Talk:Hebrews/Archive 1

Archive 1

From the page

It is very obvious that an clear attempt is being made to strip the historical connection between the Hebrew People and Modern Jews. This is fundamentally IMMORAL.

This page was left with broken sentences, incorrect and missing identification of geography and facts, and misleading statements.

This is a blatant anti-Jewish attack and should not be condoned on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.17.98 (talk) 06:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be protected as more vandalism continues to remove any text that associated Jews with Hebrews, which is on its FACE ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.167.17.98 (talk) 05:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The term Hebrews is sometimes used by certain Christian groups to distinguish the Jews in ancient times that lived before the birth of Jesus from Jews that lived afterward. Though important in some Christian theologies

How do we add to the page why such groups would wish to make this distinction? OneVoice 14:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure OneVoice but if you find out please add it in.Zestauferov 02:27, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch why are you censoring me again? Interesting to note that nobody else who watches this page found anything remotely controvercial about what I had wrtitten since Feb 6th I should mention to those reading that though granted sysop rights this is no big deal an Mr L has no-more authority than the rest of us too revert all prgress on the page. Also Mr L does not really have any real interest and certainly not knowledge about the subject but just considers me a pest and thus that he is doing us all a favour by censoring all my contributions.

Jews are Israelites, Israelites are descendents of Heber, and Christians use the term in ways differend from Jews. Granted it is also a term used to refer to a New Testament Book but this is all mentioned in the article. Is it really worthy of disambiguation? If you watch this page could you please make a comment on which version you think is better?

Thankyou

Zestauferov 02:26, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hebrews are not Jews. Hebrews were ancient Israelites and Israelites consisted of twelve tribes. Judah (Jews) being one of the twelve tribes. Whenever the word Hebrew is used it refers to an Israelite and not specifically some one from the tribe of Judah (Jew). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.210.5 (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Canaanite Religion

Removed text

The traditional head of the Canaanite pantheon who would later become the angry, jealous God of the Old Testament, whereas the Canaanite elite began to favor El's son, Adad, whom they referred to as "Baal" (translated as "The Lord"). The god El was worshipped in various parts of the Near East in ancient times. The Babylonians worshipped Ellil as the god of air, with a distinctly angry and jealous personna, but Ellil was not the primary god of the Chaldean pantheon since early Sumerian times. The Sumerian name for El was Enlil, but the Sumerians soon began to favor his brother Enki, and the Babylonians favored Enki's son, Marduk. Enlil's son Adad was prominent in the Sumerian pantheon, but not so much as one of his other sons, Ninurta, who is often associated with Lugalbanda.

The Hebrew worship of El became more pronounced after the Canaanite ("Hyksos") invasion of Egypt that ended Egypt's Middle Kingdom times. Egypt began its new kingdom times by reconquering the Canaanite controlled Lower Egypt and expelling or enslaving the invaders. The Hebrews, seeking an end to slavery, used their god as a rallying call for unification, declaring El (or Yahweh) to be the only god, following Pharoah Akheneten's popularization of monotheism. Upon returning to Canaan, the Hebrews at times took control of Canaanite cities, leading to generations of a power struggle between El worshippers and Adad worshippers. King Solomon temporarily halted this struggle by, for a time, uniting all Canaanites under the old polytheist system.

This is an interesting new perspective but it probably belongs under Canaanites not here since it deals mainly with the Canaanite religion. I notice that some of the facts are erroneous however and suggest the contributer check his/her sources once more and try to read through the glossing. Zestauferov 02:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The removed text hardly represents a "new perspective." Something very similar can be found in the 1970s edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (early 15th edition).Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To User:Zestauferov

Dear friend,

Hurrians, Hebrews, Habiru were not a Proto-Iberian ethnic group (or Proto-Iberian non-exclusive ethnic group)!

With best regards,

Levzur (Dr. Levan Z. Urushadze)

It is interesting to see your about-face considering your reply to Kaz [1] on what you eventually made into the Caucasian peoples page. I should correct you though that although I know little about your version of Protoiberians (I still think the term is Hatto-Iberian), I do know that Hebrews & Habiru were both certainly non-exclusive ethnic groups. However we are grateful for revealing your final opinion on the suject. Zestauferov 01:06, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dispute: Hebrews as Canaanites

Considering the following phrase:

Many Hebrews were originally Canaanites ...

