Talk:The Exodus/Archive 10
 | This is an archive of past discussions about The Exodus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
long-established sourced contextual material and explanations needed
hello. The addition was very valid, needed, and sourced. You should not have totally removed the hard work I put in, that was referenced and clearly sourced, and contextual. Or "pico". But it seems that one reason you jumped in is simply maybe because (at least in part) Pico did what he did. And you feel maybe a bias for him, instead of honestly examining the situation. There's no "undue" anything, as this has been the long-established explanation, and Cahill is reputable, and in article like this, and in context of the paragraph about "possible explanations with numbers", to not have it there shows the article was sorely lacking. What prompted me to put this needed addition was I was looking at the article days ago expecting to see this type of information about "too embarrassing for the Egyptian priests and record-keepers to record and put down". I saw nothing anywhere of it, though this has been known as the explanation of some historians etc for decades. Why suppress that? Wikipedia articles should inform completely, not partially to the whims of some arguably biased contributors. To be frank. The whole article had nothing regarding the explanations given as to why there was outside verification, and so the article was arguably incomplete and lacking. Your edit rationale was totally invalid, given the context of the paragraph and the "possible explanations" about "figures" etc. What you did was extremely disrespectful and unwarranted. And not something I would put up with, frankly. This is a wiki. You don't own any article, and the addition (which I put a lot of effort and tweaking and work int) was totally valid, sourced, and in context, and also arguably very needed. The article was not complete without this well-known explanation and matter. If you remove again, you'll get reverted again. You were totally out of line with this. Again, sir, this was sourced and in context...no valid reason to totally remove, or suppress, because of "I don't like" reasons. Very disrespectful...and against WP policy). Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that long and irrelevant personal attack. However, what is needed is not your speculations about other users, it's an argument for why the material you want to include is relevant here. You have cited one single source of what appears very much to be a marginal opinion not shared by mainstream academia. That a text is sourced is not enough to be included, and Pico's removal was perfectly in line with WP policies. Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP policy says clearly not to give "as much" on it in an article. It doesn't say to not put anything at all. Or necessarily zero. Also, Cahill is NOT "fringe" but very reputable. It's just an opinion that it's "undue" or so "fringe", simply because it's a minority opinion... though, is the point. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: ''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]" In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given. And WP policy is not necessarily to suppress or remove stuff that is minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. Cahill is NOT a marginal or "fringe" historian, but very respected. And WP policy is to modify more so rather than totally remove. As I stated already, this is a long-held and long-established explanation given by some historians and theologians and scholars, as to why there's no actual record by the ancient Egyptians about the Exodus. And long-time-sourced and valid. And in context of the paragraph, arguably needed. It's just the opinion (thus far) of maybe two Wikipedians that it's "un-due"? Why though? Especially given the way it's worded, that it's NOT the majority opinion, but simply has been given as a possible reason...by some historians and scholars? It's already stated in the very paragraph itself that the majority scholar opinion etc is that it was allegory, etc...but why not (especially in context of "the numbers" matter) put something that's been known for decades now? Again, sir, this is arguably NOT really "un-due" as this has been the big old explanation given by scholars, and it's in context, and is very sourced. Thomas Cahill is a reputable scholar and historian. Even having his own WP article page, etc, and he's not the only one has given this as an explanation. Why suppress that and not let it be known by a reader? Again, though, WP policy is that a "minority view" (especially in context) is NOT to be totally zero in an article. But just simply "not as much". Anyway, truce, let's try (maybe) to work together. And as I mentioned, the WP policy and recommendation is NOT to totally remove or revert or delete (especially sourced, valid, and good-faith additions and information), Alternatives to reverting and Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion which applies not just to articles but also "other materials", rudely, like this, but to perhaps modify. As I said, though. I will abide by real consensus on a talk page, when established, even if I don't agree, and I do not violate 3RR. Let's try to work together, and see the points. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you misunderstand "fringe". It is not pejorative, it is simply a description of view held by a tiny minority. Galileo was "fringe" at his time. I means no disrespect to Cahill by saying that his is a fringe view. However, you are mistaken to believe we should include every view, or that WP rules impose such an inclusion. Quite the contrary, the rules state quite clearly "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article". This seems perfectly clear. Cahill may be right, but as long as it's just Cahill's opinion, it does not belong on Wikipedia. (And please try to answer in one post, it's really not necessary to write 16(!!) times to answer one single remark.) Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP policy says clearly not to give "as much" on it in an article. It doesn't say to not put anything at all. Or necessarily zero. Also, Cahill is NOT "fringe" but very reputable. It's just an opinion that it's "undue" or so "fringe", simply because it's a minority opinion... though, is the point. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: ''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]" In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given. And WP policy is not necessarily to suppress or remove stuff that is minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. Cahill is NOT a marginal or "fringe" historian, but very respected. And WP policy is to modify more so rather than totally remove. As I stated already, this is a long-held and long-established explanation given by some historians and theologians and scholars, as to why there's no actual record by the ancient Egyptians about the Exodus. And long-time-sourced and valid. And in context of the paragraph, arguably needed. It's just the opinion (thus far) of maybe two Wikipedians that it's "un-due"? Why though? Especially given the way it's worded, that it's NOT the majority opinion, but simply has been given as a possible reason...by some historians and scholars? It's already stated in the very paragraph itself that the majority scholar opinion etc is that it was allegory, etc...but why not (especially in context of "the numbers" matter) put something that's been known for decades now? Again, sir, this is arguably NOT really "un-due" as this has been the big old explanation given by scholars, and it's in context, and is very sourced. Thomas Cahill is a reputable scholar and historian. Even having his own WP article page, etc, and he's not the only one has given this as an explanation. Why suppress that and not let it be known by a reader? Again, though, WP policy is that a "minority view" (especially in context) is NOT to be totally zero in an article. But just simply "not as much". Anyway, truce, let's try (maybe) to work together. And as I mentioned, the WP policy and recommendation is NOT to totally remove or revert or delete (especially sourced, valid, and good-faith additions and information), Alternatives to reverting and Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion which applies not just to articles but also "other materials", rudely, like this, but to perhaps modify. As I said, though. I will abide by real consensus on a talk page, when established, even if I don't agree, and I do not violate 3RR. Let's try to work together, and see the points. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's NOT "just Cahill's opinion". There are many others (I thought I made that clear) that it's a general view and explanation of a NUMBER of sources (past and present). You're acting (by what you said) that it's only Thomas Cahill or something that came up with this! It simply isn't. Yes it's a minority view, but again the WP policy says clearly not to give "as much" on it in an article. It doesn't say to not put anything at all. Or necessarily zero. Also, Cahill is NOT "fringe" but very reputable. It's just an opinion that it's "undue" or so "fringe", simply because it's a minority opinion... though, is the point.
- See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight: ''articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]" In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given. And WP policy is not necessarily to suppress or remove stuff that is minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. Cahill is NOT a marginal or "fringe" historian, but very respected. And so again, WP policy is that a "minority view" (especially in context) is NOT to be totally zero in an article. But just simply "not as much". Again, sir, this is arguably NOT really "un-due" as this has been the big old explanation given by scholars, and it's in context, and is very sourced. Thomas Cahill is a reputable scholar and historian. Even having his own WP article page, etc, and he's not the only one has given this as an explanation. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, you're not listening to what I'm saying, just repeating the same mantra without even bothering to WP:HEAR, which is highly dispruptive. I already explained fringe once. And Cahill is the only source you have given. If there are
otherreliable sources holding the same view, please present them. Jeppiz (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, you're not listening to what I'm saying, just repeating the same mantra without even bothering to WP:HEAR, which is highly dispruptive. I already explained fringe once. And Cahill is the only source you have given. If there are
- The claim that no record whatsoever of a major economic, political and demographic catastrophe was preserved is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. It is like all African Americans would leave US permanently and no record of such event would remain for 100 years later. But I grant you that very conservative and fundamentalist scholars would side with Cahill. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're missing the entire point, Tgeorgescue, as in a way I'm actually in agreement with what you said, but it's frankly in a way a straw-man and a fake argument, and a category error, and somewhat irrelevant to this matter, because it's not the matter that it's "extraordinary" as that's already admitted, but the point that SOME SCHOLARS HAVE OFFERED THIS AS AN EXPLANATION...of dishonest or suppressive Egyptian record keepers, which is admitted was done in many cases, to hide such an embarrassing and appalling fact, as has been the habit of ancient pagan priests and scribes. Did you even read the edit and addition in the article, and the neutral tone of wording? It was NOT offered as a fact or as true, but as some scholars and historians have given it as an explanation, and Cahill is not some kooky fringe source, but considered respectable and reputable, and it's not just him. But again, you're confusing things in a way with a category error argument. It doesn't matter that it's "extraordinary" but that it's an explanation long-time given and sourced, and in context of that paragraph was lacking. And again, WP policy is not to give zero to "minority view" but simply just "not as much". Please re-read what I wrote above in my other comments. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- What about writing much less irrelevant text and instead starting to present these sources you claim exist? We're interested in sources here, you know. Jeppiz (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're missing the entire point, Tgeorgescue, as in a way I'm actually in agreement with what you said, but it's frankly in a way a straw-man and a fake argument, and a category error, and somewhat irrelevant to this matter, because it's not the matter that it's "extraordinary" as that's already admitted, but the point that SOME SCHOLARS HAVE OFFERED THIS AS AN EXPLANATION...of dishonest or suppressive Egyptian record keepers, which is admitted was done in many cases, to hide such an embarrassing and appalling fact, as has been the habit of ancient pagan priests and scribes. Did you even read the edit and addition in the article, and the neutral tone of wording? It was NOT offered as a fact or as true, but as some scholars and historians have given it as an explanation, and Cahill is not some kooky fringe source, but considered respectable and reputable, and it's not just him. But again, you're confusing things in a way with a category error argument. It doesn't matter that it's "extraordinary" but that it's an explanation long-time given and sourced, and in context of that paragraph was lacking. And again, WP policy is not to give zero to "minority view" but simply just "not as much". Please re-read what I wrote above in my other comments. Regards.... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, I would like to have a clear guideline on how to report conservative and fundamentalist Bible scholarship, since sometimes it is considered reliable, at other times it isn't. Maybe the context makes a difference, but I would like to have it spelled out clearly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It seems, Jeppiz, that (and I don't mean this rudely or insultingly) that this was something you simply didn't know. And your lack of knowledge to this long-time explanation is no excuse to suppress it from Wikipedia. You indicate that you didn't know that this was given established view by your seeming to think by your words that it was only Cahill, and now you demanding more sources saying these types of things. You honestly didn't know that it's been ADMITTED (in general) that ancient pagan cultures always omitted, exaggerated, embellished, in their record-keeping and historical accounts for later generations? I minored in classical history in college, sir. I know about these matters. Anyway, per your request...
