Talk:The Exodus

Exodus: Myth or Fact?

The disclaimer should read: This article is about a story related in the Bible. The lead needs to address this point. The "founding myth" misdirection is not encyclopaedic.Absolutely Certainly (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

But it is a founding myth and depicts fictional characters, like Moses. Dimadick (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The absolute lack of independent mention of the story's events or consequences, from any contemporary culture... the lack of any archaeological evidence that anything happened, and the established historical fact that no quantity of Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt at all (writings of the time say they were in Babylon, never Egypt)... this strains any credibility of this story to the shattering point. An epic tale, sure, but demonstrably pure fiction. --Terminator484 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Terminator484: Now, there are good and bad arguments for the Exodus being unhistorical. The Normand conquest is not archaeologically corroborated, we just know about it from writings. There is nothing unusual with Canaanites enslaved in Egypt, just there weren't two millions of them. Yup, that would mean that the majority of Egyptians were in reality Canaanites. That is what is impossible, not that Canaanites sought refuge next to the Nile during droughts and famines. And Egyptians would not have reported about being vanquished by Canaanites, but they would have needed paperwork for the most daunting economic and demographic crisis in their history. And most scholars would grant that some elusive real event is behind the Exodus myth, but the numbers are way out of proportion. Even the Roman Empire, at the peak of its power, did not have 600 thousands soldiers. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually true that the Norman conquest lacks archaeological evidence - Norman coins, Norman-style castles, Norman-style weapons, and more, begin from 1066. Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Bayeux Tapestry, though not exactly archeological. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is part of the material culture that archaeology studies. But as has been pointed out, besides the accounts not being written centuries later, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence anyway. Maybe not for individual battles, but for the conquest. Also see [1]. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

How is this different than the resurrection of Jesus? There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that Christ was resurrected. See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic. Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth. To call the Torah a myth is to call all of Christianity a myth. In the end, the Wikipedia pages (and its editors) need to be neutral and unbaised and not choose empowering language for one religion, while choosing damaging language for another religion. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Take it up over there. Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth" is deceiving. You should say, "Some scholars..." Or to be completely honest, you should say, "SOME hand selected, biased scholars refer to Exodus as a myth." 67.221.133.45 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Every person is biased in one way or another, I don't know why you cite that as an argument. Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the story of the Exodus from the Bible is largely inaccurate, although some mainstream Bible scholars concede that there might be some grain of truth behind it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth." I would endorse that statement. Nothing historical in that narrative. Dimadick (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I wish that all Wikipedia articles reinforced this basic concept, i.e. that the Biblical narrative is NOT history as the study of history is understood and undertaken in the post-17th-century non-religious, enlightenment rationalistic approach to it in Western society. Unfortunately, that is far from being the case. And furthermore, we also seem to be entering a period where the enlightenment rationalistic approach to the study of societies is being finally overwhelmed and overrun by conservative, reactionary forces. That is my own feeling, at least. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the Torah? 75.99.91.246 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why then is this a "myth" and not a belief? The resurrection of Christ is listed as a belief. The specifics of language matter. The language you are choosing is favoring one religion over the other. This is and has always been anti-semitic. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You can fill a library with mainstream academic books which call Exodus a myth, yup, this includes books written by Jewish professors, including practicing Rabbis. Resurrection of Jesus as a founding myth, while technically true, does not get the same amount of space from scholars, being them Christian or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: I am sure Egyptologist Manfred Bietak would disagree with what you states, since he supports the historicity of much of the Biblical narrative. Check his publications: [1][2]. Potatín5 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: You got something wrong: as Achar Sva said, Wikipedia does not render the truth, but the balance of scholarly opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: Since Manfred Bietak's opinions are scholarly opinions, I think it is important to take his views into account in order to establish a fair balance of overall scholarly opinions. That's all I say. Potatín5 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have statements of scholarly consensus already in the article. You are not characterizing Bietak correctly:

We therefore posit that the biblical tradition arose out of the various movements (into and out of Egypt, as noted above), presum-ably at different times and under different circumstances. As we noted earlier, history is always more complicated than a single episode or a single account, but the tradition frequently memorializes, commem-orates, and indeed celebrates only one main narrative. Such is what occurred in ancient Israel: the story is stylized as the descent to Egypt by a single extended family, Jacob and his children; the slavery of the main group engaged in brickmaking for the building of Pithom and Ra’amses; the miraculous hand of God bringing plagues against Egypt; and, finally, the Exodus from Egypt of the core group, which would traverse the Sinai and settle in Canaan.