Many many people are going to disagree with that on religious grounds. The page can never be considered NPOV so long as this is phrased as if no one disagrees. There are some times in the Old Testament where a Canaanite marries into a Hebrew family, but whether Hebrews were originally Canaanites is a matter of strong dispute. Maybe the dispute can be lifted if the article can be phrased in such a way that is sensitive to the sensibilities of both dispassionate scientific thought and Abrahamic religions, without definitively endorsing theory over religious belief or vice versa. - Gilgamesh 09:39, 29 June 2004 (UTC)

Yes that comment was made on 16:02, 28 Mar 2004 by user 66.65.168.180 who tried to re-write the article as if Hebrews were nothing more than canaanites. A perspective which ignores much of the available evidence but is still a perspective none the less.Zestauferov 12:13, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Alright then... So, what are going to do about it? The reason I haven't changed it myself is that I personally don't know much about the Habiru or Hurrians. I'm more into Biblical history and linguistics, not as much into archaeology, cuneiform, etc. I'm sure there's lots of valid science and study; I just haven't covered it all yet. - Gilgamesh 12:29, 29 June 2004 (UTC)

It is well known in Canaanite history that El was once the most favored god, but that Adad/Hadad was later the favored god, and the ongoing conflict between the Canaanite factions was identical to the ongoing conflict described in the Old Testament between the "Hebrews" and the Canaanites. After Exodus, they lived side by side, and each successive political regime usually resulted in a shift in the balance of power between the factions, except during the reign of Solomon who was respected by both sides, and who had his famous Israelite temple built by Hiram, king of the well known Canaanite city of Tyre, and of course in the first Temple of Jerusalem, many Canaanite gods were honored: "...This tale was derived from the so-called Elohim (E) text of c. 750 B.C., and was apparently the origin legend designed to account for the serpent-god of bronze that was in those days worshipped in the Temple of Jerusalem, together with certain images of his Canaanite goddess-spouse, Aherah." - Joseph Campbell, Creative Mythology. Also, history refers to a Canaanite invasion and conquest of Lower Egypt, followed 100 years later by an Egyptian re-conquest of Lower Egypt and expulsion and enslavement of the Canaanite invaders. The Old Testament refers to the event soon after in which these thousands of slaves joined together under the leadership of Moses and left Egypt to return to Canaan, as Israelites. For a much more in-depth discussion on the Hebrews' origin and emergence from Canaan, see "Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic", by Harvard University's Professor Frank Moore Cross (Hancock Professor of Hebrew and Other Oriental Languages, Emeritus).

Editing

I have taken some speculative statements out of the article and tried to put in a bit of a wider perspective without disagreeing with what was in there originally. It was a complicated time and place in which the Hebrews lived, and there is a lot of thought that they were a "mixed multitude" (Numbers 11:4) of people who had survived the collapse of the great empires around them, not ethnically homogenous nomads. Fire Star 06:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Avars

User:216.164.17.190 asks of the Avars: What is the relation between them and the Hebrews?

That is a good question. There is no historical relation between them, to my knowledge. Fire Star 04:45, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Between 18:35, 3 Aug 2004 and 06:15, 6 Sep 2004, a lot of facts were removed without discussion. Would those responsible like to work on it again please this time expanding the points you disagree through discussion in the article itself rather than simply removing the info you disagree with. For example "the biblical Noah story was almost identicle to the Hurrian one even though both may have their origins in the Gilgamesh version" would have been a better way of including the Sumerian comment rather than simply replacing all reference to the Hurrian vewrsion. This would certainly help readers like me to understand the arguments for and against certain stances. Thank you.81.132.98.240 12:50, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a copy of this book?

" Hurrian Hebrews; Ea as Yahweh; The Origins Of The Hebrews & "The Lord" "

I am trying to find out about its contents.

I can tell you that it used to be available through a site called http://www.hurrianhebrews.com which once existed exploring the origins of the Hebrew people, and their Lord, ancient history, and old testament. The book is supposed to be quite well documented and was once for sale through that site up until at least as late as June 10, 2003. It seems the political group suppressing this truth has succeeded in shutting them up and closing that site down. You might be lucky enough to find a second hand copy of that book if you search hard enough.

Oooo I'm scaaared! If your conspiracy theories are true then I guess I wil be in danger as I have a copy. (zip) It was authored by Forrest Reinhold of Iowa University.

NPOV dispute

Why is there an NPOV dispute on the page? The last comment about any NPOV issues was made on this talk page in september!!.

