Talk:The Exodus

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clester07 (article contribs).

Descriptive Inaccuracies that do not contribute to understanding or scholarship

1. Description of The Exodus as "the founding myth of Israel" is inaccurate and confusing because the word "Israel" in the context of The Exodus means descendants of Jacob (renamed Israel) who had been born and had lives years before The Exodus event described in the Torah and does not refer to the modern day state of Israel. Also, in connection with this inaccuracy use of the term "myth" contains a subjective value judgment on the part of the contributor that the seminal event described in the "Book of Exodus" never actually occurred, and that is not only a question of faith or belief, or lack thereof, but also of archaeology and other forms of existent, non-existent, or not yet discovered, historical evidence, so it may have no reason to be used here other than to convey the contributor's biased or subjective opinion that The Exodus never actually happened.

2. The spelling of the English language name "Yahweh" used in this article to describe a later Hebrew name given for the Hebrew Deity in the Torah is also inaccurate and misleading in this context. The "Book of Exodus" in describing what Moses should tell the elders of the name of who sent him contains the name (transliterated from the Hebrew language) "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" (translated as "I Am That I Am", or "I AM" which denotes an Eternal existence) for the name of the Hebrew Deity, and not (yet) the name referred to in this article. Furthermore, the English language name "Yahweh" used in this article for the Hebrew Deity suggests another subjective connotation for the spelling in that it is the English language spelling of the name of the Hebrew Deity most often employed by a particular Christian Sect known as "Jews for Jesus" and not from an authoritative Hebrew or Jewish source for the spelling, pronunciation or meaning of the Hebrew words of the Hebrew Torah. In fact, the Hebrew Deity has many names each emphasizing a certain aspect, and no reference to these other names or to this fact is contained in the article. <Citations exist but may or will be supplied; they are omitted here for brevity.>

Prescient Analyzer (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyone with basic knowledge of modern history knows that the current nation of Israel was founded in the 20th century and was named after the ancient kingdom of Israel. The Israelites, and their eventual land and eventual kingdom are also referred to as Israel in common discourse. Anyone with basic knowledge of the Bible knows this, and those with basic reading comprehension should be able to place that together when they click the link "Israel" and find themselves at Israelites instead of the article on the modern nation state.

Per the Exodus narrative, the Israelites (not yet settled in the land that would be called Israel) had collectively migrated into Egypt, fallen into slavery, escaped, and then wandered in the desert for 40 years before arriving in the land they would then call Israel. Their covenant with Yahweh was based on events that supposedly happened while escaping from Egypt and wandering in the desert -- before they arrived in the land that they would call Israel. This is, again, is pretty basic knowledge of the Bible.

In academic discourse, Myth simply means a story where its primary truth value is philosophical, moral, or similarly ephemeral; regardless of its historicity.

Yahweh is how יַהְוֶה is commonly written in English, but that doesn't make it an "English name." The Jews for Jesus did not invent that spelling, it is the most common spelling in mainstream academia.

Wikipedia sticks to mainstream academic sources, most of them secular. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Friedman

@BernardZ: Friedman on YouTube broadly agrees that there was no mass Exodus (millions of people) and not for about 40 years (a generation). So, he subscribes to the WP:RS/AC idea that there was no Exodus of the sort described in the Bible (when interpreted literally). He says that the Exodus only involved Levites (a smaller group) and there was no conquest of the Holy Land. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Let us go point by point

> @BernardZ: Friedman on YouTube broadly agrees that there was no mass Exodus (millions of people)

Agreed

> and not for about 40 years (a generation).

I do not know where you get this from the lecture.

> So, he subscribes to the WP:RS/AC idea that there was no Exodus of the sort described in the Bible (when interpreted literally).

Since he used biblical text it certainly described in the bible.

> He says that the Exodus only involved Levites (a smaller group)

Agreed, this is the Exodus and that is what I specified for his views on the subject.

> and there was no conquest of the Holy Land.

He certainly would agree that there was no conquest as per the book Joshua but like in the book of the Judges. Which by the way is a view very common among experts. BernardZ (talk)

I meant interpreted literally like in biblical literalism (specific to fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals). They mean that there was really an Exodus of about two million people who spent decennials at Kadesh Barnea. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant no such claim was made by me.