If the Exodus is based on "various movements" in "different times and under different circumstances," its obviously not the biblical account. Even if you were characterizing Bietak correctly, the fact remains that we have statements of WP:RS/AC that the vast majority of scholars no longer hold the biblical narrative to be historically accurate. A majority of scholars believe that the exodus has a historical basis, another large group believes that there is no historical basis, and a third, very small group (characterized by fringe per the AC cited in the article) believe it happened more or less like in the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Evidently, Bietak is not arguing for a literalist reading of the account, but he contends that the main elements of the narrative were real or had some historial basis in a group of enslaved [proto-]israelites in the Late Bronze Age. And he does never use the word "myth" to describe the Biblical narrative. Potatín5 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why the most accurate description for the Exodus is "mythologized history" instead of "myth". But to most traditionalist Christians this is not an important distinction. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't written just for traditionalist Christians. Mythologized history is has a very different connotation that myth. If Mythologized History is the most accurate description then that is what the article should state. 67.80.112.24 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

All Bietak admits above is that there were movements into and out of Egypt - the rest he says is styalized. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Beliefs are held in specific concepts. A long mythological narrative does not entail a single belief, but a whole collection of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your contention sounds more Foucauldian vs. actual historiography. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't your contention just a classical argument from silence (or ignorance)? See Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoIgnorance) Cameronferguson81 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't your contention evidence for the existence of Bigfoot? We have about as much evidence for his existence as for the existence of Moses: None at all. Dimadick (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You would have to establish that analogy before it would be convincing. Ty. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cameronferguson81: That would be true if it were his contention. We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. When even scholars who do not deny that Moses existed affirm that he is irretrievably lost to history/archaeology, that should give you pause. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: According to this source published by Harvard University Press, Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure. Potatín5 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

First read the rest of that paragraph, to understand what these authors are actually saying about any alleged historical Moses, and the Exodus he allegedly lead. Second, use a dictionary to comprehend what the word "consensus" actually means. Then look up "proverbs, stories and songs", and reconsider why experts use the label "Mythologized history". Wdford (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

The frank statements in the Wiki article and by many readers saying there is zero evidence confuse me. Why so desperate to make the story of Jewish slavery in 13th c. BCE Egypt a lie?

Arrogance and fear clearly don't pair well with true curiosity and common sense.

Please pick apart this interesting article for me.

https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus#:~:text=Evidence%20of%20such%20migration%20is,in%20the%20Nile%20Delta%20area. 152.208.21.62 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say there's evidence, but there are many maybe and probably.

Also, there is no evidence that Yahweh worship existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Israelites existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Hebrew language existed in 1446 BCE. If an Exodus happened around that time, it wasn't Yahwistic and it wasn't Israelite. While we can't deny that it was the Exodus, it wasn't Jewish in any form or shape. In this case, it was an exodus of Pagan Canaanites, not of any Jew, Hebrew, or Israelite. So, it were part of the "national" history of the Pagan Canaanite ancestors of the Israelites, but not a part of history of the Israelite ethnic group. Even if we admit that Osarseph was a monotheist, he wasn't an Yahwistic monotheist. If Osarseph's only existing god is a real god, then the Abrahamic god is a fake god. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how the existence of Yahweh' cult is relevant to the historicity of the Exodus. Whoever invented Yahweh could have added his name in old legends. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The point being: maybe it was a legend Israelites inherited from their ancestors, but there is no reason to think that a 1446 BCE Exodus included Israelites. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