I ought to mention, that, reading that dispute, it should be noted that most secular academics don't view the Hebrews as Canaanites either, since their culture is quite notably distinct. The most plausible secular theory is that the Hebrews were Hurrians (preserving Hurrian culture) speaking Canaanite (for practical reasons).

That is exactly what Forrest Reinhold's book is about. Also E.A. Speiser wrote a lot on that topic.

---

That isn't true. Most secular academics don't view the Hebrew and Canaanite cultures as distinct at all. Asherah, for example, are found continously right down to and beyond 400BC. Likewise there is absolutely no cultural break whatsoever to indicate that there was any sort of abrupt change (e.g. an invasion by foreign "Hebrews").

Theophoric names referring to Canaanite deities are found throughout the parts of the bible describing the period (e.g. xxxxbaal, xxxxbel) as normal Israelite names. "High places", Asherah, and "sacred poles" (i.e. totems), are described by the bible itself as being continuously present, as are sacred fetishes such as the Nehustan.

The bible itself even describes king David as leading a band of Hebrews who were outlaws living in the hills to invade and conquer the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. If you read it carefully, you will notice that the Book of Kings is extremely careful about calling groups of people Israelites, Judahites, and Hebrews. The Hebrews are always described as foreign outsiders from the eastern hills, and in some cases even as being on the opposite side to the Israelites, even supporting the Philistines.

Try reading the work of Israel Finkelstein, a major archaeologist of Israel, internationally respected as a world class academic, and also Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. The book of his that springs most to mind is The Bible Unearthed.

Hurrian invasion theories are really an extremely minority viewpoint. --Victim of signature fascism 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the Hebrews should be honored

The Hebrews have given religion to more than half of this world. They need to be honored. 69.235.239.168 02:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I think the world would have had religion with or without the Hebrews. Its just a question of which one. Steve kap

I still think that the notion of Hapiru as mercinaries and outlaws may have had atleast some small part in the ultimate evolution of the Hebrew culture. Hapiru inhabited virtually all parts of the near-east c. 2000-1100 bc. and they were really a mixed bag of ethnic backgrounds.

Hebrew/Israelite stories of enslavement in Egypt do seem rather valid if we realize that under Egypt's control of Canaan c. 1450-1200 thousands of canaanites, hurrians, and hapiru were taken as captives of war and made slaves. There are ancient references to "Apiru" as workers in the city of Pi-Rameses c.1290bc, thought to be the Raamses of bible tradition. This is all hypothetical of course. --207.225.65.89 04:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Descendants of Eber

According to [Children of Eber], based on Genesis 10:21, the earliest usage of Bnei Eyver (בני-עבר) clearly includes all the tribes of Arabs, Moabites, etc. Aminaa

Please don't insert original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please learn basic rules and simple English. I have reverted the article so that it is consistent with other wikipedia entries (that I have had no part in) and Biblical scholarship. I do recognize that many of you guys believe that we Arabs are not fully human beings and come from a separate creation than do the Biblical Hebrews. However, as I have noted, the scriptual reference supports my revision. Thanks. Aminaa

I have no idea what you are talking about, but please avoid further violations of WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please check the references I posted before making unfounded accusations. Aminaa

There is no statement in Children of Eber about North or South Arabians. Please don't insert original research. Tewfik^Talk 01:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

heyyyyyyyy every one

hope you like how i edited the paper

אני לא יודע אנגלית אבל שימחתם אותי שרשמתם על העברים

The term "Hebrew" versus the term "Jew"

The more I research this subject, the more confused I get. Gringo300 04:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't "Hebrew" also include e.g. Samaritans, while "Jew" wouldn't? 89.151.23.177 21:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