- Etyptologst J.A. Wilson:
- "Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned." (The World History of the Jewish People)
- In fact, I'm adding this source to the statement. Again, sir, this is a LONG-ESTABLISHED KNOWN THING...by historians. And it should arguably be represented and known on a Wikipedia page. Despite your "I don't like" reasons, and ignorance of this known fact. Just speaking bluntly. You acted like this was so far-out "fringe" and even if it's the minority view, I clearly demonstrated (that you ignore and dismiss0 that WP policy is simply to not give "as much" attention. But not necessarily zero. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- About Cahill being a well-established scholar, at Talk:Ebionites#Eisenman and Tabor it has been argued that "well-established scholar" is not the same as "unable to write fringe views". Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- But it's NOT really a "fringe view" that generally (see the J.A. Wilson quote above) that "Egyptian records were always positive, emphasizing the successes of the pharaoh or the god, whereas failures and defeats were never mentioned." (The World History of Jewish History). Regards... Gabby Merger (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is a leap of faith from "they are generally positive" to "that's why there is no evidence whatsoever of a major demographic catastrophe". E.g. some scribe had to complain that Hebrews are no longer available for work, so they are unable to gather the crops, build houses, or something like that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Gabby Merger, I'm not insulted by someone indicating I don't know every fact in the world, why would I be? I don't know everything, I never will. I am a bit troubled by your repeated failures to keep from discussing other users. As for the claimed "The World History of the Jewish People", it does not yield a single hit on Google, and the only J.A. Wilson I can find is A. Jeyaratnam Wilson who is most certainly not a WP:RS on the subject we're discussing, so Cahill remains the only source that has been given. Jeppiz (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeorgescu, you keep missing the point, and it's getting tiresome now, frankly, as you're repeating the same argument and category error, and I already clarified that it's NOT stating it as if it that's the actual occurrence, but simply that this is one explanation that is OFFERED by some scholars and historians (past and present) on why the Egyptians never recorded a defeat by the Hebrews. What part of that is not understandable? I did not word it in such a way as to give the indication that this is what Wikipedia itself believes, but simply that (again) this is one explanation that some sources (valid reputable sources) have given. So your stuff about "extraordinary" and "leap of faith" is a non-sequitur, and also not even all that true. As it's been ADMITTED in general that ancient cultures embellished and suppressed embarrassing information. And as far as the Exodus, yeah, it's considered an overall minority view, but that's also stated in the paragraph contextually. And as I stated more than once and quoted actual WP guidelines, that minority view is NOT to necessarily have zero mention, but simply just "not as much". WP is not supposed to suppress information and sourced materiel on the whims of a few admittedly ignorant or "I don't like" Wikipedia editors. The matter is sourced, for a while now, as even a general point of hiding and embellishment, by ancient pagan authorities, and WP itself says (to repeat) that "minority views" are not necessarily to have no mention at all. Just not to the same degree, and that's been followed here. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this is getting tiresome and that somebody is missing the point, though it's hardly Tgeorgescu. If Gabby Merger isn't willing to hear, there's not much we can do and I won't waste further time on this. What is obvious is that the consensus is against including this fringe view, with three users opposed to it and only Gabby Merger in favour. PiCo and I have already reverted, but as Gabby keeps insisting on ignoring WP:BRD, Gabby's version remain the version of the article, so I'd appreciate if somebody would revert; at least for the duration of the discussion, in accordance with WP:BRD, as Gabby Merger is clearly unwilling to do the right thing. Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you keep missing and dodging the point that "minority views" are not necessarily to be given zero mention, but simply "not as much". You keep evading that. Instead you put some insulting comment pleading for someone to revert again, regardless of everything I took the time to present here, and WP quotes, and facts. You keep rudely dodging and not caring. And as far Tgeorgescu, he keeps bringing up irrelevant straw-men. So yeah, he big time keeps missing the point. That it's not stated as if WP agrees, but simply that it's offered.
- I agree that this is getting tiresome and that somebody is missing the point, though it's hardly Tgeorgescu. If Gabby Merger isn't willing to hear, there's not much we can do and I won't waste further time on this. What is obvious is that the consensus is against including this fringe view, with three users opposed to it and only Gabby Merger in favour. PiCo and I have already reverted, but as Gabby keeps insisting on ignoring WP:BRD, Gabby's version remain the version of the article, so I'd appreciate if somebody would revert; at least for the duration of the discussion, in accordance with WP:BRD, as Gabby Merger is clearly unwilling to do the right thing. Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- You asked for another source, I gave you one, and you find fault with it. So there's no point in continuing this, as it's made clear that you're being stubborn and not listening to all of WP guidelines, but keep dodging it, of "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." And also..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3]" In context, it's arguably warranted, as it's long-established as a reason given.
- Also, you said that I keep ignoring Bold Revert Discuss. How so exactly? I'm discussing here, big time, and took the time to present, quote, and go over matters and points, that you have no appreciation or respect for. You're very pot-kettle-black, and very uncivil.
- And YOU keep ignoring the WP guideline of "not as much" detail, but not zero, as far as minority views. The exact quote and wording are right there. That's clearly stated in the WP policy, and for some reason you "don't like" that either, but keep ignoring, evading, and rationalizing that away, with your ignorant view that this matter was so "fringe". It's a minority view and explanation, but WP says some mention of those things in context can (and even should) be given. You don't care about that though, obviously. You're not even caring about the facts, but keep dissing and dismissing to hold on to your admittedly ignorant view of that matter of Egyptian suppression of facts. And then find uptight fault with Wilson as a source. Sighs....
- And WP policy is not necessarily to totally suppress or remove stuff that is "minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. That's the point that YOU keep missing and not accepting. You even admitted that you didn't even KNOW that this was a practice of ancient pagan cultures, and your ignorance of that fact was guiding your reverts. And thereby hiding valid well-known well-established sourced facts. (Also, no real "consensus" has been built. A couple of editors does not really make that. Try 5 or 10 WP editors. Not one or two.) Not gonna keep going around in circles and repeating myself 1000 times on this. Minority views, UNLIKE what you keep thinking, is not supposed to be 100% suppressed, like you and "pico" wanted to wrongly do...but simply not give the same degree of mention. But that does not mean necessarily "zero". Re-read the WP guidelines I quoted verbatim. Thanks....... Gabby Merger (talk) 17:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Two words in responses to John A Wilson (Gabby, why are you not clear about his name)- Ipuwer Papyrus. Doug Weller (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gabby Merger, you have given exactly one source satisfying WP:RS. That is not "minority", it's "fringe". And why do you refuse to restore the established version, as WP:BRD requires? If you find it rude that I appeal for Wikipedia's rules to be followed, then consider it rude. Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just because you couldn't find that book by Wilson on Google does not necessarily mean it's such an "unsatisfying source". Not all valid sources and books and works (especially if written in the 1960's) are necessarily so findable on Google or the web searches. And the fact that it's a source from the 1960s, by the way, proves my point of "long-established". Anyway, sorry things got a bit heated, but it hurts that I put all this together, and you dismiss it and basicall wrongly say that I ignore "Bold Revert Discuss", when that's all I've been doing here now on this Talk page for HOURS now. And frankly, as I said, you keep ignoring the WP guideline of "not as much" detail, but not zero, as far as minority views. The exact quote and wording are right there. That's clearly stated in the WP policy, and for some reason you "don't like" that either, but keep ignoring, evading, and rationalizing that away, with your ignorant view that this matter was so "fringe".