New Evidence

In the light of new evidence it's probably time to unlock this page. The old "not historical" materialist narrative won't wash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.225.231 (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please be specific. What “new evidence”? Acroterion (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasson, Nir (2 March 2016). "New exhibition chronicles meeting of ancient Israel and Egypt". haaretz.com. Retrieved 4 February 2020. The most provocative items in the huge archaeological exhibition opening March 4 at the Israel Museum are the ones that aren't there. The exhibition, "Pharaoh in Canaan: The Untold Story," is about the long relationship between the land of Israel and ancient Egypt. The hall devoted to the best known part of the story — the Exodus from Egypt — is an empty room with exactly one exhibit on display: a movie featuring co-curator and Israel Museum Egyptologist Dr. Daphna Ben-Tor, who explains that the hall is empty because there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever to support the biblical tale.

And, frankly, non-materialist archaeology does not exist. Science and WP:SCHOLARSHIP are by definition materialist, excepting metaphysics and theology. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If any verifiable scientific evidence supportive of the Exodus actually existed, the Israeli museums would be aware of it, and would not be keeping it a secret. It would have been big news across the world. Wdford (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering that papyri in Tutankhamun's tomb were missing from their places, it is presumed that they were found and suppressed. A journalists report suggests that Howard Carter made a statement where he claimed he had information about the Jews' (sic) exodus from Egypt which would change history, and that 10 people connected to the find mysteriously died, it wouldn't be surprising if Egyptological data concerning the Hebrews was suppressed. MPR023 (talk) 12:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

But where is the "new evidence" that the other person was talking about?

You also mention a "journalist report", but don't provide a link/bibliographical data to said report. And who are the 10 people who died? And what part about their death was "mysterious"? Nakonana (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

A cock and bull story, obviously. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Is the Islamic and Israelite (Samaritan) perspective not allowed by Wikipedia?

There is no doubt that Wikipedia is only free in its motto, but what is the explanation for putting the Christian perspective but not the Islamic and Israelite perspectives if this event that exists in all Abrahamic religions? Fakecontinent (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, instead of claiming censorship or bias or whatever, you could find WP:RS that discuss Islamic/Samaritan views of the Exodus and add them to the article. We're all volunteers here, no one is obligated to go and find sources for something you want in the article (and is the Exodus even all that important in Islam?).--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's a source you can start with:[2]. See also Moses in Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Additions by Torah musa

@Torah musa: you are adding sentences that do not follow the proper rules of English grammar and add an enormous amount based at least partially on a website. Moreover, rather than discussing it after being reverted you've taken to adding this information across multiple pages. What is it you want to add and why?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding view about interpreting Exodus in relation to Sheshonq by Finkelstein. If you find it with grammatical error, then, you can modify them. Torah musa (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

We already discuss Sheshonq. And if you're adding information from Finkelstein why is it so long and why do you cite more than just him?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I value the other view about the Sehshonq as well. Ok. we discuss Sheshonq already, but you reverted them all anyway. Then, who would see those views? Torah musa (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

This platform is intended for other users to see all these different views that are peer-reviewed or valid at least. Torah musa (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

You see, this kind of view was never even mentioned in wikipidea. So, I found it necessary to mention this view as well. Torah musa (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Objectivity