King David is described as attracting a band of "Hebrews" when he flees into the wilderness to escape the wrqath of Saul; the context makes clear that these are outlaws, in the mode of Robin Hood's merry men, rather than an ethnic group - and this is the conclusion reached by modern scholars with respect to the words Hebrew and Apiru, i.e., they represent a socio-economic group rather an ethnic or religious identity. The language of these Hebrews, a dialect of Canaanite, became the language of the bible. The word "Jew" is derived from the Roman name for their province of Judea, derived from the Greek name Ioudaea, and pronounced "Yudea" - the Latin J was pronounced as a Y. Ioudaea itself was derived from Aramaic Yehud, the name of the province under the Persians. The Persian name in turn derives from the the Hebrew name of the ancient kingdom of Yehuda, which we know in English, incorrectly, as Judah. (And why not, since we call Deutschland Germany and Sveringe Sweden). PiCo 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes but, aren't the Jews also known as 'Hebrews' in an ethnic sense before the time of the United Monarchy? I.E the Hebrews are the ancestors to the Israelites, as I added in the main article. So how do we reconcile these two diferent meanins of 'Hebrews'. Two different groups with the same name, or the same group that partially evolved into the Israelites and partially stayed the 'Hebrews'? Does anyone know of any resources that explains this? --Jake11 17:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As PiCo started saying, the term 'Jew' was only introduced far after th time of the first kings, and is mainly refer to people of the tribe of Yehuda (Judea). It was later became a general term for all Israelites descendants, in parallel with the story of the lost 10 tribes. The tribes Yehuda and Binyamin were the last to be exiled and held a different kingdom from the Israelites after the split. So basically, what we now refer to as "Jews" or "Judasim" is basically an evolution of one tribe's name.--Civax 21 June 2008

Semitic

You need to be semitic to be Hebrew, the majority of ashkenazi are primarily slavic in origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.63.78.78 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Semitic is a language family, not an ethnicity or race, and Ashkenazis are primarily of Middle Eastern descent but with European admixture. Funkynusayri (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Only one important question

What are the real physical characteristics of the people of Abraham, ¿White, Brown, Black? I need an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.155.98.45 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Though this isn't really the place for such inquires (WP:blablabla), here's an answer anyway. Racial categories and the concept of race as we know it today did not exist in the days of the very hypothetical Abraham his equally hypothetical immediate descendants. The social institution of whiteness, and by extension blackness, as we know it today did not exist any more then nuclear waste, Bratz Dolls and telemarketing did. If you wish to bring anachronism into it however, fine. If you were to reconstruct an old school heeb, you'd probably think that s/he was brown. Or at least as brown as I'd get if I were living in friggen Palestine. Don't know how the noses would match up though.

Not that your modern day Hebrews with 'European admixture' were white till the 1950's really. 24.47.151.201 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The Bible and Biblical commentaries both note that the Biblical Jews were a "mixed multitude" and included a variety of skin tones and hair colors (and eye colors). Some prominent Biblical characters were red-heads. The ancient Egyptians described and painted Jews as including blondes and redheads and blue eyed people along with dark haired dark eyed people. They were also described by the Egyptians as being lighter skinned than the Egyptians. The notion that "the Biblical Jews" were somehow all alike genetically ignores the fact that Jews simply come from Abraham's family. My family has red heads, blondes, and black haired people. We have brown eyed, blue eyed, and green eyed people. Yet, we are all an immediate family. Imagining that at some earlier time there was no genetic variation is just an unfounded assumption. Abraham's family need not have been any genetically narrow than anyone else's family today. ~affinity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.28.151 (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Abraham vs Eber

Meieimatai, as per WP:VER, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that Eber is "The eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews". This opinion, supported by a reliable source, belongs to this article. The second opinion, that Hebrews are the descendants of Abraham, also does. But you have no right to delete the opinion you disagree with; please refer to WP:NPOV.

If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, you must learn its rules. Otherwise, your edits will be repeatedly reverted, as I just did to your recent re-writing of the article. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The position taken by Emil G. Hirsch and Eduard König in that article is unsupported by the actual text since it says that Shelah begot Eber, and the statement that "Eber" was originally the name of a region is itself unsupported by any evidence I'm aware of. The proposition that the Ivri is derived from Eber is a theory that can be traced to textual analysis in the 19th century, but is not supported by any outside evidence. We don't know where the region that "Eber" lived in was, but we do know from context that Abram was at this time living in the plains of Mamre, among the Amorites as it says in the Genesis 14:13. If "Eber" designates a country in the neighborhood of Assyria, and to a certain extent forming a part of it—the country beyond the Euphrates, then it clearly can not refer to the Amorite territory, can it? Not only that, but Abram is never in any source shown to have lived in Assyria. Pleas also note the date of this reference as 1901. If you can find more recent scholarship on the subject, I'd be most interested to hear about it--Meieimatai? 22:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for 1 week. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for full protection posted on WP:RFPP. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Current content after reversion 15 October 2008

