.

I have no problem with mentioning that the original Israelites were probably "pastoralists" – the scriptures make it very clear that Abraham etc were nomads and sheep-herders etc. Shaw concurs by using the phrase "rural group of Canaanites". I am happy to mention that "some scholars" have suggested that at least some of these nomads may have been of the Shasu tribe/group. However it is still far from proven that the Shasu idea is the scholarly consensus. Faust openly admits that the Shasu idea is not conclusive, and he sprinkles his paper liberally with words like "probably" and "perhaps" and "likely" and "suggest" etc.

I am fairly happy with the proposed sentence "indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, but which nevertheless includes the settlement of semi-nomadic pastoralists and probably a small group who ultimately came from Egypt". However I think it would be more accurate to say: "a primarily Canaanite origin for the Israelites, but which possibly included the settlement of some semi-nomadic pastoralists from outside of Canaan, and probably also a small group who ultimately came from Egypt". I am mindful of the statement above that "the source from Faust can be used, but with caution that he does not speak for all mainstream archaeologists."

Still curious though – were the Shasu a unique tribe or ethnicity, or can they be considered as part of the broader Canaanite people? Were the Shasu the same as the original Midianites? Were the Midianites also Canaanites? The scriptures are very clear that god was very strict about the "out of Egypt" people inter-marrying with the other tribes, and the punishments for this were ferocious. How then did the Shasu become founder members of the Israelite nation? Wdford (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I would not support the small group of Egyptian origin being listed as “probably “ that is too far from what other sources say. No problem with the rest.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, not a deal-breaker. What wording would you prefer to use please? Wdford (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I’d just leave that part out. We discuss it in several sentences in the next paragraph.—Ermenrich (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

In the middle of the third para, is a sentence reading "Avraham Faust and William Dever argue that a group of Egyptian origin, whom Dever cautiously identifies as "the house of Joseph",[39] may have joined the Israelites after their initial formation in Canaan, and that their story could have become adopted as the national myth of the Israelites.[40][41] "

Should we add after that: "Faust and Redford have suggested that the original group of Israelites possibly also included some semi-nomadic pastoralists from outside of Canaan, who may have been of the people described in Egyptian texts as the Shasu".  ???Wdford (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The source from Faust says SPECIFICALLY that MOST SCHOLARS (with a whole list of sources from them) believe there was a group among these earliest Israelites (highland settlers) who came from Egypt (P.476). Until either of you can provide an academic source as highly respected as Faust claiming that most scholars think something differently, then that edit with the Faust source stands as it, as per Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Also, when referring to Faust's personal claim specifically, he DOES say that there PROBABLY was an 'exodus' group from Egypt (READ P. 467: "PROBABLY including a small "Exodus" group that left Egypt, joined the process,"). In that section, if you are referring to just what Faust said, he says probably. If you are referring to what most scholars think, as per Faust's list of their views, it is that there WAS some group who came from Egypt in some way. Greumaich (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

(1) It is not just Faust saying that there was a group from Egypt. That is the view of most scholars, as Faust shows with a large list of references from those scholars.

(2) It is not just Faust and Redford stating there were seminomad pastoralist migrants in the first Israelites. That is the CONSENSUS. Faust, Redford, Grabbe, Dever - the majority - assert they were involved. There is only disagreement on whether they were the majority or not. Greumaich (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Understood. The Exodus article does already speak at length about the Egyptian influence. I'm not sure that more detail is really required on that point. However re the pastoralists - there does seem to be consensus that the "highland" communities included many pastoralists. Some sources suggest that they were Canaanite pastoralists, and some seem to suggest that they may have been displaced Canaanite townsfolk who were forced to become pastoralists. What does SEMI-nomad actually mean? However how many sources hold that the majority of the pastoralists were from outside Canaan, and how many support the Shasu origin specifically? Faust leans heavily toward the Shasu, and makes some claims, but still admits to a degree of speculation and uncertainty. I have seen it written that the archaeology cannot distinguish between the evidence of the "early" Israelite communities and those who evolved later. Wdford (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The 'historic core' is repeatedly mentioned, but when you get to determining what that is supposed to point to, there's no consensus on details. The Palestinian highlands had both Shasu enclaves and nomadic pastoralists, and many were enslaved and taken to Egypt at the time of Amenhotep II. One can spin that datum in any number of ways in making hypotheses about the 'historical memories' behind the Exodus accounts redacted a millennium later. It's only because of the enormous authority of the Bible that we are forced to juggle endlessly with the highly confused tesserae of the Tanakh narrative as if that contained some historic grain of truth about a real event. Consensus is fragile on virtually any tenet or piece in the disjointed jigsaw puzzle, and few survive the few decades in which they hold our provisional ranking as a consensus (the conquest, the amphictyonic federation, the peasant revolt etc.). Views that emerge as marginal, overtake the mainstream, and in turn take second seat in, for example, the modeling of textual strata for the composition of these key books. Deborah consensually, like the Shirat HaYam have composition dates between mid 11th century and 6-5th centuries, so every bit of evidence from either about the Exodus depends on whether the scholar writing accepts an early or late date for the texts in which a datum is embedded.