- Gabby Merger, you have given exactly one source satisfying WP:RS. That is not "minority", it's "fringe". And why do you refuse to restore the established version, as WP:BRD requires? If you find it rude that I appeal for Wikipedia's rules to be followed, then consider it rude. Jeppiz (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's a minority view and explanation, but WP says some mention of those things in context can (and even should) be given. You don't care about that though, obviously. Your statements are not warranted. You're seeming not to really care about all the facts, issues, or guidelines, but keep dissing and dismissing to hold on to your admittedly ignorant view of that matter of Egyptian suppression of facts. And then find uptight fault with Wilson as a source. Sighs....And WP policy is not necessarily to totally suppress or remove stuff that is "minority view." Especially in a context of some reasons given for the lack of outside verification. That's the point that YOU keep missing and not accepting. You even admitted that you didn't even KNOW that this was a practice of ancient pagan cultures, and your ignorance of that fact was guiding your reverts. And thereby hiding valid well-known well-established sourced facts. Gabby Merger (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- The bigger problem is: when conservative and fundamentalist Bible scholarship could be considered a minority view and when it can be considered fringe? Till this problem gets answered principally, by matter of policy or guideline, symptoms of it will continue to haunt Wikipedia articles and talk pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- My view is: some kind of mention that true believers keep faith in the Exodus as a historic event is warranted, be it even according to WP:BLUE. It is a notable theological view and it should not be purged from Wikipedia. Of course, we would still have to decide its proper wording. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Tgeorgescu, I agree with that view but then it should be presented as a faith-based view. The current version, including yours, present it as an academic disagreement, and that is inaccurate. Jeppiz (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Tgeorgescu... It was correct what you added, sourced, and valid what you put in, according to context, and according to WP due and undue and sources. Your edit and addition were contextually valid, and arguably warranted, and I would never revert what you put it, because it happens to be referenced and sourced and what's stated by majority scholarship on this issue. So it was a valid modification and elaboration etc. To what I put in, that was also sourced. As WP policy recommends, "modify instead of wholesale deletion", to improve not remove. And again, the point of Wilson and Cahill was in the context of the very section and paragraphs themselves, of rationalizing or explaining why Egypt herself never chronicalized things like the 10 plagues or the Hebrew exodus out of Egyptian slavery etc, or the destruction of Egyptian charioteers and soldiers or of that then reigning king of Egypt. Of course majority historians discount it ever actually happening, in that way, or at all, but it's also known and admitted (as a general point) that ancient pagan nations or kingdoms in general would not always be so honest or straightforward or complete in their recording of everything. Embellishing some facts and details, while minimizing or even totally hiding others. And that was really the point. Anyway, thanks for your work on it too. It was a bit blunt, but it was quoted correctly. Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- User:Gabby Merger, where are you actually getting your Wilson quote from? You don't seem to have known his name, and he never wrote a book called "The World History of the Jewish People". I'm thinking that you haven't read what he actually wrote but have seen quotes elsewhere, which really isn't satisfactory. I found it easy enough to find his name and details about the book, but your reference details are wrong. I'll also note that Wilson wrote half a century ago, and Cahill isn't a specialist but a generalist. "Some scholars" shouldn't be there, just the two, but actually since Wilson isn't completely accurate perhaps that quote shouldn't be there at all- you didn't respond to my comment earlier at all. Doug Weller (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with all of the above. Wilson does not appear to satisfy WP:RS and Cahill is WP:UNDUE. Unfortunately, the article in its current form is a victory for bad behavior, as Gabby Merger has managed to impose it just by edit warring actively enough and wearing down other users. Jeppiz (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. ::::::::::Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. (As for Jeppiz, again, your behavior was arguably rude and appalling and dismissive and ignorant (by your own admission) and "I don't like" and not acknowledging the quoted WP guideline of "minority view" given SOME mention, but just "not as much", etc etc. I'm not perfect, and neither are you, if that's the case. And also the "modify instead of revert" etc.. And you lied about my ignoring "Bold, Revert, Discuss", as that's all I've been doing here, for hours, on this talk page, which you show no respect or appreciation for. So as I said, you're very pot-kettle-black...though I tried to discuss and present and work here with you.) Gabby Merger (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Gabby Merger (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- I notice that Doug Weller directly asked Gabby Merger from where she got the Wilson quote, and Gabby Merger coyly responded that "I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book". Perhaps Gabby Merger is not aware that if she gets a citation from 'another book', then she should say where she read it. Since Gabby Merger's editing history unambiguously indicates her to be an apologist for Jehovah's Witnesses, it comes as no surprise that the source for her use of Wilson is The Watchtower, 15 November 1968, page 681 (bound volume). The Watch Tower Society also quotes the same book by Wilson in Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 451.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. ::::::::::Hi, Doug Weller. I don't have the actual book, but see the references in another book, but I don't know hwy you say I got his name and book name wrong. How exactly? Also, you missed the point about it being from the 1960's, as that actually BOLSTERS UP my point and what I said repeatedly "long-held" and "long-established" explanation. (And it's in the very name of the section that I put on here, if you notice..."long established"). So, frankly, given that, I'm exactly not sure why you're complaining about the "half a century ago" matter, instead of seeing the arguable pro and point for that, in what I was saying all along. It's a long-known thing that ancient cultures sometimes hid things and embellished others. Also, again, how and where exactly did I get his name wrong? His name is J.A. Wilson, and he did write a book (according to what I have) called "World History of the Jewish People" in 1964. So where's the error exactly? Please let me know. Thanks. (As for Jeppiz, again, your behavior was arguably rude and appalling and dismissive and ignorant (by your own admission) and "I don't like" and not acknowledging the quoted WP guideline of "minority view" given SOME mention, but just "not as much", etc etc. I'm not perfect, and neither are you, if that's the case. And also the "modify instead of revert" etc.. And you lied about my ignoring "Bold, Revert, Discuss", as that's all I've been doing here, for hours, on this talk page, which you show no respect or appreciation for. So as I said, you're very pot-kettle-black...though I tried to discuss and present and work here with you.) Gabby Merger (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Gabby Merger (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2015 (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
- This is a recent reliable source which (more or less) grants you the point about past consensus about the Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: at Talk:Gospel of Luke#Neutrality I made an argument that conservative/fundamentalist Bible scholarship fails WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, since its claims are not taught as fact in most major universities. My subjective impression was that I failed to convince other editors. Anyway, this has to be sorted out formally, instead of being fought piecemeal in every talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Tgeorgescu: Of course, you're absolutely right about that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: at Talk:Gospel of Luke#Neutrality I made an argument that conservative/fundamentalist Bible scholarship fails WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, since its claims are not taught as fact in most major universities. My subjective impression was that I failed to convince other editors. Anyway, this has to be sorted out formally, instead of being fought piecemeal in every talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, the problem is that such scholarship is presented as historical scholarship, so Wikipedia would be accused of gatekeeping in favor of "liberal" scholarship. The deal is this: conservative scholars start from theological assumptions (like biblical inerrancy), work them out in empiric-analytic arguments and present it as history. So, at least apparently, it is hard to distinguish between theological claims and historical scholarship, since their own claim is that they write history, not theology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, and I'd never propose censoring any view. If it can be showed that there's a critical mass of contemporary scholars holding that view, I also think it should be mentioned in interest of WP:NPOV. Despite a very long discussion, all we have is Cahill, and even though Cahill is WP:RS, only one is still WP:FRINGE. More would be needed if we're to keep this in. Jeppiz (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gabby, we really hope that editors read the sources directly. We shouldn't even use snippets. As in archaeology so in other forms of research, context is key. And there's no reason to trust any source other than the original. Especially when trusting your sources lead you to call John A. Wilson (Egyptologist) the author of the book in question. I assure you he is not. I agree that many Creationists do use that as an excuse, and it is true that the Egyptians didn't boast about their defeats. But what is suggested was put in its place - are we looking for lacunae and claiming that shows that was when the Exodus took place? The problem is that's just an excuse, not evidence, but it's being used as though it were evidence. But anyway we can't use it. The point about 1964 is that Egyptology has come a long way in the last half century, and you need something more recent, eg Kitchen. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Missed the 48 hour block imposed last night, so we won't here from Gabby Merger for another 24+ hours. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, all. It might really help if someone here said something to the effect of, well, indicating what everyone is talking about here. So far as I can tell, thee seems to be a question about whether the Egyptians mentioned the Exodus, and possibly sources which indicate that because the Egyptian historians tended and pharaohs didn't really brag about their failures, lack of historical evidence is to a degree evidence. Is that anywhere near being right? If it is, are we, basically, talking about the lack of contemporary historical evidence supporting the Exodus? If that final matter is the basic point, there are a really disgusting number of reference works which discuss this topic, at sometimes fairly great length, including the recent, admittedly Christian conservative, Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, the older more academic Anchor Bible Dictionary, and the Oxford encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which probably covers this particular topic within their article on the Book of Exodus, among a number of others. The relative weight and attention they give this question collectively might be the best indicator of how to proceed here, and I imagine it might be possible to get many or most from WP:RX for those involved here to consult. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks John Carter, relevant comment as always. One major problem (among several) I have with the text Gabby Merger insisted on inserting, and which would apply to any similar insertion, is that I feel it misses the point. The article makes quite a detailed case, grounded in mainstream academia, for why an Exodus akin to the one described in the Bible could not have happened. The fact that the Biblical crushing defeat is not mentioned is just one of several such arguments, yet the text appeared to do away with all objections by bringing it down to just one point. Most archaeologists consider the lack of any mention of that Biblical defeat the least important argument. Finkelstein (I believe it was Finkelstein) wrote that the strongest argument is the absence of any archaeological finds in the Sinai. If any mass emigration slowly moved from Egypt to Israel across to Sinai, we would have found archaeological evidence for that, but there is absolutely none. That is not explained by Egyptians not recording defeats. If a foreign population lived among the Egyptians and numbered anything even close to half of what the Bible claims, it would have been recorded. Perhaps not the actual defeat against that people, but most certainly their existence among the Egyptians. And if Egypt was really hit by such a disaster that its first-born died, all its crops and livestock died, and a large number of its grown men died, then that would be exceedingly evident in the demographics of the region, it would have been a disaster that would have set back the Egyptian culture for decades at the very least. Yet there is no indication of that. Reducing this to a discussion of whether ancient cultures recorded defeats or not is to miss the point of the discussion about the historicity of the event. (As for the sources used, it goes without saying that the Watchtower is not WP:RS.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- The assertion by fundamentalists such as Jehovah's Witnesses and others that the Egyptians simply 'removed all traces' of the Jews being in Egypt for hundreds of years is quite ridiculous. Just to demonstrate how weak their assertion is, JW literature claims that the Jews were in Egypt for 215 years, and that the Egyptians deleted all the evidence that they'd ever been there. To 'explain' why there is no evidence that the Jews were in Egypt, their book Insight on the Scriptures claims:
Absence of information concerning Israel. This is not surprising, since the Egyptians not only refused to record matters uncomplimentary to themselves but also were not above effacing records of a previous monarch if the information in such records proved distasteful to the then reigning pharaoh. Thus, after the death of Queen Hatshepsut, Thutmose III had her name and representations chiseled out of the monumental reliefs. This practice doubtless explains why there is no known Egyptian record of the 215 years of Israelite residence in Egypt or of their Exodus.