The current content is completely contrary to the plain reading of the text, and its analysis. The statements made are based on not only wrong interpretations from 19th century texts, but bad reference sources, namely
1. ^ http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hebrew (a self-reference!
2. ^ entry in britannica.com 1911
3. ^ Hebrews entry in Jewish Encyclopedia 1902
4. ^ entry in britannica.com 1911
5. ^ entry in thefreedictionary.com unauthoritative
As it is now, it is simply utterly false, and misinforms--Meieimatai? 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I agree completely. Doug Weller (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Mei & Doug, did you read the whole Hebrew entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia or just the first paragraph? The entry clearly explains the different interpretations of the origin of this word. The same can be said about the Hebrew entry in Britannica online, although I find it less clear. I agree that, in the current lead paragraph, Eber is probably too prominent, Abraham not prominent enough, but to call the current version "completely contrary to the plain reading of the text" is... completely contrary to the plain reading of the texts. Both Eber and Abraham belong in the article, along with the acknowledgment that, currently, Hebrew (and Hebe) is considered synonymous with Jew. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I shouldn't have said agree entirely, because I was really just looking at the references. It is certainly the case that you can't use Wikis, and I don't think that anything a century old is likely to be a good reference. If it's accurate, I'm sure better references can be found. Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew vs hebrew and "Habiru"?

I'm not sure why Hebrew is uncapitalized several times in this article. Names of languages are always capitalized. And any equivalence between Hebrew and Habiru/Apiru is purely conjectural. I don't see why it can't be mentioned as a theory in the body of the article, but it certainly doesn't belong at the top as an equivalent. I'll fix those two things when the protection expires. -LisaLiel (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The dominant thought in academia is that the Habiru were a social not an ethnic group, e.g. http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/48464/sec_id/48464 hence my revert. I shall add this in shortly. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dusty Ones?

For the Etymology section: don't some scholars think the term Hebrew may have come from "abiru," meaning "dusty ones"? This may be a reference to their original status as nomads from the desert (as opposed to the civilized Mesopotamians). Hermanoere (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The lead "concludes" positions which are debated in schoarly literature

The sentences: "The Old Testament uses Hebrews and Jews interchangeably" and "In [ ] languages the transfer of the name from Hebrew to Jew never took place" used in the lead are gross oversimplifications, as this source shows: What Does Hebrew Mean? by D.R.G. Beattie and Philip R. Davies. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Please provide more evidence that that one article is not WP:FRINGE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Old Testament does not use Hebrews and Jews interchangeably, and the statement that it does has no WP:RS. The biblical citations given in support are a piece of incompetent WP:OR. To suggest that "Oxford Journals" are a fringe publisher is ridiculous. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The POV is what's fringe (read the article), not the publisher. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Biblical history is currently a very contentious subject, and the mainstream covers a wide spectrum of views (with apologies for the mixed metaphor). I don't suggest that Beattie and Davies are necessarily right, but in wikipedia the word "fringe" is strongly insulting, and effectively means without academic support, which is not true of their views. In any case my main point is that the statement in the article is unsourced and unsourceable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the text currently in the article. As for "fringe", I don't think it's insulting or supposed to be insulting. It's easy to to show something isn't fringe by posting a couple more RS that make the same point. That's what I was asking for above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If you think "fringe" isn't insulting in wikipedia, I'm not sure which planet you live on, but as you're not contesting my main point we might as well stop arguing. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I live on a planet where WP:FRINGE is a wikipedia content guideline. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It 's been almost a year since this debate and noone has been able to provide a source, for the disputed paragraph.

"The Old Testament of the Christian Bible uses Hebrews and Jews interchangeably, in the Book Of Esther (2:5) Mordechai the Benjamite is called a Jew, though he is not of the tribe of Judah. In Jonah 1:9 Jonah is called a Hebrew.</ref>"

Looks like WP:OR to me. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hebrews. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120817113532/http://www.museoebraico.it/english/ to http://www.museoebraico.it/english/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Unfounded removal

This has just been removed by user Walter Görlitz:

"By stating in an interview: “The Egyptians brought us... the alphabet…”., Desroches Noblecourt adopted Messod and Roger Sabbah's thesis that the first Hebrews were Egyptians. Four years after the publication of that book, in her great survey, she adopted its approach of compared historiography or intercultural comparisons. Then, in 2009, Joseph Davidovits brought an irrefragable archaeological proof that the Hebrews were Egyptians. Indeed, he showed the absolute equivalence between hieroglyphs in a fresco of the temple of Amenhotep son of Hapu in Karnak deciphered by Alexandre Varille and verse 41: 41 of Genesis."