The word 'consensus' is much loved here, as if it were a trump card. It's proved quite shifty, fluid historically, and one should be wary of specialists who wave a long list of authors as if they, respectively, all concurred, not on the idea of a 'core' (which in itself, undefined, means little historically), but the way that core is interpreted. Nishidani (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s not clear to me what if anything should change at this point. Faust makes a claim, yes, but I’ve been active on these articles long enough to know how contested they are. The Faust-obsessed editor in question has been given a Short block, so perhaps I should let less involved editors hash out if any changes are needed.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Still confused. If the Shasu in question were living in enclaves in the Palestinian highlands, does that not make them Canaanites? Wdford (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I would say it does, but I'll admit I'm not sure.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I mentioned that only because above there seemed to be categorization of potential early contributors to proto-Israel which assumed that Shasu and pastoral central Palestinian highlanders were two different sets, when they could well have overlapped, since the Shasu did reach north and west as far as those highlands, and not being celibate, would have intermingled with the other set. We should recall that names mainly refer to cultural styles, not ethnicities (which are a tough nut there because of the huge commingling of passing groups in that transit corridor from Asia to Africa and back that Palestine always has been, but in that period was mostly occupied by speakers of northwestern semitic dialects.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Patterns of Evidence

Patterns of Evidence posits a fantastical chronology in order to fit the Exodus into known history. It could be said that even if this chronology were true, which seems highly unlikely, it still does not amount to evidence for the Exodus. Basically, Patterns of Evidence seeks to give the lie to mainstream history (and that's not even concealed in the documentary). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you not understand that all of the pejorative and snide language in your comments betrays your own bias and activist goals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.181.242.66 (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased. See WP:GOODBIAS for details. We are biased for what Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne and Yale teach for a fact. We are biased against fundamentalism and true believers. In the mainstream academia there really isn't a controversy about the Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You are biased in a bad way Tgeorgescu. There are substantial discussions in academia regarding exodus, but you forgot you are not in a subpar site like "Rationalwiki". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2073:1A1F:D992:B747:B2A:9684 (talk • contribs)

Your problem is with Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne and Yale. We simply report what they teach for a fact. Saw https://vimeo.com/76323651 ? Two Harvard professors talk there about the Exodus. Christine Hayes (Yale professor) stated And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. ... People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Historicity

For completeness and balance, should we not also include a section somewhere that states something like: "The consensus of modern scholars is that the Bible story of the Exodus probably has some historical core, but that any such historical basis has little resemblance to the story told in the Bible"? Wdford (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? Book of Exodus or the Exodus, or Hyksos? We should only state what the citation states, not personal opinions. The citation states that the majority of scholars believe the Exodus has some historical core. That is already stated on the Exodus article. It is fine as is, because that is roughly how it is stated in the citations (Faust, Dever, etc.) provided for it. Greumaich (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

There was such a section here but Achar Sva deleted it.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

One could of course bullet a long list of historical anachronisms, something that is very well documented, but ignored in the article.Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds useful. Where do we start? Wdford (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

• The 10 Plagues. GPinkerton (talk) 21:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the phenomena of the plagues can't be accounted an anachronism since natural events are ahistorical. I was thinking of things like the fact that the toponymy reflects developments around the Twenty-sixth Dynasty of Egypt, or that the sartorial instructions for the Aaronite priesthood (Ex.ch.28) require them to wear linen breeches (miknese-bad) that only hit the ancient fashion scene at that time when they were first tailored in Iran, and observed evidently there by the priestly exiles who helped compose much of this narrative. Nishidani (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Achar Sva has deleted the section again. Perhaps we should have an agreement on whether it should be here before any further plans?--Ermenrich (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Does the article need a Historicity section? (discussion)

Following on Ermenrich's post immediately above, I think I'd better explain why I deleted the section.