— Insight on the Scriptures, volume 1, page 451- That's right, Hatshepsut, who we apparently shouldn't know about is given as 'evidence' that the Egyptians were so good at deleting records.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but let's focus on the article and the historicity issues rather than JW. Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Just demonstrating that the claim about Egyptians 'erasing records' is a very poor argument and should not be presented as a scholarly view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, but let's focus on the article and the historicity issues rather than JW. Jeppiz (talk) 00:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks John Carter, relevant comment as always. One major problem (among several) I have with the text Gabby Merger insisted on inserting, and which would apply to any similar insertion, is that I feel it misses the point. The article makes quite a detailed case, grounded in mainstream academia, for why an Exodus akin to the one described in the Bible could not have happened. The fact that the Biblical crushing defeat is not mentioned is just one of several such arguments, yet the text appeared to do away with all objections by bringing it down to just one point. Most archaeologists consider the lack of any mention of that Biblical defeat the least important argument. Finkelstein (I believe it was Finkelstein) wrote that the strongest argument is the absence of any archaeological finds in the Sinai. If any mass emigration slowly moved from Egypt to Israel across to Sinai, we would have found archaeological evidence for that, but there is absolutely none. That is not explained by Egyptians not recording defeats. If a foreign population lived among the Egyptians and numbered anything even close to half of what the Bible claims, it would have been recorded. Perhaps not the actual defeat against that people, but most certainly their existence among the Egyptians. And if Egypt was really hit by such a disaster that its first-born died, all its crops and livestock died, and a large number of its grown men died, then that would be exceedingly evident in the demographics of the region, it would have been a disaster that would have set back the Egyptian culture for decades at the very least. Yet there is no indication of that. Reducing this to a discussion of whether ancient cultures recorded defeats or not is to miss the point of the discussion about the historicity of the event. (As for the sources used, it goes without saying that the Watchtower is not WP:RS.) Jeppiz (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, all. It might really help if someone here said something to the effect of, well, indicating what everyone is talking about here. So far as I can tell, thee seems to be a question about whether the Egyptians mentioned the Exodus, and possibly sources which indicate that because the Egyptian historians tended and pharaohs didn't really brag about their failures, lack of historical evidence is to a degree evidence. Is that anywhere near being right? If it is, are we, basically, talking about the lack of contemporary historical evidence supporting the Exodus? If that final matter is the basic point, there are a really disgusting number of reference works which discuss this topic, at sometimes fairly great length, including the recent, admittedly Christian conservative, Zondervan encyclopedia of the Bible, the older more academic Anchor Bible Dictionary, and the Oxford encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which probably covers this particular topic within their article on the Book of Exodus, among a number of others. The relative weight and attention they give this question collectively might be the best indicator of how to proceed here, and I imagine it might be possible to get many or most from WP:RX for those involved here to consult. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
- Missed the 48 hour block imposed last night, so we won't here from Gabby Merger for another 24+ hours. Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Does lack of evidence mean something didn't happen? Sh33na (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. To Jeffro77 above. The original and first reference that I put in was Thomas Cahill, and his book The Gifts of the Jews - How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. And I originally put that ref alone. The Wilson ref came later on, from a search, and at the request of Jeppiz. But Cahill alone I felt was overall sufficient at that point. (And that Cahill book had literally zero to do with anything with Jehovah’s witnesses, or any JW books or journals or sermons. That wasn’t even on my mind in that sense, nor did I look at ANY Watchtower publications regarding this article or this specific matter. Cahill had nothing to do with that.) And even Jeppiz admitted a number of times that it was a reliable source and ok. But the Wilson source that I provided here later on (and then soon on the article itself) was only at the demand of Jeppiz, for another source. He kept insisting to find something else, etc, so I did a search, and the Wilson thing was even more pointed in a way, and it’s in a pro-JW website, “strictly genteel”, which transcribed the noted WT book “Is the Bible Really the Word of God?”, and the link can be found here http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/wordofgod/wordofgod4.html. (Also, to DougWeller, hello. I’m still not sure why you say that I got the name of the book wrong. That’s what’s stated as the source. J.A. Wilson. And “The World History of the Jewish People”. At least that’s he main part of the name of the book, and I believe Wilson was a co-author of that or something.) But, to Jeffro, you seem to think (incorrectly) that I probably had the Wilson ref as paramount, when in actuality that was just a side thing and accident, because of subsequent demands and circumstances on this Talk page. Cahill was actually my guy on this specific matter on the Exodus matter, NOT Wilson necessarily nearly as much. The exact (in-context) quote from Cahill’s book says this:
- “When we examine the considerable extant literatures of Mesopotamia and Egypt, we find no obvious mention of the Israelites. If, as the majority of scholars have provisionally concluded, Israel escaped from Egypt in the reign of Rameses II about midway through the thirteenth century B.C., why is there no record of this marvellous defeat in any Egyptian text or inscription? Of course, the defeat may have been so embarrassing to Egypt that, like many great powers, it could not allow itself to record honestly what happened. Alternatively, the story of the drowning of Pharaoh’s army may have been inflated over time by Hebrew oral tradition, and what had been a minor skirmish in Egyptian eyes (we know, for instance, that Ramses II died not in a watery grave but in his bed) was eventually puffed up beyond all recognition. Most radically: the Exodus may never have taken place, but may be just a story concocted, like Gilgamesh, by nomadic herdsmen in need of an evening’s entertainment. This last hypothesis, though temptingly unambiguous, can be maintained only by ignoring undeniable aspects of the actual text of the Bible. There are real differences—literary differences, differences of tone and taste, but, far more important, differences of substance and approach to material—between Gilgamesh and Exodus, and even between Gilgamesh and Genesis."
- Cahill continues:
- "The anonymous authors of Gilgamesh tell their story in the manner of a myth. There is no attempt to convince us that anything in the story ever took place in historical time. At every point, rather, we are reminded that the action is taking place 'once upon a time'—in other words, in that pristine Golden Time outside of meaningless earthly time. The story of Gilgamesh, like the gods themselves, belong to the realm of the stars. It is meant as a model for the hearers, who believed, in any case, that everything important, everything archeteypal, happened, had happened, was happening—it is impossible to fix this occurrence clearly in one tense, since it occurs outside of time—beyond the earthly realm of unimportant instances. For all the ancients (except the Israelites, the people who would become the Jews), time as we think of it was unreal; the Real was what was heavenly and archetypal. For us, the heirs of the Jewish perception, the exact opposite is true: earthly time is real time; Eternity, if we think of it at all, is the end of time (or simply an illusion). The text of the Bible is full of clues that the authors are attempting to write history of some sort....But there is in these tales a kind of specificity—a concreteness of detail, a concern to get things right—that convinces us that the writer has no doubt that each of the main events he chronicles happened.”
- He makes it pretty clear that, even though not saying it dogmatically, he does lean towards these things as probably happening somehow, that there probably was a mass exodus of Hebrew Israelites from Egypt, but may have been embellished later, and the point about Egyptians hiding and omitting defeats or embarrassing facts and details. Yes, Cahill may be a “generalist” as Doug Weller said, but Cahill deals more generally with historical issues, and is arguably versed in the general field of history, as has already been conceded. He’s also written histories on ancient Greeks.) Cahill was my only reference, and it’s fairly solid.) By the way, just to make it straight, though I can be considered (to some extent) an “apologist for JWs” as you put it, I’m nothing right now, and I have not been actual Witness, for decades now. So don’t think I’m an actual Witness, when currently I’m not in reality. I’m pro-JW overall, sure, as it’s been made clear that I favor their take on the Bible, theology, prophecy, soteriology, eschatology, Christian living, etc etc... But I don’t attend anything, nor am I officially a member of anything. I only state this because you made the statements about me regarding that stuff earlier, on this page. And I want no mis-views or mis-notions, and just setting the record a bit straighter in a way. You’re right that I’m a sometimes apologist for JWs, but that’s not all I do on Wikipedia (like some others are more into it). I hardly ever go on JW related articles, nor do I care that much about them, though I've contributed and added sometimes in passing to Witness related sections on rare occasion. But not actual articles themselves. They’re taken care of by you and BlackCab and others quite nicely overall (and I do NOT mean that sarcastically, but honestly).