The pretext was the following : "Not formatted correctly and this sort of fringe theory and its details belong in the body." Which body, what does that mean? First, it is a lie since the format appears perfect. If not, it must be argumented and, since Mr Görlitz pretends to good faith, first, he should explain what he finds inadequate, second, if he were friendly, he should make the allegedly necessary corrections. Second, we are afraid that Mr Görlitz seems to think that he is a better Egyptologist than the saviour of the monuments of Nubia and than Davidovits, a member of the International Association of Egyptologists, not to say anything of Alexandre Varille, a very well-known Egyptologist. Well, well, well, I will not make an edition war with such a distinguished academic. However, we may think that he has some queer prejudice against French Egyptologists... This encyclopedia cannot function with so conceited and arrogant individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you think it was unfounded and a pretext. I think it well-founded and grounded in the rules of Wikipedia. I don't pretend to assume good faith, I practice it. I don't actually think I'm an Egyptologist at all, I'm a Wikipedian and we have rules for inclusion of content and this falls outside of what I see as the guidelines. What do other editors think? Does it belong in the introduction? Does a summary belong there while the rest included in the article? Is it WP:UNDUE? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you are the one who knows where it belongs, please put it there because I do not. Thank you. However, since those truths are fundamental, basic, of course they belong to the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe it does not belong where you placed it, and am not sure where it belongs, if anywhere. There's also no rush to include this new information. Let's wait to see what other editors have to say about where it belongs. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking that the whole article is, in fact, a linguistic article, whereas my input is purely historical. So, we should create a historical chapter, I don't know where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Davidovits thinks that "zaphenat-paneah" is "amenophis fils of hapou" backwards despite the lack of any "l", "m", or "s" consonants anywhere in the former and the lack of any "z" consonant in the latter. He also overlooks that the entire point of that segment of Genesis is that Joseph was a non-Egyptian responsible for welcoming his family to a country that wasn't theirs, ultimately to be subjugated by their former hosts. There, I just refuted his claims, so please don't call them "irrefragable" (incapable of being refuted). Shutting down disagreement by asserting that someone's position can't be disagreed with ("It's not only true, it's super-duper true!") doesn't hold water. It's a hallmark of a hypothesis that can't stand up under scrutiny.

If Wikipedia treated every self-proclaimed absolute truth as core information about its topic, many Wikipedia lead sections would be long enough to fill a small book and would be loaded with a contradictory array of half-baked claims vying for reader attention, confusing and bewildering rather than informing them. Largoplazo (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you didn't read Davidovits' relevant passage; he does not think Joseph is Amenothep son of Hapu because of his name, which is just a side remark. As I mentioned, which you seem to ignore, he deduces it merely from the fact that the three presents given by Amenophis III to him ( Amenhotep) are exactly the same as those given to Joseph by the pharaoh in Genesis 41: 41. That identifies Amenhotep to Joseph in the most irrefragable way.

Anyway, that does not allow anyone to doubt Desroches Noblecourt about the fact that the Hebrews were Egyptians, which is the main information I brought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 02:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I read a thing that he wrote that said exactly what I said it said, and is dead-on relevant, and is manifest nonsense. And you're going to try to convince me that I read the wrong thing by him because it undermines the air of irrefragability that you've attempted to cultivate around him?

Aside from that, are you truly unaware that folkloric motifs have, for millennia, woven their way from culture to culture to culture, without all those cultures being the same people? I mean, I don't particularly believe that there was a Joseph. It's entirely possible that early Hebrews/Jews synthesized an Egyptian history into their own origin story. Largoplazo (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You are absolutely right concerning the zaphenat-paneah which must indeed considered a a fringe interpretation. But that arguable point must not make forget the invaluable one of the idendity between the hieroglyphs of that fresco and Genesis 41: 41, which is the point I mentioned that is the proof that the same Egyptian scribes wrote the Bible and Genesis in the same time.

The three lines above are you personal ideas that have no place in an encyclopedia. All we know is that we now have the absolute proof of is that the Joseph of the Bible is the great vizier Amhenotep son of Hapu.