1. All the articles on books of the bible (or almost all) follow a standard format, and I don't think any of them have a historicity section. That's not a reason for not having one, of course, but it suggests that such a section is not usual.
2. This is essentially a question of the genre of the book - it assumed that the genre is history. The Composition section says that the genre is myth, and this is the almost universal opinion of scholars. (Just to clarify, myth does not mean fiction; it means, in this case, that the Book of Genesis was written in order to provide a story of origins for a people calling themselves Israel).
3. Even if a historicity section is added, it needs to restrict itself to the historicity of events within the Book of Exodus - the events surrounding the birth and calling of Moses, the events in Egypt up to the departure into the wilderness, and the events in the wilderness up to the revelation of God to Israel at Sinai and the giving of the law).
4. Again, if there's a need for a historicity section, it needs to concentrate on the role of God and the divine law, as this is the central event of the book - not the miracles surrounding the escape from Egypt, but the Law of God and its contents (and no, the Ten Commandments are not what I'm talking about).

Finally, the article almost completely ignores the role of God and law throughout. As a result, it reads like a Sunday School primer - lots or miraculous events, but no theology. Exodus is a book about God, and God needs to given centre-stage. (And no, I'm now Jewish and don't actually believe any of it, but I do like to take ancient religious literature seriously).Achar Sva (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

1. 1:That a subject is omitted from our articles does not mean that we have to ignore sources which do cover it. Wikipedia's uniformity is less important than its sourcing.
2. 2:That it is an origin myth does not mean that it did not make historical claims concerning Israelite origins.
3. 3.Yes, when discussing the historicity of a book's narrative, only things actually included in that narrative should matter. Moses' story is continued in Deuteronomist history, which originated independently.
4. 4.Why should the historicity section limit itself on a singular aspect, when so much has been written about the narrative's human characters and the events depicted? God is not given center-stage in the story, Moses is. Dimadick (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

• 1. The Book of Joshua has a historicity section, as does the Book of Esther. I don't think much of the 'encyclopedic' coverage of (Western) religion on Wikipedia. The Tanakh related articles are strong on paraphrase, and short on meta-analysis at least with regard to the available embarras des richesses of scholarship. Well, we don't want to bore readers, I guess. Anyone reading Jochebed would have a good chance of not twigging to her purely mythical nature, idem Joseph (I did once squeeze some part of serious scholarship on him into Joseph's Tomb article. One could do that because 99% of editors only visit it to expand the I/P conflict section on access, and Palestinian terrorism).
  2. Most don't follow a standard format. There is a noticeable difference between OT book articles and those on the Four Gospels. Formats may have a generic similarity, but there is more focus (not enough) on the historical embedding (not enough).

I have no real horse in this race at all, for or against inclusion. I would note that compared to other articles of this type, this is very brief, a half or third of the standard Gospel treatment. On the other hand, aficionados could write a Historicity of the Exodus page in a list format, rather than cram that in sections of the two articles bearing on the topic we already have.Nishidani (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The various books of the Bible all have a degree of questionable historicity. Sometimes large amounts of a book are questionable, such as Genesis, while sometimes the text is considered to be "fairly" historical, and only certain aspects are considered to be non-historical. I was not originally proposing to state opinions of the plagues, Moses' birth and bull-rushes experience, the burning bush etc – I was merely wishing to state the CONSENSUS that the "million-man migration" aspect is considered to be non-historical. Since this is the core context of the Book of Exodus, it is very central to this article, and needs to be included for NPOV. We can certainly add a link to The Exodus article as well, but a short mention is still necessary here.

I take the point above about the "myth" question – but perhaps that section should be expanded to include the issues you are highlighting here, and to explain the issue of "modern" history vs "mythologised" history as discussed earlier.

I am happy to expand the article to include a discussion on the "role of God and the divine law" as well.