- Also, by the way, to Jeppiz’s statement above that the lack of inscriptions or writings by the Egyptians of the Exodus is only a small part, but rather more so lack of archaeological finds for heavy migration and remains etc...or a heavy defeat or catastrophe ever happening to Egypt like that...there’s one interesting thing here, a papyrus of interest:
- In the Leiden Museum in Holland is a papyrus written in a later period, but most scholars recognize it as being a copy of a papyrus from an earlier dynasty. It could have been from the 13th dynasty describing the conditions that prevailed after the plagues had struck. It reads,
- ‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’ (Erman, A., Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum, quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 94—101, 1966)
- There is an admittedly lack of solid archaeology, but then there was a lack for the Amorites migrating to Babylon, as pointed out by Assyriologist Alan Millard. Amorites flooded into the Babylonian empire, taking over a number of cities and establishing their own dynasties. This is evident from a large body of written material from the period. Even after this influx of Amorites, the material culture gives no appreciable sign of change. Millard argues that the same thing could have happened with Israel. Since the Israelites were commanded to take over the material culture of Canaan (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-11), it appears that a nearly seamless transition from the Canaanite culture to an Israelite one is easily explained. Millard, Alan R. (2008), “Were the Israelites Really Canaanites?” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? ed.Daniel I. Block (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group).
- But anyway, again, to re-iterate, you’re not correct if you think that Wilson was my original, first, or main source...or what I wanted in the first place. Thomas Cahill actually was (and is). Wilson was a supplement, due to Jeppiz’s insistence earlier. That was all. Which was ok, because I agree that more refs are always better in general. Regards........ Gabby Merger (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I doubt that Cahill wrote history in this book:
But to understand ourselves—and the identity we carry so effortlessly that most “moderns” no longer give any thought to the origins of attitudes we have come to take as natural and self-evident—we must return to this great document, the cornerstone of Western civilization. My purpose is not to write an introduction to the Bible, still less to Judaism, but to discover in this unique culture of the Word some essential thread that runs through it, to uncover in outline the sensibility that undergirds the whole structure, and to identify the still-living sources of our Western heritage for contemporary readers, whatever color of the belief-unbelief spectrum they may inhabit.
— Cahill, INTRODUCTION * The Jews Are It
- His writing is more story-telling that historiography, or, if you want, he is not concerned with historical fact, but with the history of ideas.
The text of the Bible is full of clues that the authors are attempting to write history of some sort. Of course, as we read the patriarchal narratives of Genesis or the escape-from-Egypt narrative of Exodus, we know we are not reading anything with the specificity of a history of FDR’s administration. The people who constructed these narratives did not, like Doris Kearns Goodwin, have access to the card catalogue of the Library of Congress or the resources of the Internet. They had heard the story they were writing down, had received it from an oral culture, had in fact received it in two or three variant forms—in the varieties we would expect from tales told over and over down the centuries at one caravan site after another. They did their best to be faithful to their tradition, even if one strand of that tradition occasionally contradicted another. ... The Israelites, by becoming the first people to live—psychologically—in real time, also became the first people to value the New and to welcome Surprise. In doing this, they radically subverted all other ancient worldviews.
— Cahill, FOUR SINAI * From Death to Life
- For making this point is irrelevant whether the Exodus is accurate historiography, all it matters is that its authors thought they were writing real history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- The point of the long quote of Cahill, from his book, was to show that it's clear what he said, and it was in context. And also, to make the point to Jeffro77 that Cahill alone originally was my source for the edit, not Wilson. (And Cahill definitely wrote about history, and analyzed and spoke this specific matter and its attendant issues.) And that Cahill had literally nothing to do with any JW literature or books. The Wilson quote and ref came later on...only because of Jeppiz's demanding another source on this Talk page etc, etc. That was really all. My long comment above was mainly (though not exclusively) to Jeffro77, because of certain things he commented and wrote above. And to make very clear that Cahill alone was my original source, for this matter. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- He is underlining the point made by Jewish stories upon the history of ideas. So, it is a lame source for maintaining that the Exodus story has historicity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill does not marshal evidence for Exodus having historicity, he just stresses the point of those stories and their impact upon worldwide mentality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill definitely wrote about history, and analyzed and spoke this specific matter and its attendant issues. But again, that was not actually really the main point of my lengthy comment above. But that, to Jeffro77, the Wilson ref was not my original source, but rather Cahill alone was, which even Jeppiz admitted was an ok source. And also that the ref was in context. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill sifts no evidence for the Exodus as a historical event, he mostly comments upon its paramount importance for the world of ideas. So, Cahill cannot be taken seriously as advancing evidence for Exodus, he even does not claim of doing so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I said to you more than once already, days ago, the Cahill quote is NOT the point of "presenting evidence for the exodus", but if you remember, that the explanation of "hiding embarrassing details" has been an explanation offered as to why there's no Egyptian inscriptions for it. Where did I ever say that Cahill "offered evidence for the exodus" in that sense? That was never the point, and never the gist of the edit. But (again) to make the point that this has been a rationale and explanation offered for decades now, that the Egyptians suppressed any information of embarrassing defeats. Not necessarily "offering archaeological evidence for the exodus". Frankly, I hope that finally makes it clear now. I never said that Cahill gave actual "evidence" or whatever, in that sense. But if you notice, though, in my lengthy comment above, Erman, A., Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum, quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings, has, with that papyrus, arguably. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's no evidence whatsoever for the exodus. Nothing in Egypt, nothing in Sinai. The exodus story is filled with supernatural events, even Moses walking on the roof of heaven (which hardly sounds like "an attempt to write history"). It also draws on earlier Middle Eastern literary sources. The most economical answer to the lack of evidence is that the book is theology, not history. This is the position of the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars. PiCo (talk) 02:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pico, your comment speaks nothing really to the actual specific points in the last few comments, and gist of this whole section. You just repeated the same old position, which is already well-known. The point was that the explanation for "no Egyptian inscriptions" was that Egypt (like other world powers) never really recorded their defeats or catastrophes (hardly ever), and simply the point that that's an explanation that has been given, and why should a WP article not mention that point?? Also, by the way, you're wrong anyway, when you say "no evidence whatsoever", because you ignore the papyrus mentioned above, that arguably can be considered "evidence" of something happening, though not necessarily solid conclusive "proof". (Evidence and proof are not the same). Yes, supernatural events, and miracles of course, but there's nothing in the Book of Exodus that says "Moses walked on the roof of heaven" per se. So, I'm not sure where you got that from. But as far as a mass exodus of Hebrews from Egypt, or something, there's a lack of solid archaeology for that, but the papyrus mentioned above has been something that's been considered. But even if you were technically right (which you're not), about there being "no evidence whatsoever", that's not the point of the Cahill quote and edit. But simply to mention the fact that one long-time explanation for no Egyptian notations on the exodus was Egypt never would record that, as they would generally suppress embarrassing information like that. That was it. Gabby Merger (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- There is indeed a description in Exodus of Moses and the elders of Israel walking on the roof of heaven. It might be an amusing exercise for you to try to find it.
- In your edit, the one I reverted, you misrepresented what Cahill says. You made it seem that he's supporting the idea that the Egyptians were embarrassed by the exodus, but he actually says that this is one of three possible explanations. He doesn't support it himself, nor do biblical scholars. It's misleading to put it in the article as if mainstream scholarship thinks this is a viable argument. PiCo (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the lengthy comment above, and all of what Cahill wrote? If not, please do so, and you'll see that nothing was "misrepresented", and I made it clear that Cahill offered this as a possible explanation, and thinks the exodus at least "may" have happened. You, on the other hand, dogmatically think it never happened at all. But please don't place bad-faith assumptions on me, as that's not civil or nice. Nothing was misrepresented. Cahill does definitely feel that this was a possible explanation, that was conveyed. But again, read the entire quote above...and see where his (clear) leanings are. And again, the point was that this has been an explanation offered, for a long time now, as to why there's no Egyptian scriptions recording the exodus or the tragedies there etc. Not sure why that's hard to understand. It's not worded in such a way as conveying the idea that it's a majority view, or that WP itself holds to that. But simply that some have offered that as an explanation. And WP policy says that "minority views" should not be shut out completely (which is what you were doing) but simply not mentioned "as much" as the majority view. As far as "walking on the roof of heaven", instead of just telling me where you think that is taken from, you instead say "it might be an amusing exercise for you to try to find it". That attitude of course is in many of your actions and comments, PiCo, and is quite unnecessary. I was trying to think of what you could be referring to, and I did a general search, and there's nothing. Which leads me to think that you're mistaken. There's nothing on "Moses walking on roof of heaven" anywhere. Was it in the Book of Exodus, or maybe one of the other books of the Pentateuch?
- Which is regardless anyway, because even though Exodus does NOT say "Moses walked on roof of heaven" anywhere (that I can see), it's conceded that supernatural events are reported in the book, which is discounted by the majority of "scholarship", as is already known. And was not the point of the Cahill thing, which was not "misrepresented", as the full quote above kinda proves. Cahill thought that was a very possible explanation, that Egypt suppressed embarrassing information, and that the Hebrews were NOT like the pagans, but were trying to write genuine history. Cahill's own words above. But again, where exactly do you imagine Exodus saying Moses walked in heaven's roof? Google yields nothing on that, from what I see. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill is not a biblical scholar and isn't aware of what biblical scholars are saying. Please read the second para of the lead to see what the mainstream scholarly view is. Cahill is correct to list those three possible explanations for the absence of evidence of the exodus from Egyptian records, but his personal view is not the mainstream view. Putting that view in the article would misrepresnet, to our readers, what scholars think.