BernardZ (talk)

While Friedman is a reliable source, we need to find where the balance of overall scholarly opinion lies. We have reliable sources for this, as cited in the article, and so we say that scholars are broadly agreed that there was no exodus of the sort described in the bible, although some (a minority) argue for a much different event which might have applied to the Levites. This is, I should mention, a distinctly minority opinion. Read the sources cited in the article before editing.PiCo (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If we agree that Friedman is a reliable, then it is valid that it goes into the article and furthermore should go.BernardZ (talk)

Being a reliable source is only the beginning. If that reliable source is holding a minority position, then we don't use him.

What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't matter what Friedman says if he isn't in agreement with the majority. We also reflect the majority opinion about the formation of the Torah - to quote Romer, "there is a widespread agreement that the first publication of the Pentateuch—or of a Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." We qualify this with Eskanazi's statement: "A key contemporary issue ... is whether the 5th century BCE constitutes a major culmination point for the Pentateuch or just the beginning of its formation." I strongly recommend that you read the sources we use.PiCo (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

You need to show that because I can assure you, this is not a majority view. The source listed does not make this claim by the way.BernardZ (talk)

The majority view is that the Torah is a product of the Persian period, with a substantial minority view that it dates from the Hellenistic period ("dates from" means was finalised then). See the quotes from Romer and Eskanazi above. PiCo (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd also like to know what other scholars:::: If we agree with him. And once again, this should be the the main article on the tribe before we add it here. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 27 April 2018 (note this was deleted and I'm replacing it with the original date stamp) Doug Weller talk 12:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Doug, I can't understand a word of that. Can you explain?PiCo (talk) 12:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

He asked who are the other scholars who agree with Friedman. And stated that such info is more germane to another article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, copy paste of my post deleted by BernardZ didn't work well. Yes, who else agrees? And it should be in the other article first, makes no sense to have it here and not there. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What other article is that? PiCo (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tribe of Levi. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Friedman advances a curious argument: the Bible is our only reason for believing that an exodus ever happened; the Bible is wrong about the exodus; nevertheless, the Bible is right about the exodus. I don't think he realises that this is his argument, but it is.PiCo (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a fairly usual argument in Bible scholarship: the Bible literally says this, but through textual criticism we infer the reality was that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

In answer to Doug Weller's question as to who agrees with Friedman, I can only suggest consulting Moore and Kelle's 2011 book, which is linked in the bibliography of the article. (The fact that it was published in 2011 is significant: it represents contemporary scholarship). The significant point is that most scholars today do not consider the Bible's exodus story relevant to the story of Israel's emergence (p.81). Friedman's arguments therefore amount to special pleading (same page). Those who take the same position that the exodus story is reliable, notable Hoffmeier and Kitchen, are ignored by other scholars. They do concede that the exodus story has an authentic core, but the common position is that the nature of this core is irrecoverable (p.94). I believe that this synopsis is adequately reflected in our article, while standing always ready for correction on that and other issues.PiCo (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you stop this nonsense PiCo? Its is not like Friedman is the only one saying it. There were a room full of scholars in that room while he was talking and none of them claimed it was nonsense and I also quoted another scholar.BernardZ (talk)

Moore/Kelle gives the overview of current scholarly understanding of the historicity of the exodus. Friedman's personal views run counter to the mainstream view, therefore we don't include him. We do mention the minority view, citing Kitchen and Hoffmeier as examples. The others speaking in that you tube are William Propp and Gary Rendsberg, but they don't contribute anything substantial). PiCo (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that Moore or Kelle are anywhere near in statue in this field as Hoffmeier or Friedman, but there is no point in putting these people in and I can put more if you just scrub it. So what do we do?BernardZ (talk)

I think that you should read WP:PAGs like WP:UNDUE and WP:RS/AC. Anyway, it also helps if you read the straight dope at [1]. See the broader chat about that at [2], e.g. "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". Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