This page is extremely one sided and doesn’t objectively show all of the evidence and opposing arguments. Even if many scholars don’t believe that there was an exodus, it is still appropriate to show countervailing opinions and facts. There are scholars who say there is evidence for the Biblical narrative. The Hyksos in Egypt align with the biblical timeline, and the city of Avaris is in the location of Goshen. There is an Egyptian palace in Avaris which has twelves tombs outside and one of the tombs has a statue of an asiatic man who is even wearing colorful coat. The palace is also built on top of a house that has the same architecture as ones from Haram, where jacob lived. There is a canal in Egypt that was built in the time period that Joseph would have lived in, and the local Muslims even call it the canal of Joseph. There are Hebrew names listed as slaves on the brooklyn papyrus. The Ipywer Papyrus and the tempest stele recounted similar events as the 10 plagues. This article makes no mention of the berlin pedestal which multiple scholars have identified as mentioning Israel long before the merneptah stele, which makes the argument that they were around long before “mainstream” scholars say that they were. The excavation of Jericho shows that it was destroyed exactly how the Bible described, even with the northern wall not falling, and scholars attribute it to the Hyksos(who many believe were the Israelites. The page even makes no mention of how josephus claimed that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Lukeferg96 (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"has a statue of an asiatic man who is even wearing colorful coat" Given that the Hyksos were "Asiatics" (West Semitic and Levantine in origin) and that Avaris was their capital, that is not a big surprise. There have also been various efforts to link the name of the Pharaoh Yaqub-Har (17th/16th century BCE) with that of the mythical Jacob. Both figures seem to have in their names variations of the Semitic name "Yakov", which was apparently widely used during the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt (c. 1700-1550 BCE). Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay yeah maybe one piece of evidence such as the statue doesn’t mean anything by itself, but when you show the full picture it shows that there is at least an argument to be made. There are many more aspects of the archeological report that also match the description found in the Bible, but I cannot write my full dissertation in a comment. The point is that this page is clearly taking a side on the issue, which is not objective, or a good faith effort to educate people. Lukeferg96 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It is not our job to listen to WP:FRINGE claims, much less consider them valid. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, the consensus of archaeologists is that Jericho debunks the Bible (namely the Israelite conquest). Even a pro-Bible archaeologist like William G. Dever admits this. Those who oppose this consensus are mainly pseudohistorians and pseudoarchaeologists doing apologetics instead of science. We don't do WP:GEVAL between archaeology and apologetics. The Exodus of the Hyksos is an archaeological view, the problem is that the Hyksos weren't Israelites, did not speak Hebrew, and did not worship Yahweh. The Ipuwer story is recognized as a fantasy writing (i.e. not real historiography), and similarities with the Ten Plagues are very much exaggerated. There were Semites and later Israelites in Egypt, but there weren't millions of them. That would mean that the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian population were Israelites and only a tiny elite were real Egyptians, which is absurd. If you posit an Exodus of 600 slaves, okay, you have saved the Exodus but ruined the Bible. As Joel S. Baden argues on YouTube, the Pentateuch is not coherent about the Exodus: in one version Israelites come from Egypt, in another version they don't, in one version they wandered forty years in the desert, in another version they didn't. And Jewish Rabbis noticed this problem, hence their willingness to provide explanations for the real problems of the Bible.

The strong consensus of archaeologists is that the Israelites were the offspring of the Canaanites. That it, the Israelites were born in Palestine through a process of othering. Modern DNA studies confirm that present-day Jews are the offspring of Canaanites. Any theory which does not acknowledge the Canaanite origin of the Israelites is risible, and falls under the purview of WP:FRINGE. Such objections come from people who are either ignorant of or willfully ignore mainstream history and mainstream archaeology.

It is very frustrating to be on the WP:FRINGEs when you think you should be WP:MAINSTREAM. And, to be fair, when it first was developed, Wikipedia did not do a great job of explaining how it intended on addressing this imbalance which is baked in to knowledge production and rational discourse. After more than 20 years, the answer we've come up with is: "if you don't like the status quo, go change it out in the real world." That normally shuts down the arguments, and I am convinced it remains the best argument we can say when people ask us how to fix the situation they dislike.

Back during the cold fusion wars, Steven Krivit interviewed me on the phone (sadly, the recordings were corrupted, so, no, you can't listen to it). When I said that the best advice I had for cold fusion advocates was to convince the rest of the world that they had what they thought they had, he was not happy, but what could he say back? Most of the WP:PROFRINGE want to use Wikipedia to change the world and that's fundamentally why they get frustrated.

jps (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

First of saying that the Hyksos didn’t speak Hebrew doesn’t mean any, even if you did have evidence of that, the Hebrew language was not even formed at that point. The Israelites would have The Israelites probably didn’t even speak Hebrew at that point because it was not developed yet. There was not a divergence in the Semitic language of Canaan until much later.

Have you read the actual full translation of the Ipywer Papyrus? I have and it doesn’t need to be exaggerated to sound like the plague.

