Talk:The Exodus/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Myth/belief

Gabby Merger attempted to change "founding myth" to "foundational belief", apparently not realising that the statement indicates that the Exodus story is the myth about how Israel was founded. The Exodus is not a belief held by Israel. I have restored the accurate term, consistent with the target article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Well a less loaded word than "myth" would be more NPOV...and it is obviously a "belief" too. Not sure how you think it isn't. Yes, the word "myth" is not always necessarily considered "untrue" but is generally considered to be something that is fictional. And that's POV in tone and wording, to the average reader. No need to revert. Or better yet, come up with a better NPOV word than "myth" in the very opening of the supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Maybe the word "story" would be less POV and less with the loaded baggage that the word "myth" obviously conveys. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Brought here...Editor2020 contributor was telling me...
We have had this argument on the Talk page numerious times and the existing consensus is that myth is appropriate. You don't have to convince me, you need to discuss it on the Talk page and convince the other editors that your version is an improvement of the article.Editor2020, Talk 02:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sure it's come up before no doubt, but for very good reason. As admitted even by the Wikipedia article you directed me to: “in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story[27] or any popular misconception or imaginary entity.[28] Because of this pejorative sense, some opt to return to the earlier mythos,[22] although its use was similarly pejorative and it now more commonly refers to its Aristotelian sense as a "plot point" or to a collective mythology,[29] as in the worldbuilding of H.P. Lovecraft.” Wikipedia itself says that the word “myth” has a pejorative connotation and is a loaded term. Hence the word “story” is (at least to many readers) more neutral SOUNDING. That’s not an opinion, but a fact admitted by the WP article itself... Gabby Merger (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't have to convince me, you need to discuss it on the Talk page and convince the other editors that your version is an improvement of the article.Editor2020, Talk 03:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I know...you said that already. But you're conveniently dodging the fact that the WP article itself (that you directed me to) says that the term "myth" has a pejorative connotation...hence the problem. But I do discuss these types of things on article talk pages a lot. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
"Founding myth" is a specific term with a particular meaning, and here indicates that the Exodus is the myth about how Israel was founded. "Foundational belief" is not a valid replacement for the term. The Exodus is not a "foundational belief" of Israel. Countries do not hold beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Gabby Merger is absolutely right in saying that "myth" is a loaded term which (to most people) implies that something is fiction or fantasy, especially when the word is interpreted by a general audience (which is what Wikipedia is written for). GBRV (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Jeffro's right. The link is to Origin myth and this is an origin myth, and called such by numerous theologians and believing Christians and Jews. Why should we avoid this? The fact that some people don't like the word isn't enough. Our article Myth doesn't say it has a pejorative connotation, it says it can be used in a pejorative sense. Here we are using it in its academic sense. Not only that, the link is to the section on founding myths in the article Origin myth. Anyone seeing 'story' would be unlikely to click on it to see what we are really linking to. That doesn't seem right to me. Doug Weller (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not just written for an academic, scholarly audience, and much of the general public views the term "myth" as synonymous with "complete bunk". Most of WP's other history-related articles (and science, medical, etc articles) avoid academic language wherever possible, instead paraphrasing things in layman's terms except when there's no other choice (e.g. the name of a species of bacteria that has no vernacular equivalent). The same should be done in this article: there are plenty of ways of phrasing the same thing in a vernacular form that will be unambiguously clear to everyone.