- Yes, Exodus does describe Moses walking on the floor of heaven:) PiCo (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill is a reliable source, in general, as was even admitted by Jeppiz. He may not be the best source for this, in some ways, but he is a historian and is reputable. Also, you said "roof of heaven", now you say "floor". Which is it? And why don't you just tell me where you think that is? You keep dodging that, which makes me think, frankly, that you have no idea what you're talking about in that matter. First "roof"...now "floor"...and still no scripture or verse at all presented for that. (But it's already known that miracles and divine intervention were asserted in the Book of Exodus.) Also, again, the Cahill thing was NOT presented "as if it was a mainstream view". You keep repeating that same falsehood. It was not presented that way at all! When exactly was it presented like that, in the edit? It was made clear that it was an explanation offered by some, and later in the same paragraph was mentioned that most scholars do NOT believe that to be the explanation. Although it's been conceded in general that ancient world powers were not always forthright in reporting defeats or embarrassing details. Human nature. But where do you get this idea that "Cahill isn't aware of what biblical scholars are saying"?? He's very aware. That's the point. Cahill is not some guy down the street who runs a pizza place, who is posting blogs or something. But a reputable scholar, etc... Why wouldn't he know? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- You really need to learn how to be concise. Argumentum ad nauseum, repeating the same things over and over again, does not make your points any stronger. Cahill is not an Egyptologist, so his opinion isn't really that notable here, and Jeppiz' 'admission' that Cahill is a reliable source "in general" doesn't lend weight to his view here. It's a bit odd to contend that Cahill "may not be the best source for this" while also contending that he be cited as the best source (as your "original and first reference"). If his view were to be included at all, it would have to be properly attributed to him rather than presented as the view of "some scholars" (although it was apparently only one hypothetical proposal by Cahill rather than his specific view). At no point did I suggest that Cahill had anything at all to do with JWs, nor did I suggest that Wilson was your first source.
- The 'Wilson' quote (which according to Dougweller, is not actually authored by Wilson) presents a quite outdated and superseded view of Egyptology that isn't representative of any current scholarship. As such, it is a worse source than Cahill. If Cahill isn't the best source, please provide a better one.
- Whether you are a member of JWs is quite irrelevant. I correctly indicated, as you have acknowledged, that you are a JW apologist.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pico, I have to agree that abstract statements about Moses 'walking on the floor/roof of heaven' are not particularly useful. If there is a reference, just cite it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Cahill is a reliable source, in general, as was even admitted by Jeppiz. He may not be the best source for this, in some ways, but he is a historian and is reputable. Also, you said "roof of heaven", now you say "floor". Which is it? And why don't you just tell me where you think that is? You keep dodging that, which makes me think, frankly, that you have no idea what you're talking about in that matter. First "roof"...now "floor"...and still no scripture or verse at all presented for that. (But it's already known that miracles and divine intervention were asserted in the Book of Exodus.) Also, again, the Cahill thing was NOT presented "as if it was a mainstream view". You keep repeating that same falsehood. It was not presented that way at all! When exactly was it presented like that, in the edit? It was made clear that it was an explanation offered by some, and later in the same paragraph was mentioned that most scholars do NOT believe that to be the explanation. Although it's been conceded in general that ancient world powers were not always forthright in reporting defeats or embarrassing details. Human nature. But where do you get this idea that "Cahill isn't aware of what biblical scholars are saying"?? He's very aware. That's the point. Cahill is not some guy down the street who runs a pizza place, who is posting blogs or something. But a reputable scholar, etc... Why wouldn't he know? Gabby Merger (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- The verses which describe Moses walking on the floor of heaven (which is also its roof - from eath it's the roof, from God's throne it's the floor) are in Exodus 24:9-11. The context is that Yahweh has just given Israel its laws (the exodus covenant) and now Moses and the elders go up to God's throne-room to seal the covenant in a solemn feast. "Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. (In fact it IS the sky, but now the elders are on top of it) ... they saw God, and they ate and drank."
- Cahill is not a reliable source. He's a popular writer, he's never held a teaching post, never published a peer-reviewed article in a scholarly journal related to biblical studies, his book has not been reviewed in the scholarly journals (and I'm willing to bet it never will be), and so far as I can see he can't even read Hebrew. Even the title of his book is an error - he calls the Jews "desert nomads" when in fact they lived in cities and villages.
- Gabby, if you go to the article you can read the second para of the lead, which describes the scholarly consensus. It says, in brief, that scholars don't regard the Book of Exodus as a history book, that it dates from the Persian period (about 500 BCE, long after the supposed events), that they do think there must be something behind it but that they don't think that "something" is recoverable. They also think we should read the Exodus story as theology - which is why the pericope about Moses meeting God in Heaven is so important. The supernatural part of Exodus is what it's all about. Cahill doesn't grasp this.PiCo (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ah... Exodus 24:9-11... in fairness, that passage doesn't explicitly refer to the 'pavement' as 'heaven' or 'the sky', but the implication is there. Gabby's view of this verse will probably reflect the JW view, which is that 'seeing God' here was just a 'vision' (which could be inferred from the verb in verse 11, but less so from the verb in verse 10). But if the 'account' is supposed to seamlessly drift between 'actual' events and 'visions' (essentially, God performing a parlour trick), it doesn't lend to the story's veracity anyway (and 'eating and drinking' in a 'vision' is a little pointless).--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Gabby, if you go to the article you can read the second para of the lead, which describes the scholarly consensus. It says, in brief, that scholars don't regard the Book of Exodus as a history book, that it dates from the Persian period (about 500 BCE, long after the supposed events), that they do think there must be something behind it but that they don't think that "something" is recoverable. They also think we should read the Exodus story as theology - which is why the pericope about Moses meeting God in Heaven is so important. The supernatural part of Exodus is what it's all about. Cahill doesn't grasp this.PiCo (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I knew that Exodus never actually said that Moses walked anywhere in heaven. Gabby Merger (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh Gabby, Gabby...: "Moses .. went up and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky... (i.e, the sky seen from above, which is where heaven is ... and they ate and drank." Gabby, please, go to the article, and read some of the books it lists. Those are by real scholars. PiCo (talk) 08:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Exodus 24 does not say that Moses was “on the roof of heaven” or its “floor”, but that he was on a mountain and, according to verse 11 in Hebrew, “envisioned” God. That’s not the same as Moses himself walking around in heaven itself per se. And Jeffro77 above has pointed that out, regarding what was and wasn’t explicitly said, and what was or wasn’t literal. That’s why Google yielded NOTHING at all of the actual words you said earlier “Moses walking around on the roof of heaven”. If it’s as you say and thought, there should have been results somewhere. There was nothing in the search, with your wording. Meaning, you’re misreading Exodus 24, sloppily, and putting an eisegesis into it, that’s not really there. It simply does not say that Moses actually himself walked around on top of heaven's "roof" or (later you said) heaven's "floor". At least not in the sense you meant. He was on a mountain and was given a vision. As the Hebrew indicates, a different word in verse 11, and as common sense itself shows. Nowhere do you read in the passage that Moses was actually brought to the spirit realm of Heaven and walked around there in that sense. And (to repeat) it's known that Exodus reports miracles, and visions, and divine intervention. But saying that it states Moses walked on top of heaven is a bit of an over-statement and misunderstanding in that matter. He saw a vision, and was only on a mountain. Regardless of physical "skies". As far as Cahill, and how you discount him, as not being a “real scholar”, Wikipedia’s own article on Cahill states: "Thomas Cahill (born 1940; New York City) is an American scholar and writer. He is best known for The Hinges of History series, a prospective seven-volume series in which the author recounts formative moments in Western civilization. He continued his study of Greek and Latin literature, as well as medieval philosophy, scripture, and theology, at Fordham University, where he completed a B.A. in classical literature and philosophy in 1964, and a pontifical degree in philosophy in 1965. He went on to complete his M.F.A. in film and dramatic literature at Columbia University in 1968. In anticipation of writing The Gifts of the Jews, Cahill studied scripture at Union Theological Seminary in New York, and spent two years as a Visiting Scholar at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, where he studied Hebrew and the Hebrew Bible. He also reads French and Italian. In 1999, he was awarded an honorary doctorate from Alfred University in New York. Cahill has been a contributor to Irish America magazine." He’s a scholar and a historian. That’s not even debatable. Regardless of who may be more versed in this particular subject,...that does not mean Cahill is not a “real scholar”...in general. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Google and Wikipedia?
- Cahill isn't a reliable source for biblical scholarship: he holds no teaching position, has completed no higher degree, has never published in peer-reviewed journals within the discipline, has never presented papers at conferences such as SBL. He's a good, solid generalist, but ot a reliable source.