Since you read French, you should go and read Varille's "Inscriptions concernant l’architecte Amenhotep fils de Hapou" available for free at this address: https://archive.org/. Reading chapter VIII, you'll be amazed by the resemblance between Amenhotep and Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

You're right that my personal analysis of the claims is no basis for a decision on inclusion. It was a tangent responding to your equally non-dispositive insistence that the fresco is an absolute proof. It isn't one, for the reasons I gave--that alternative plausible explanations exist. You might want to re-examine your concept of "proof", because your most recent comments suggest you think it refers to evidence for which one possible explanation happens to appeal to you.

Getting back on topic, unless there is ample mainstream support for this theory, it doesn't go in the lead, and perhaps not in the article, your own convictions of what constitutes an "absolute proof" being immaterial to the decision. Largoplazo (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dadidovits, a member of the International Association of Egyptologists presents it as a blatant proof. An encyclopedia cannot silence his finding, not yet contested by other Egyptologists.

Anyway, your unauthorized contest is not valid because the probability that three identical gifts made by a pharaoh to his vizier (either Joseph in the Bible, either Amenhotep in the fresco) would have been made by either another pharaoh of another vizier is null. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You are blatantly not reading what I wrote. Your reply is directed at something other than what I'd written. Also, would you please learn how to indent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largoplazo (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not interested in your writings but in those of Joseph Davidovits, a member of the International Association of Egyptologists, who presents it as a blatant proof. An encyclopedia cannot silence his finding, not yet contested by other Egyptologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 10:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

If Davidovits' position has been broadly accepted by the community—whether that be other Egyptologists or more preferably, the biblical studies or ancient near-eastern studies communities—please provide it. Without that, it's an WP:UNDUE opinion (as recognizable or important Davidovits is in the current Egyptologist community.

Even if a few additional sources can be found, a detailed explanation is not appropriate for the lead per MOS:LEAD. The lede is to summarize the article, not layout new arguments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Walter is correct, this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless it can be shown to be significant, ie discussed in reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 15:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

: Davidovits is an Egyptological authorithy. For nine years now, not a single Egyptological authority contested his finding. Therefore, since all Egyptologists without exception accepted it, an encyclopedia cannot reject it as fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Since all Egyptologists without exception accept it, you can provide articles that show that support. That is Wikipedia's position.

However your argument is deeply flawed. Just because he is an authority does not mean that all other authorities accept his findings (or in this case, opinion). Even as the president of a body, not all those under that body accept his position unequivocally. There is always some difference of opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: this IP doesn't understand our policy - see a similar edit[2] where he reverted me, insisting that although it hasn't been discussed it should be in the article, evidently because it hasn't been discussed. Davidovitz is not an authority on Egyptology, he's a material scientist with no qualifications in Egyptology. Being a member of an Egyptological society doesn't change that. I don't think he even claims he's an expert on Egyptology. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

You think that if you repeat your claim as to his authority enough times, then that overrides all arguments against either his claim or inclusion of it on Wikipedia? Also, re "For nine years now, not a single Egyptological authority contested his finding. Therefore, since all Egyptologists without exception accepted it, ...", can you really not tell the difference between no one in a field having contested someone's findings and every one of them having accepted it? You've just implied that you think they're the same. Do you think mainstream practitioners in a field all go out of their way to publish formal denunciations of every conjecture anyone comes up with? No, of course not. They're too busy doing serious work to treat every theory by every self-styled pioneer as though it merited serious consideration, especially the ones that a moment's glance reveal to be specious. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Davidovitz is not an authority on Egyptology" No Egyptological authority ever said so unless you would be one. But if you are, then, you must publish your contest of Davidovits finding in a reliable source; if not, your speech here is mere fringe theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Now, the titles of his books show that he claims to be an authority in Egyptology:

Davidovits, Joseph (1983). Alchemy and the pyramids. Saint Quentin, France: Geopolymer Institute.

Davidovits, Joseph (2002). Ils ont bâti les pyramides: Les Prouesses Technologiques des Anciens Egyptiens. Paris: J.-C. Godefroy.

Davidovits, Joseph (2005). La Bible avait raison, Tome 1: L’archéologie révèle l’existence des Hébreux en Égypte. Paris: J.-C. Godefroy.

Davidovits, Joseph (2006). La Bible avait raison, Tome 2: sur les traces de Moïse et de l’Exode. Paris: J.-C. Godefroy.

Davidovits, Joseph (2006). La nouvelle histoire des pyramides. Paris: J.-C. Godefroy.

Davidovits, Joseph (2009). De cette fresque naquit la Bible. Paris: J.-C. Godefroy.