The archeological evidence from Jericho does not debunk the story in the Bible, I have read both the Bible and Kathleen Kenyon’s archeological report digging up jericho myself. It does not debunk the Bible. The date of the destruction in the 16th century fit in the biblical timeframe. Biblical scholars don’t all agree on the timeline of the Bible but it is not out of the range that is debated.

Pentateuch is a Christian terminology not Jewish. The septuagint is the earliest known translation of the Torah and it definitely says that they were in Egypt.

Also you cant just say things like mainstream and fringe to prove a point. If Andreas Vesalius followed the mainstream opinion that Galen new everything there was to offer on the anatomy of the human body we never would have had modern medicine. If Galileo followed the mainstream opinion of the Catholic Church, it would have led to advances in astronomy to not be developed.

The point is that this page doesn’t show all the evidence for both sides. It barely even mentions opposing opinions and when it does it just attempts to explain them away. Lukeferg96 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The point is that this page doesn’t show all the evidence for both sides—that's correct, see WP:GEVAL for why.

Otherwise see WP:VERECUNDIAM about the argument about Vesalius.

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

“All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)” Lukeferg96 (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you by change the world, you mean try to have open discourse on important history, then yeah I would like to change the world. Historians once believed that there wasn’t a Hittite civilization, it was once thought that Troy was mythological, if people always followed mainstream public opinion, we would never have advancements in archaeology or any other field. Lukeferg96 (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, the points you are making are correct, but that's none of our business. If you are writing an original research paper for a peer-reviewed journal, you have all the liberty to write what you please. We don't have that liberty, see WP:FREE and WP:NOTFREESPEECH.

Besides WP:NPOV does not mean what you mean, it means what we mean, i.e. what it actually means. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2024 (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)

— [3]

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Much of the evidence that I have spoken of has been in a peer reviewed journal. This article makes no mention of the Berlin Pedestal, which has been 3d scanned and the inscription has been identified by multiple different scholars. It has also been published in peer reviewed journals. A lot of the evidence has been peer reviewed as well. It just isn’t accurate to say that there is a consensus on the Exodus. Many scholars believe it’s completely fictional, many believe its from a kernel of truth but has been fictionalized, some believe that there was an Exodus under Ramesses the great, and others say Amenhotep I. All of Egyptian history has been based on some degree of speculation. For much of Egyptian history all we have to go on is the Writings of Manetho who was from the 3rd century. We don’t even has his complete original writings and much of what we do have has been handed down by other historians such as Josephus. How can you have almost anything about the Egyptians on wikipedia if there must be verifiable evidence to corroborate it? Lukeferg96 (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Manetho and Josephus are not modern historians, so pretty much we don't care about what they say about the Exodus. None of our business. Again, the article says that it is a mainstream view that the Exodus has a kernel of historical truth, but those real events are very much different from the events depicted in the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say that Manetho spoke about the Exodus. I said that the chronology that modern historians have for ancient Egypt is based on the writings of Manetho, which were handed down by Josephus. Without the writings of Manetho and subsequently Josephus we would not have much information about the dynasties of Egypt. The only period that we do have records front which survived ironically is the annuls of kings from the old kingdom. Even though there isn’t evidence for a lot of the chronology of Egypt outside of Manetho, his writings are accepted on this site.

The evidence that I have proposed is documented and peer reviewed. The Berlin Pedestal especially had been and yet when I added it to the page it was removed. Saying that the Israelites did not coalesce as a people group until the collapse of the Bronze Age ca 1200 bc, is going against the archeological evidence that has been authenticated. If none of the other evidence is added at least that should because the majority belief of those who have studied it, is that it is from the mid 15th to mid 14th century and that it mentions Israel. Veen, Pieter Gert van der. “Berlin Statue Pedestal Reliefs 21687 and 21688: Ongoing Research.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections, 2012. Lukeferg96 (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't listen to Manetho because we don't play historian doing original research. Modern historians may listen to Manetho, and Wikipedia listens to modern, mainstream historians. Van der Veen's claim about Israel has been rejected, so again, it is under the purview of WP:FRINGE.