BernardZ: Firstly, you wanted to change "scholars broadly agree that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period" to "some scholars think that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period". We have a source for the statement (Thomas Romer's article in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, volume 8, which is from 2008), and that source says: "There is a widespread agreement that the first publication of the Pentateuch—or of a Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." Romer does NOT say "some scholars" think this, he says there's widespread agreement, which our article glosses as broad agreement. Secondly, you wanted to add a statement that "there is much dispute with historians over whether the exodus took place." There is not. As our article states, "there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt" (sourced to Carol Redmount's contribution on the Exodus in Coogan's edited Oxford History of the Biblical World, 2001). The relevant page is 77, and she says: "[A]t no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai and Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus". Your basis for changing this is Hoffmeier's "Israel in Egypt," but you give no page number, just the book cover, and you're obviously unaware that Hoffmeier doesn't argue that the exodus DID take place, only that it MIGHT have. Thirdly, you draw attention to Friedman's You Tube address (I think it dates from 2002) in which he states his belief that the Levites may have been in Egypt (without bringing forward any evidence). You seem not to have noticed that this possibility is already covered in our article in the subsection "Possible Sources and Parallels" - we don't mention Friedman specifically because, frankly, he isn't a major voice in this area, but the concept is covered. Overall, I suggest you read the sources, and our article, more closely.PiCo (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

> Firstly, you wanted to change "scholars broadly agree that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period" to "some scholars think that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period". We have a source for the statement (Thomas Romer's article in the Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, volume 8, which is from 2008), and that source says: "There is a widespread agreement that the first publication of the Pentateuch—or of a Proto-Pentateuch—took place in the middle of the Persian period." Romer does NOT say "some scholars" think this, he says there's widespread agreement, which our article glosses as broad agreement.

>Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian. What you are confusing is the formulized product.

>> Secondly, you wanted to add a statement that "there is much dispute with historians over whether the exodus took place." There is not. As our article states, "there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt" (sourced to Carol Redmount's contribution on the Exodus in Coogan's edited Oxford History of the Biblical World, 2001). The relevant page is 77, and she says: "[A]t no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai and Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus". Your basis for changing this is Hoffmeier's "Israel in Egypt," but you give no page number, just the book cover, and you're obviously unaware that Hoffmeier doesn't argue that the exodus DID take place, only that it MIGHT have.

>A lie, Hoffmeier does argue it takes place.

>PS I have a copy of the book.

>> Thirdly, you draw attention to Friedman's You Tube address (I think it dates from 2002) in which he states his belief that the Levites may have been in Egypt (without bringing forward any evidence). You seem not to have noticed that this possibility is already covered in our article in the subsection "Possible Sources and Parallels" - we don't mention Friedman specifically because, frankly, he isn't a major voice in this area, but the concept is covered.

>If you feel like this then why scrub my line?

>>Overall, I suggest you read the sources, and our article, more closely.

>I did the page is false because many refuse to allow people like me to write refereences that conflict with their thoughts, check out the "true scotsman argument". BernardZ (talk)

"PS I have a copy of the book."

Since they already asked you to add the relevant page to the citation, why do you refuse? You have the copy that you can consult. Dimadick (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

BernardZ, you say "Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian." I find that rather arrogant. But if you believe that almost all scholars believe it to be pre-Persian, please provide a source.

You also say, "What you are confusing is the formulized product." I assume by this you mean finalised. Yes, this is what we're talking about, the final text of the Pentateuch. The sources behind it stretch back to the 7th and even 8th centuries, as stated in our article. The Exodus narrative, however, is the final Pentateuchal text, not it's sources. That dates, by common agreement, from the Persian period, with possible further editing down to the Hellenistic. (For example, the reference to "ships of Kittim" in Numbers refers to the Greeks or Romans, and although it's impossible to pinpoint the reference the latter could point to the Roman intervention in Egypt in the early 2nd century).

You say also: "Hoffmeier does argue it [the exodus] takes place." What Hoffmeier says is this: "The body of evidence reviewed in this book provides indirect evidence which shows that the main points of the Israel in Egypt and exodus narratives are indeed plausible". Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p.226. As I said above, he argues plausibility, not that it took place.