- In the second para of our article we describe current mainstream thinking by biblical scholars on the question of the historicity and origins of the exodus story. They make clear that the consensus is that the exodus story was written in the Persian period for a essentially political and social objectives, drawing on older traditions that go back to the 8th century. What those traditions actually were, nobody knows, and the consensus again is that it's impossible now to ever know. Cahill is perfectly welcome to say things outside the consensus (i.e., that the Egyptians might have erased all the records of the previous 400 years), but we shouldn't mislead readers by making it seem that those ideas are held by scholars within the profession of biblical studies.PiCo (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pico's absolutely right about Cahill being a generalist. And as well as biblical scholars, few (very few I think) Egyptologists agree. Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Doug Weller. I conceded in my lengthy comment farther up, that Thomas Chahill is a "generalist", but in the area mainly of history. He is best known for The Hinges of History series, a prospective seven-volume series in which the author recounts formative moments in Western civilization. And the only real point of my edit was to convey the fact that some scholars (even someone like Cahill who has shown skepticism, and is NOT a "fundamentalist" by any means) have presented the possibility as one explanation being Egyptian suppression of embarrassing facts. And NOT as any "mainstream" view for the silence of the Hebrew exodus, but simply that it's been postulated. Why should Wikipedia readers not know that (in the most NPOV tone and careful wording) in an article like this? Especially with Tgeorgescue's modification and addition days ago, showing clearly that that's not majority view as far as a possible explanation for lack of solid evidence in Egyptian inscriptions etc for the Hebrew exodus? That was my only point. And the Wilson source, from the mid 1960's, (which I was not originally putting in, but I found later on, at the insistence of Jeppiz), only confirmed the fact and point that it's been a "long-held" view and explanation. (Also, I only wrote down the name of Wilson's book as it was stated in the stuff I got it from, as I describe above. I didn't mis-write it or something, but only put down what I have.) It's been conceded (in general terms) that ancient pagan world powers were not always forthright in reporting defeats or embarrassing details, in their recording of events. But anyway, Doug, if you have not done so already, please read through the lengthy comment above that gives a full Cahill quote, and also some other things regarding a papyrus that clearly shows that Egyptians went through tragedies similar to what the "Ten Plagues" purport to have done. Please check out the stuff that's a little higher up, (if you didn't already), that was mainly directed to Jeffro77, but also to you and Jeppiz to some degree. I'd appreciate your take on that, if you can. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank Doug Weller, PiCo and Tgeorgescu for showing that Cahill is not a reliable source for this statement. While I originally felt Cahill might be WP:RS here, their well-articulated arguments made it clear that Cahill is indeed not a suitable source in this context. Jeppiz (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- The quote from Grabbe shows that fifty years ago the historicity of Exodus was broadly accepted, that's granted. But the argument with embellishing/erasing inscriptions is not very convincing, since it entails erasure not only of public inscriptions, but also of all correspondence meant for the eyes of the powerful only. Further, it does not explain the lack of other archaeological evidence from Egypt, Sinai and even from (the conquest of) Canaan. So, obviously, mainstream scholars consider it a lame attempt at immunization against criticism. There are other scholars who argue that the Exodus might have been possible (not proven, just possible), I suggest that they should be quoted as minority view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, Tgeorgescu. It should go that route. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree, which is why I have called for additional sources. Given the recent edit warring and disagreements about sources, I suggest that the sources be discussed on talk first. As long as they are WP:RS sources (i.e. contemporary works by peer-reviewed scholars in a relevant field) there should be no problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, there is a frankly frightening number of recent reference works, from all sorts of perspectives, relating to the Old Testament or Bible or whatever you want to call it. Particularly for the more significant topics, of which this is one, I have no doubt that the amount of material in them all collectively is probably more than our length guidelines permit for a single article here. But I have to think the best way to go forward is to look at as many of them as possible, more or less determine the "average" of the weight they give all subtopics related to this one, and more or less structure our own content accordingly. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- If such sources exist and are presented, I (for one) will be glad to see them included. I have no problem at all with the theory of the Exodus as an actual event being included as long as it satisfies WP:RS and WP:DUE. Jeppiz (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- As I indicated above, there is a frankly frightening number of recent reference works, from all sorts of perspectives, relating to the Old Testament or Bible or whatever you want to call it. Particularly for the more significant topics, of which this is one, I have no doubt that the amount of material in them all collectively is probably more than our length guidelines permit for a single article here. But I have to think the best way to go forward is to look at as many of them as possible, more or less determine the "average" of the weight they give all subtopics related to this one, and more or less structure our own content accordingly. John Carter (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree, which is why I have called for additional sources. Given the recent edit warring and disagreements about sources, I suggest that the sources be discussed on talk first. As long as they are WP:RS sources (i.e. contemporary works by peer-reviewed scholars in a relevant field) there should be no problem. Jeppiz (talk) 16:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Dispute has spilled to this article
A dispute with User:GBRV upon the application of WP:RS/AC has spilled to this article. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus.23Edit_war. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
@GBRV: For a brief introduction see http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/01/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- @User:GBRV, you have as much right as anyone else to edit this article, but since this is so contentious, could you please make the edits one at a time so we have a chance to evaluate them? Thanks. PiCo (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- We cannot state as a fact the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus, since this would violate WP:NPOV? Yeah, right. Perhaps what should the other side to the dispute do, invent evidence which just isn't there? There is more agreement to disagree about an interpretation of a few verses from the Gospel, but we cannot invent archaeological evidence which does not exist.
I've read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn't impossible. He knows very well he hasn't proven anything. You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view
— Peter Enns, loc. cit.
- Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think the dispute over archaeological evidence centers around issues such as whether we could reasonably expect any identifiable artifacts from a nomadic migration, and whether scattered dig sites would be sufficient for establishing whether the evidence is there or not. I doubt there's any evidence for the mass migrations of the Helvetii and related tribes described by Julius Caesar in his "Commentaries on the Gallic War", either, so does that mean that Caesar was just making things up? There usually isn't going to be much evidence remaining in the ground for something like this, and what little does exist is open to interpretation. Worse, the argument that "there isn't any" or "isn't enough" is a variation of a recognized fallacy called an "argumentum ex silentio", an argument based on a gap or perceived gap in our knowledge, which is a fallacy because there could be many reasons why evidence hasn't been found (in this case, you'd have to dig up a heck of a lot of territory to search for evidence over a long migratory route whose exact path isn't even known, and any artifacts would need to be of a type which could be definitely linked to this specific migration). Keep in mind that at one time, there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible, leading 19th century authors to claim that the Bible was making these cities up. But then archaeologists finally uncovered the ruins of these places and found clay tablets which mention many of the same people and events mentioned in the Bible. Today, no one believes that these cities were fictional. That's another reason an "argumentum ex silentio" is ridiculous: a lack of evidence may be temporary.
- And yes, there is legitimate ongoing debate about this type of thing. You have yet to provide any justification for claiming that the authors you support would constitute the overwhelming consensus. GBRV (talk) 00:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV, there is no dispute over archaeological evidence for the exodus - even Hoffmeier, one of the very few who thinks it may have happened as described in the bible, admits that he can't find ay (see the Peter Enns quote given by Tgeorgescu). Evidence from silence is pretty good evidence of non-existence - the lack of evidence of little green men from Mars does not leave open the possibility of their existence. I've offered you a fair hearing, but I've also said you should do you edits oe at a time, so we can discuss them. PiCo (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let me see GBRV's argument: Egypt suffered an economical, political and demographical catastrophe and because there is no evidence for it (yet) we should take at face value a hugely embellished story from an ancient book full of miracles and other mythical events? Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Professor Donald B. Redford: the "silence is absolutely watertight" [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Written evidence is routinely accepted by historians even if there's no archaeological evidence to back it up. As I said, there's no archaeological evidence to confirm that the Helvetii migrated into France as Julius Caesar describes, so does that mean we should reject Caesar's book? No historian does that. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Transcribed from The Bible Unearthed 2 - The Exodus documentary: "Silberman: How can you explain the possibility of such a large group as described in the Exodus story actually going out of Egypt? Is that possible? Redford: Well, I couldn't explain it. Nothing of that shows up in the archaeological or textual record, and one may argue that's an argument from silence, admittedly, but nonetheless we know so much about that period that not to find even a single blip on the radar screen as it were, it would be fatal to that theory." And Redford goes on talking about what consequences it would have had such mass desertion upon the Egyptian Empire stating "would certainly have disrupted the empire irreparably. Nothing of that sort is found in the record, not a thing." Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hello, Tgeorgescu. I was not planning on commenting on this talk page anymore (at least not for a long while), as I've been busy, but I got five notifications of "thanks" for some reason, from user Sh33na, for past comments that I gave on this talk page. And so I see that you and others have been discussing some matters here the last couple of days. I had thought that this was a closed matter last week though, that the modification (even with your re-working and elaboration addition) was probably not gonna be on this article, for various arguable "gate-keeping" reasons, and also because of wrong assertions that Cahill was "misrepresented" or that Wilson was "out of context" when they simply were not. But I see that GBRV, you, and others are discussing and going into this matter again. And the matter of "lack of archaeological and documented evidence", lack of extra-Biblical documentation, for the plagues and the mass exodus etc (outside the Jewish Biblical document, which also recounts "miracles", but then so did pagan documents many times, with their own superstitions, pagan magic, and deities). But here again, to be considered, and actually has been:
- ‘Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.’ (Erman, A., Ipuwer Papyrus, Leiden Museum, quoted from The Ancient Egyptians, a source book of their writings, Harper and Row, New York, pp. 94—101, 1966)
- There is an admittedly lack of solid archaeology, but then there was a lack for the Amorites migrating to Babylon, as pointed out by Assyriologist Alan Millard. Amorites flooded into the Babylonian empire, taking over a number of cities and establishing their own dynasties. This is evident from a large body of written material from the period. Even after this influx of Amorites, the material culture gives no appreciable sign of change. Millard argues that the same thing could have happened with Israel. Since the Israelites were commanded to take over the material culture of Canaan (cf. Deuteronomy 6:10-11), it appears that a nearly seamless transition from the Canaanite culture to an Israelite one is easily explained. Millard, Alan R. (2008), “Were the Israelites Really Canaanites?” in Israel: Ancient Kingdom or Late Invention? ed.Daniel I. Block (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group). And again, the original point was simply that some historians and scholars have postulated the explanation that the Egyptian record-keepers would NOT have chroniclized such a devastating embarrassing defeat and event, such as the Hebrew exodus of over-worked mal-treated Hebrew slaves out of Egypt, under the guidance of some Hebrew deliverer or Hebrew war-hero. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- The following seems to be a more complete representation of the quote given above by Gabby Merger of the Ipuwer Papyrus: [2]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- And here is another version: [3]. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Just in case there's any uncertainty about WP:SOAP: he idea here is not to present our personal thoughts on why or why not the Exodus might have happened. As explained several times, it is to present what reliable sources say about it. A source is reliable to comment on the Exodus if it by a PhD-holding and peer-reviewed historian or archaeologist specialising in ancient Egyptian, Israeli or Middle-Eastern history. Gabby, I agree with you that Millard is a reliable source, there is no denying his academic credentials. From what you mention, though, I don't see Millard commenting on the Exodus, but rather on the distinction between Israelites and Canaanites. Does he say anything explicitly about the Exodus? Jeppiz (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, Millard made the point (and was the very point in a way) that the same thing may have happened in the case of the Israelites leaving Egypt, similar (in some ways) to the Amorites migrating from the Syrian desert and then entering Babylon. And is the very name of his book "Were the Israelites Really Canaanites?"