The theories that Israelites were not the offspring of Canaanites also fall under the purview of WP:FRINGE.

Morals: as long as you will push WP:FRINGE views or WP:OR views, Wikipedia will never listen to you, as a matter of well-established WP:PAGs. So, you'd better stop trying because the whole system of Wikipedia is against you. You will never prevail in pushing WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. You're not fighting against me, you are fighting against a well-oiled system comprised of many people. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Rejected by whom? There are zero articles in academic journal databases, such as academia and jstor, that refute the claims of Gorg, Theis, and Van der Veen. It cannot be fringe unless there is a consensus that it is inaccurate. Lukeferg96 (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

To cut a long story short: you may dislike our WP:RULES, but our rules will be enforced regardless.

I tried to explain our WP:RULES as best as I could, but you are unwilling to listen. Our rules will get enforced, and your arguments cannot change that fact.

You could try to read all those blue links I gave you in order to comprehend what I'm saying, but, no, we won't allow you to break the rules with impunity.

Therefore, regardless of whether you comprehend what I'm saying, you won't be allowed to break the rules. I'm not here in order to negotiate fundamental policies and guidelines.

If you are prepared to listen to what I say, you will understand the workings of Wikipedia. If not, you will be reverted by various experienced editors, without understanding why.

If you are here in order to push WP:FRINGE and WP:OR, the answer is no, you can't do that. And it does not matter how many times you will "ask the other parent", the answer will still be no.

I stated your options very clearly, but that does not mean that I hate you, nor that I hate your religion. So, be happy and prosper, but Wikipedia will continue to reflect mainstream history and mainstream archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not take anything in this discussion personally. I have read all of the links you have sent but I disagree in the interpretation. The definition of mainstream is ambiguous and there are scholars that debate these issues and publish research for both sides. Lukeferg96 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The mainstream views are: (i) the Exodus did not happen at all and (ii) the Exodus did happen, but very differently from how it is described in the Bible. Other views about it are not mainstream. It is true that evangelical colleges and evangelical universities still teach that the Bible is accurate, but that is by and large a WP:FRINGE view.

When W.F. Albright lived, "the Bible is archaeologically accurate" was a tenable claim. So, Albright was a honest scholar. That is, whatever his mistakes might have been, he did not commit scientific fraud. 50 years after his death, that's no longer a tenable claim.

To spill the beans, much of what happens at Wikipedia depends upon shared definitions and shared jargon. We do not have the same ethnicity, the same political opinions, the same religion, the same class origin, the same race, and so on, but we do share definitions and jargon. So, understanding these is the WP:CLUE to editing Wikipedia.

There are two very different things. One is to admit that Van der Veen's claim got traction in general (I doubt that it happened, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that it did). The other is to admit that Van der Veen's claim got traction in scholarly debates about the Exodus. Meaning, we are not allowed to draw such conclusion through WP:OR, but only mainstream scholars may draw such conclusion. That is, you have to WP:CITE mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP which ties Van der Veen's claim to the Exodus. Citing apologists won't do. And handwaving that it might come to play a role in such discussions is not enough. Since we won't allow you, or any other editor, to draw such original research conclusion. WP:V in mainstream WP:RS makes or breaks it. I.e. maybe some scholars consider his claim plausible, but unless you produce WP:RS that his claim plays a major role in mainstream scholarly disputes about the Exodus, we default to not mentioning it.

Meaning: we're not unreasonable, but the bar for inclusion is high.

About Kenyon's report: she started the debate rather than closing it. Meaning we do not necessarily follow her views, we follow the WP:RS/AC of present-day mainstream archaeologists. We acknowledge her contributions, but science moved further.

About Dever: he defends the Bible to the maximal reasonable extent, but he does not engage in apologetics. He loves the Bible, but his allegiance is to mainstream science. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

You take NPOV to mean audi alteram partem, but here at Wikipedia the WP:FRINGE side is simply never listened to in respect to mainstream subjects. The fringe views are PLONKed. tgeorgescu (talk)