Finally, you ask why we don't allow your inclusion of Friedman's youtube piece to stand. I thought I'd covered that: the idea Friedman raises, that the sources of the Exodus narrative might include genuine memories of some persons who had been in Egypt, is already covered. Plus of course the fact that Friedman is not a major scholar in this field - his fame (and he is famous) lies elsewhere. You might be interested to know, however, that Friedman himself says that his position is a minority one, as he states in his recent study of the Exodus (more relevant to your argument than the youtube video): "many of my colleagues in Bible studies and most of my colleagues in archaeology doubt, or even deny, that it happened." PiCo (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

>"Romer is incorrect almost all scholars believe it is pre-Persian." I find that rather arrogant. But if you believe that almost all scholars believe it to be pre-Persian, please provide a source.

Frustrated, not arrogant.

Here is one https://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html

Here are some more Iain Provan K. A. Kitchen

We could include Friedman in this list too.

You also say, "What you are confusing is the formulized product." I assume by this you mean finalised. Yes, this is what we're talking about, the final text of the Pentateuch. The sources behind it stretch back to the 7th and even 8th centuries, as stated in our article. The Exodus narrative, however, is the final Pentateuchal text, not it's sources. That dates, by common agreement, from the Persian period, with possible further editing down to the Hellenistic. (For example, the reference to "ships of Kittim" in Numbers refers to the Greeks or Romans, and although it's impossible to pinpoint the reference the latter could point to the Roman intervention in Egypt in the early 2nd century).

> Huh??? In Exodus story, there is a little poem that most scholars believe is the oldest poem in the Bible. It is called “Miriam’s Song,” and some scholars believe it is a victory song that comes from the time immediately after the Israelites’ miraculous crossing of the Red Sea.

You say also: "Hoffmeier does argue it [the exodus] takes place." What Hoffmeier says is this: "The body of evidence reviewed in this book provides indirect evidence which shows that the main points of the Israel in Egypt and exodus narratives are indeed plausible". Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, p.226. As I said above, he argues plausibility, not that it took place.

>I think he goes further but going by this, will you agree to allow a discussion on this page that Hoffmeier thinks it plausible and when and why?

Finally, you ask why we don't allow your inclusion of Friedman's youtube piece to stand. I thought I'd covered that: the idea Friedman raises, that the sources of the Exodus narrative might include genuine memories of some persons who had been in Egypt, is already covered.

I do not see this in the page but would you agree to put Friedman's lecture in there?

Plus of course the fact that Friedman is not a major scholar in this field - his fame (and he is famous) lies elsewhere. You might be interested to know, however, that Friedman himself says that his position is a minority one, as he states in his recent study of the Exodus (more relevant to your argument than the youtube video): "many of my colleagues in Bible studies and most of my colleagues in archaeology doubt, or even deny, that it happened." PiCo (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

He is as good an expert as you will get on this subject. Probably the top expert on the subject is the curator of the Egyptain Museam who is quoted by Hoffmeier as saying that the ancient Israel drunk deeply from Egyptain culture. BernardZ (talk)

• I have just read through all this and have no idea what specific content is under discussion nor what the proposed changes are. You all have gone off the rails and I will be closing this soon, if it doesn't re-focus on specific changes to the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please check the stuff that was scrubbed.

BernardZ (talk)

"In Exodus story, there is a little poem that most scholars believe is the oldest poem in the Bible. It is called “Miriam’s Song,” "

The Song of the sea is the oldest poem in the Exodus, and immediately precedes Miriam's song in the text. "The Song of the Sea is noted for its archaic language. It is written in a style of Hebrew much older than that of the rest of Exodus. Most scholars consider it the oldest surviving text describing the Exodus, dating to the pre-monarchic period. An alternative is that it was deliberately written in an archaic style, a known literary device. Proposed dates range from the 13th to the 5th century BCE. "Dimadick (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It is part of the J source which most believe was written between 848 and no later than 722 BCE in Judah but the Hebrew as you state looks much older. Also, it appears to contain references to another poem which appears to be both older still and is lost.

BernardZ (talk)

The goal of the intelligent design movement is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with intelligent design

— John E. Jones III, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District verdict

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to foment revolution, but to take the WP:RS/AC for what it is. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we are getting there mate. No-one is disputing anymore that many notable people do think that it is plausible that it did happen.BernardZ (talk)

No, Bernard, they don't. It's fringe.PiCo (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

There are old arguments, which are now rehashed, see Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8#Historicity (search for "Liverpool"). Basically, Kitchen and Hoffmeier know they are in the minority and tell they are in the minority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If we accept for the sake of the argument that they are in a minority which I do not, they are still notable and should be included in this page.