There is no reason why we should not add a Historicity section to every article about a Biblical book as well, if it does not already exist, and if we have RS on the topic. Wdford (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Historicity is too large a theme, which always ends up in a 'consensus' pro and con bun fight, with the Goliath of textual tradition being winged by the slings and arrows of scholarly name-dropping. Simple data are far more illustrative. I mentioned anachronism because that illuminates the issue of historicity by pointing out the jarring dissonances in the text. The fifth plague hits Egyptian but not Israelite camels (around the mid 15th century), but camels weren't domesticated for another millennium, and this is one of dozens of markers of a post 600 B.C.E compositional date. The usual response is, ah yes, but at Exodus 9:3 the gəmallîm must be a late scribal alteration (which of course doesn't solve the numerous camel passages in Genesis etc, composed by God back then). Likewise Egyptian records know of no Pithom before the 6th century BCE. There are loads of such anomalies that betray a late narrative writer's hand.Nishidani (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, then perhaps we should not use the heading "historicity" - although that is highly relevant to any discussion on genre. However we do need to include here the point that the mass migration didn't actually happen as discussed in the biblical text, or anything close to it. What "heading" would be best? Wdford (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

"There are loads of such anomalies that betray a late narrative writer's hand." Which should probably be covered in the "Authorship" section. They signify the era of the text's composition. Dimadick (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

It goes back a bit further than "did a mass migration take place": the first question is, was Israel ever in Egypt? Did 70 descendants of Jacob come down into Egypt and, in the space of 400 years, grow to 3 million? And did those 400 years contain 3 generations of the descendants of Levi? And did they also contain just 3 pharaohs? All these things are in the Bible. Achar Sva (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course the biblical narrative is a fantasy, and no mass migration ever took place.I think the point was, 'did one of the constituent elements in the tribal federation later known as 'Israel' have roots in Egypt?' The answer would be that this is not in itself improbable (the Shasu are one candidate, esp given the Se'ir/YHWH nexus), though it would not, given the numbers, constitute the 'historic core' of Israel so much as 'the historic core' of the fable which centuries later, descendants of all tribal groups, from the Amorite northeast, or in Canaan, Moab, Edom and Sinai, adopted as integral to the fabricated charter of their collective 'roots'. I think we all agree on that. Palestine was a transit corridor for several millennia, and one would expect as probable Egyptaic components, esp. given Egypt's almost millennial-long suzerainty there before the upheavals of the 12th century BCE. (Though is is curious to note that the Egyptian elements in Gaza's population are, in hasbara handouts, used as 'proofs' that the population is not authentically 'autochthonous' to Palestine as are, for example, the aliyah immigrants from Peru, Ethiopia, Poland, or Kerala One of the absurd difficulties here is always, even in obscure historical points of view, some perceived fallout regarding 'authencity' of descent).Nishidani (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That’s not exactly the AC on that. Most scholars believe some group of Semitic speakers was in Egypt or else remembers Egyptian oppression in Canaan, so yes, the question of historicity is relevant here.—Ermenrich (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, what's an AC?) Nishidani, what you describe sounds more like something for The Exodus and/or an article on the origins of the Jews, not this article on a book which everyone admits is fiction.Achar Sva (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC. Will provide citations if asked. I think that we need to at least note the issue here as not everyone is aware that the book is considered inaccurate.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You speak of genre. A literary work that has for millennia passed itself off as belonging to the genre of history suffers from, ipso facto, genre confusion. The epistles historically ascribed to Phalaris come to mind. We know now that they are spurious, but the proof of that can be summed up in four lines, citing in full Leibnitz's precocious and laconic deconstruction of their pretenses to authenticity, or by paraphrasing at length Richard Bentley's intricately detailed rebuttal of the work's claims in his famous dissertation of 1699. When you have this kind of genre confusion, deciding to treat the text purely in mutually exclusive terms as belonging to either one or the other categories misses the point, since it belongs to both. The comparison is even more salient if one considers other works, where the historicity/fiction confusion is deeper, such as the Historia Augusta, the Secret History of Procopius or, for a modern example. Backhouse's ostensible memoir of Cixi. In those three cases, historical elements and fanciful inventions coexist, and anyone using them is obliged to disentangle the strands if the broader reader is not to have the wool pulled over their eyes. I'd be quite happy to see the Book of Exodus treated as a work of fiction, and have it glossed much as Stuart Gilbert did for Ulysses, with its careful annotations of real allusions (history) and, at the same time, sheer invention. Nishidani (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)