- Also another scholar, Joshua Berman, professor of Bible at Bar-llan University and at Shalem College in Israel, and a research fellow at the Herzl Institute, wrote this:
- "More generally, there is a limit to what we can expect from the written record of ancient Egypt. Ninety-nine percent of the papyri produced there during the period in question have been lost, and none whatsoever has survived from the eastern Nile delta, the region where the Torah claims the Hebrew slaves resided. Instead, we have to rely on monumental inscriptions, which, being mainly reports to the gods about royal achievements, are far from complete or reliable as historical records. They are more akin to modern-day résumés, and just as conspicuous for their failure to note setbacks of any kind."
- And Professor Berman further wrote:
- "We’ll have reason to revisit such inscriptions later on. But now let’s consider the absence of specifically archaeological evidence of the exodus. In fact, many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible. The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Levant—all described in written sources—have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic."
- Also, you forgot Adolf Erman, above, "Erman, A", regarding the Ipuwer Papyrus, that clearly mentions tragedy in Egypt, similarly describing things that would fit what went on in the Book of Exodus. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, Gabby Merger. There seems to be a number of bona fide scholars holding this view, probably a minority but more than just a fringe, so I think you're right that the article could and should mention it. Jeppiz (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- With apologies to Jeppiz, I don't think there are significant living scholars who think that the Ipuwer papyrus is connected to the Exodus story. (Adolf Erman died in 1937). There are mutliple reasons for this, but to take just two, genre and textual history:
- - Ipuwer isn't history, it's political philosophy; the sage Ipuwer confronts the king (probably Pepy II, last king of the 6th dynasty) and tells him the kingdom has fallen on evil times because the king relies on bad officials; the remedy, Ipuwer says, is a good king who rules with the help of wise advisors, such as himself. Note the contrasts with the Exodus story: Exodus is a salvation epic, telling of God's election of his chosen people Israel and the covenant formed between them; the plagues aren't the result of bad government, they're the result of God's determination to demonstrate his power over the gods of Egypt (the king wants to let the Israelites go, but God "hardens his heart" each time); in Ipuwer the king is essentially good, in Exodus, bad. So, two separate genres, but both recognised literary forms, and neither of them history.
- - As I said, the Ipuwer papyrus dates from around the time of Pepy II, who reigned around c.2284 BC–2247. Exodus was written around 500-450, long, long after. It's quite possible that the author of Exodus was aware of some form of the Ipuwer story, which was very popular, but the line of influence is very tenuous. And, of course, the two texts are not contemporaneous - Ipuwer is almost 2000 years older than Exodus. PiCo (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
PiCo, my bad as I was unclear. I took no heed of the Ipuwer papyrus in my edit and agree with all of your comment. I meant that Professors Millard and Berman both satisfy WP:RS. Jeppiz (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Jeppiz. For Gabby and GBRV, and indeed everyone, this link is to a genuinely scholarly work on parallels between Egyptian texts and the Exodus story. It shows how Ipuwer is only one of many Egyptian stories that seem to have influenced the authors of the books of Genesis and Exodus. (There's a table that takes up 2 pages).PiCo (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- That essay by Millard is rather odd. The abstract says he's "responding to the commonly held view that the Israelites represented a dissident group of 13th century Canaanites who moved to the highlands ... to escape the oppressive rule of local princes and Egyptian officials." That particular view hasn't been commonly held for many decades. It was put forward by Norman Gottwald in "The Tribes of Yahweh" in 1979, had some popularity, and then fell into disfavour. Millard (according to the abstract) examines the archaeological evidence for a conquest, decides there shouldn't be any (!) because the biblical record "supports continuity between the material culture of the Canaanites and the Israelites", finds there is none, and therefore the conquest happened as described. Weird.PiCo (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Millard is very much a defender of a literal Biblical view (see here for an example [4]). Personally, I don't consider him trustworthy. However, WP:RS is rather clear: I may not trust Millard's judgement, but that doesn't matter as it's not my place to evaluate his scholarship. Apologist though he may be, he still satisfies WP:RS with flying colours as he is a professor in a relevant field. Jeppiz (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed, he's a RS. It just shows the importance of looking for sources who say "the dominant opinion" or something like that.PiCo (talk) 23:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu: Do you realize that a large number of other ancient sources - in fact, many modern ones too - also describe supernatural events? For example, Herodotus' account of the battle of Salamis says that Greek sailors saw an apparition of a "phantom" woman hovering above the fleet (I think some claimed she was the goddess Athena) who loudly urged them on to victory; and yet you accept that the battle of Salamis took place, right? The accounts of the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 describe a supernatural figure which they said appeared at two crucial points to help the 20th Maine regiment which defended Little Round Top hill on the 2nd day of the battle; and yet you accept the battle of Gettysburg, right? In other words, you normally accept accounts which include descriptions of supernatural events, and historians certainly do. So you're using a different standard in this case while claiming that you believe in a "historical-critical method".
As for your claim that there should be archaeological evidence to support the "massive demographic catastrophe" which you think the exodus would represent for Egypt : firstly, you're interpreting the numbers literally even though this article itself says that they may represent a Hebrew phrase instead of a number; secondly, there are plenty of demographic catastrophes that are not attested in the archaeological record, such as the epidemic which wiped out about a third of the Western Roman Empire's population during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Does that mean that this event never happened? Normally, written sources are considered perfectly good evidence by historians regardless of whether they are backed up by archaeological evidence, otherwise most of the historical record would need to be rejected. You keep ignoring this point. And when Redford says we have a complete understanding of ancient Egyptian history, that's a rather curious statement given that the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian records have decayed or otherwise been lost over time. There are huge gaps in our knowledge, and much of the surviving written accounts are just Egyptian government propaganda which never admits their defeats or other problems, just as Assyrian government records never do. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
PiCo: Since there also isn't any archaeological evidence for the migration of the Helvetii mentioned in Julius Caesar's "Commentaries on the Gallic War", do you also reject that event (and presumably also Caesar's campaigns against the Helvetii)? You're not applying a consistent standard with this. And the idea that Genesis and the Exodus were based on Egyptian manuscripts is speculation at best, and nonsense at worst. GBRV (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
- @GBRV:, please stick to the article and suggestions for improving it. The arguments you ascribe to me, aren't mine, they're taken from reliable sources, and wherever possible they're from contexts indicating that they're majority views. Also, you continue to make mass edits despite being asked to make single-line edits instead. Please cooperate rather than fighting. (And if you were to tell me that TGeorge is unnecessarily belligerent, I'd probably agree).PiCo (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- About being belligerent, that might be true, but see it like this: repeatedly change multiple consensus statements at Intelligent Design and see how many users get irritated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- About the number of escaped slaves: who am I to say that an exodus of 600 slaves did not take place? But it is a huge difference between 600 and 600 000 and we might not mean a world-shattering event. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)s
- TG, I think GBRV is feeling persecuted - let's give him some air.
- On adherence the word of the text: some Protestants (not Catholics, and for that matter not all Protestants) fear that to disprove one element of the Bible will begin an unraveling which will end in the truth of the Resurrection. This, for Christians, is of course the whole point of the Bible: God's Word is made known in the text and becomes flesh, and flesh is redeemed through the Resurrection. Hence there have to be 2 midwives catering for 600,000 Israelite women of childbearing age (a point rarely made), the waters have to stand on either hand, and the manna has to be miraculous.
- For others, these things have natural explanations: there was a volcano erupting somewhere, there weren't really 2 million Israelites, and the Egyptians destroyed all the records. This, of course, removes God from the story, which rather defeats the point. PiCo (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)