BernardZ (talk)

You don't take their own word for it? Anyway, see about majority [3]. Scholars from evangelical educational institutions won't ever agree to anything else than biblical inerrancy. So all we can do is reflect the views of scholars from secular universities (secular does not mean atheist), since history is a secular academic field, even if it concerns the history of the Holy Land. It's not like we would debate theology, see WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is unfair, people in non secular places can be fair too Tgeorgescu. In any case it is not true that only people in such places have this view.

There is an interesting discussion here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/

"Is the Biblical Exodus fact or fiction?

This is a loaded question. Although Biblical scholars and archaeologists argue about various aspects of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, many of them agree that the Exodus occurred in some form or another" Read on..

So reading this debate, I think Bernard you do have a real case, I think we should make a separate section to put in these people.

Even if one accepts that it is a minority view, clearly it is considered a valid view. Macquaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

As PiCo has stated, their view is already covered. For the rest, WP:PAGs are of application and if you don't base your arguments on WP:PAGs, your changes to the article won't stick. As for evangelical scholars, some of them took formal oaths that the Bible is infallible and inerrant. Anyway, if they deny biblical inerrancy, they will have to flip burgers at Target, that's what Peter Enns said. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That is a pretty view you have Tgeorgescu, should I not be allowed to comment on democracy page because I believe in democracy?

BernardZ (talk)

Hi Macquaire. Wikipedia generally deals in views, not people - we try to find the consensus view if one exists, or failing that the dominant view, and any significant minority views. I think the article is well-sourced regarding consensus/near-consensus views on the following:

Your views on whether the page is not shared, saying it again does not make it right. Plus there is no reason if you feel it is balanced for people not to be allowed to expand the comments.

BernardZ (talk)

• date of composition of the Exodus narrative, 450-350 BC with a significant minority advocating a later date (later by about a century);

Now what about the significant minority which you accept exist advocating an earlier date

BernardZ (talk)

• socio-political background to its composition (the "citizen-temple community" thesis - we mention the Persian Imperial authorisation thesis because it's widely known, and was only recently overturned);

Prove that comment and its relevance.

BernardZ (talk)

• lack of historicity/written as a charter document;

Meaningless comment.

BernardZ (talk)

• probability of prior background, now probably irretrievable (though we mention "collective memory", the Hyksos, and a few other theories).

If so it should be in

BernardZ (talk)

You're welcome to check out the sources attached to each of these, and you should do so - source-checking is an invaluable help to getting articles right, especially when done by persons not involved as editors. Incidentally, I said above that we don't deal in persons, just ideas, but we do mention persons when they're important - Frie as originator of Imperial authorisation, Assman as foundational in cultural memory theory, to take two examples. Friedman, however, has not made a contribution to Pentateuchal studies in this way - his name is never mentioned in the literature. PiCo (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Lies Friedman expertise in in this check the books he has writtern

BernardZ (talk)

There is a saying in the Netherlands (it was a commercial) "We, the people at Toilet Duck, recommend Toilet Duck." Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say Mr Tgeorgescu that you know nothing about this subject? Just for the record, I have studied formally this subject, disussed it with several experts recently in Egypt and can assure you that this page is quite false.

BernardZ (talk)

Look, we have a WP:PAG, it is WP:RS/AC. We do not set it aside because some editor claims that he would be an expert and knows better. If you are an expert, you should be able to easily quote WP:RS and therefore you should pass the test of WP:RS/AC with flying colors. Yet somehow you are either unable or unwilling to do that. As stated, Hoffmeier and Kitchen stated in some Liverpool conferences that they are a minority view. Why do you trust them for establishing the reality of the Exodus but you don't trust them that they are minority? To give you an inkling of what kind of approach we prefer, see WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Who is *WE* what you mean is *I*

BernardZ (talk)

We, as in we, the WP:PAG-abiding Wikipedians, i.e. those who have a WP:CLUE. United by WP:PAGs, experienced editors constitute a hive mind. The good news is that everyone who is up to the task may join us. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Source-checking and re-write