Davidovits, Joseph (2009). Why the Pharaohs built the pyramids with fake stones. Saint Quentin, France: Geopolymer Institute.

Davidovits, Joseph (2009). The lost fresco and the Bible. Paris, France.

Hie views are pure fringe science, as such they have no place here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"That is Wikipedia's position." writes Mr Görlitz. I'm afraid wikipedia is a collective work, not Mr Görlitz's property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"Hie views are pure fringe science" As long as you do not back that view by authorized signatures, your view is mere projective gossip, unworthy of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

We do not need to , you need to demonstrate his views are main stream science, it is down to the ed asking for inclusion to make their case. Such as how many scholars cite his work?.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I need to read to read the rules on this matter; where are they? Anyway, since, for nine years, the views of a member of the International Association of Egyptologists have not been contested by any of his colleagues nor by the Press, they have become "main stream science". So, your request is unfounded and seems of very bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In case you weren't aware of it, anybody can publish a book under any title. Doing so doesn't magically confer expertise on a person who does so. By the way, you keep using the words "authorized" and "unauthorized". Whatever it is you mean by them, that isn't what those words mean.

Meanwhile, your insistence that he is an expert and that he has presented "blatant" (another word you're misusing) proof are "projective gossip" by you.

And, no: "Mainstream science" does not mean "anything at least one person has claimed that no one has contested".Largoplazo (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Bad faith is ignoring policy and guidelines. Bad faith is being asked to observe indenting and spacing rules and wilfully ignoring them. What is not bad faith is telling you that your edits are inserting fringe theories in a way that gives them UNDUE emphasis over accepted theories. You have been asked to provide source that are not from Davidovits that show widespread acceptance of his theories. You have failed to do so. That means that they do not need to be included in Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what is indenting and spacing, therefore, and very obviously for good faith persons, bad faith, and libelling is on your side.

For any title, it is very difficult to find an editor. So that the multiplication of his books is an obvious proof of the widespread acceptance of his theories.

His expertise is attested by his belonging to the International Association of Egyptologists.

It is also attested by this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits#Sources

So, calling his works fringe theories is mere defamatory libelling, and he should sue you in front of criminal courts.

All you write are judgments of value.

The silence about his works by his colleagues and, above all by the International Press, is an obvious approval of the reliability of his theories, and likely a proof of admiration towards his genial linking some hieroglyphs and a verse of the Bible. If they were fringe, like it has been wrongly said for the Sabbah brothers who were backed by Desroches Noblecourt four years later, there would have been, like for them, a public outcry, which didn't happen for him. You are the only ones who protest, you are the fringe theorists, young men, you should be excluded from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

How to use talk pages is described at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please focus on the first sub-section in the Technical and format standards.

Now you're claiming that there is a conspiracy to ignore Davidovits' work. Let me simplify this for you: if no scholars support his claims, they are clearly fringe. I assume that Egyptologists are scholars and have written scholarly works as well. Supply them. If scholars in other field support his claims, supply them. The WP:BURDEN is on you.

If you do not click on links supplied by editors, and read what is written, we are not going to spoon-feed you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In the edit conflicts I completely missed the comment "you should be excluded from Wikipedia". Very few are excluded from Wikipedia. When editors do not follow policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—and the section I have linked to twice (UNDUE)—the content they provide can be removed. So your claim that the removal is unfounded is actually false. If you continue to argue for its inclusion without meeting the policies and guidelines, we will simply ignore you. That is not a conspiracy, it is a requirement of Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a conspiracy in the adolescent contest of two or three Wikipedia editors who, indeed, need spoon-feeding from an old psychoanalyst spending hours upon their paranoid delirium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

"if no scholars support his claims, they are clearly fringe." YOU only say so, which shows that you are certainly not a scholar, who have a rule of courtesy that you totally ignore.

Now, amongst scholars - which you obviously are not - silence is a clear sign of admiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.175.32.124 (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop lying. If scholars are silent, they are ignoring, which is what I'm going to do to you.

If scholars support something, it is repeated. It is shouted from the rooftops. It is published in text books. The only reason I can see for including it here is to attempt to give it weight. It has none. Good day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please stop lying. If scholars are silent, they are ignoring, which is what I'm going to do to you.

If scholars support something, it is repeated. It is shouted from the rooftops. It is published in text books. The only reason I can see for including it here is to attempt to give it weight. It has none. Good day. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

IP blocked as sock of editor blocked here and on the French Wikipedia. I struck through their edits. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References