I've started checking the sources for the article and revising it where necessary. I want in particular to re-write the Historicity section, to address the two elements involved, the archaeology and the text. Please keep on eye on what I do and correct me if necessary.PiCo (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with me changing it?BernardZ (talk)

It seems impossible to please everyone with this article. I want to make the Historicity section shorter and more focused, and I want to ensure that the existing material reflects the cited sources adequately. There's more than that to a good article, but it's a start.PiCo (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I want the historical section to include that many feel that although it is plausible that a smaller exodus did happen and a few details.BernardZ (talk)

There is no historical section - I take it you mean the Historicity section. The material you want is already there, it has a whole subsection, Possible Sources and Parallels. PiCo (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly not there the views of many like Friedman, Hoffmeier and the discussion as others have pointed out here https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/exodus/exodus-fact-or-fiction/BernardZ (talk)

So do we have any object left to putting them and the conference mentioned above in.

BernardZ (talk)

Expanded the Summary section to take in laws and covenants. Christians tend to treat the exodus as a story, but the story is only the setting for the really important part, which is God's relationship with Israel, and through Israel with his creation. Christians, I'm ashamed to say, have a very limited grasp of theology.PiCo (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It would make an interesting read. Islam talks a lot about it too.BernardZ (talk)

Bernard, please be careful where you put your name-tag, it can get very confusing if you don't have it at the end of your comment. The points made in the Sources/Parallels section are the majority view, so much a majority that amounts to a near-consensus; Hoffmeier and Kitchen are outside that consensus, and we have sources stating this. Friedman is inside it, he says simply that their was some group who were in Egypt and whose experiences contributed to the exodus story (he says they were the Levites, and indeed the Egyptian names in Exodus are all Levitical), but he simply isn't a major scholar in this area - he didn't invent this idea, it was already around.

As for the theology, I want more of that, but am finding it hard to find concise sources - it mostly comes in thick, unreadable books (unreadable if your not a rabbi, which I'm not, and which readers of this encyclopedia are not).PiCo (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

3RR exemption

Reverting copyvio. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The Great Seal

doesn't actually depict Moses; this version of the seal was tabled by Congress. The story is probably still good as an illustration of the exodus's cultural significance, though, especially since we have a literal illustration here. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. What the source actually says is that Jefferson and others *recommended* that the Seal show Moses. I'll correct it. PiCo (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

I have reverted two significant edits to the Summary subsection of the Historicity section. The first is to change "There is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt,..." to "Most [archaeologists?] feel that there is no indication that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt..." The source is Redmount, page 77, who says: "No archaeological evidence from Egypt can be constructed as representing a resident group of Israelites in the Delta or elsewhere..." This is categorical, and cannot be parsed as supporting a statement representing the opinion of "most" archaeologists.

The second is the addition of a sentence to the effect that "a significant number of scholars believe that it is plausible that a significantly smaller group of Israelites could have made an exodus from Egypt." Three sources are given, Hoffmeiers's Israel in Egypt, an article from Biblical Archaeology magazine, and a you tube video of a talk by Professor Richard Friedman. Biblical Archaeology and you tube are not reliable sources and should not be used in Wikipedia, but I accept the point being made, that there appears to be a number of scholars who feel that a "significantly smaller" (smaller than the 2 million or more implied in Exodus) might have exited Egypt.

It's not correct, however, that these amount to a "significant" number of scholarly voices - significant enough to merit mention in the article on the basis of due weight. This is covered in Moore and Kelle's book, Biblical History and Israel's past. On pages 88-89 they mention "a few" (not "a significant number") of scholars "keeping alive discussion of the potential historicity, or at least plausibility," of the Exodus narrative. I'm sure that at one point in the recent past our article explicitly mentioned this, but I can't see it there now. So I'm willing toi reinsert a sentence along the lines of the one quoted from Moore and Kelle, and to name Hoffmeier and Kitchen as representatives of this view, but it has to be made clear that mainstream scholarship simply ignores them (for which see the same pages of Moore and Kelle). PiCo (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Listed twice

@BernardZ and Macquaire: Any special reasons for repeating the same information in two different places? Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2018 (UTC)