Concerning your comparison of the Exodus to pagan beliefs about their gods and goddesses: in this case we're talking about people escaping from slavery and migrating, which is about as mundane as it gets. Yes, it also includes descriptions of a handful of supernatural events, but the same is true of the Greek chronicler Herodotus who constantly mentions miraculous predictions by the Delphic Oracle and says that a "phantom woman" appeared to the fleet at the battle of Salamis, and yet no one calls the battle of Salamis a "myth". Assyrian government records constantly invoke their gods and goddesses when describing their conquests, but no one calls the Assyrian Empire a "myth". There are eyewitness accounts of supernatural events during the siege of Orleans in 1428-1429, but no one calls the siege of Orleans a "myth". Soldiers who fought in the battle of Gettysburg in 1863 described a supernatural figure whom they said appeared at two crucial points, but no one calls the battle of Gettysburg a "myth". The same is true of countless other historical events. So unless you want Wikipedia articles to call all these events "myths", you need to avoid that in this article for the sake of consistency. GBRV (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Jeffro77, I SCRAPPED the word "belief" a long time ago already, and said "story" instead. "Founding story". You're still talking about the word "belief" as if I was still insisting on that when I wasn't anymore. Soon after, I went to the less POV sounding term "story". I was simply saying that though "founding myth" is technically correct, and I knew that already, and that the Greek word "mythos" does not always necessarily mean fictional or false, but it tends to usually convey that thought in many people's minds, and also the way the word is in fact used many times, and it has been admitted to be the case even the Wikipedia article itself, of "Mythology"...as I gave the quote above.
But, Doug Weller, the word "myth" can be used pejoratively and oftentimes is, whereas "story" not necessarily. And as far as the technical definition, the word "story" means that also, and is correct too, but does NOT necessarily have the pejorative connotation or baggage that the word "myth" has (let's not minimize that fact either)...but the word "story" is definitely more neutral. (At least more neutral sounding.) As far as the word "myth", yes, I know about "academic use"...but you think all readers of Wikipedia articles are academics? (This has been a complaint against Wikipedia for years now, about overly complicated and technical jargon sometimes.) The "Mythology" article definitely says that it is (not just "can" be but IS) used pejoratively or at least in the sense of something that is simply not historically true, but fabulous (fable). Let's not water down that fact. The term "story" can mean something fictional too of course...but can also mean something overall factual. And every reader and researcher knows that, right off the bat. But with the term "myth" not necessarily every WP reader or searcher necessarily is gonna know or understand right away that the term "myth" may not be a fable or false story. And that was my only (sighs) point.
Meaning, Jeffro77 is both right and wrong...in this matter, in the specific (proven) point I was bringing out. He's right on the technical point, but not on the point (admitted and quoted by the WP "Mythology" article itself) that it does definitely have a pejorative connotation. And hence the problem, and hence the lack of NPOV in the word "myth". Generally speaking, in sound, signal, and tone. (Who are we kidding here? WP itself clearly admits that in the article.) So again, I ask, what's wrong with the word "story"? Nothing. So why revert or be uptight or object to a more-neutral-sounding word, that basically means the same technically anyway?? It's accurate and basically means the same thing (that's a fact), but is less loaded, and has no real "pejorative" baggage with it, like the word "myth" does. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Gabby, you are misrepresenting the article. It doesn't say a myth is a fable, it says "Mythology is now often sharply distinguished from didactic literature such as fables used pejoratively or at least in the sense of something that is simply not historically true, but fabulous (fable)". Nor does it suggest that the word is (is always) rather than can(ie sometimes) " used pejoratively or at least in the sense of something that is simply not historically true, but fabulous (fable)" - that's not in the article but is your interpretation. As for the word story, that's a synonym for, among other things obviously, falsehood or lie. Doug Weller (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with using 'origin myth' as it is a neutral, academic concept. The bigger problem with the sentence is the "of Israel"-part, which makes people think of the modern country. If anyone asked what I think of the role of Exodus in the founding stories of Israel, I'd think about SS Exodus. Regardless of whether the Exodus happened and on what scale, nobody (neither modern historians nor the biblical authors) claim it resulted in the foundation of Israel. According to the Bible, it led to the conquest of Canaan but not to anything like founding a state in any sense of the word. Jeppiz (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point, except you're objecting to the word "Israel" because it might be misinterpreted by a general reader, and yet you don't object to the phrase "foundation myth" even though a general reader will also misinterpret that phrase too. Let's change both of them so that the majority of Wikipedia's readership will understand the intended meaning in both cases. GBRV (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I suggest that we look at other uses of the word myth in wikipedia. Gilgamesh flood myth, Sumerian creation myth, Flood myth, Romulus and Remus, Egyptian Book of the Dead, Keroessa, all described as myth or mythical. Why should the Exodus be treated differently? It can be described as a foundational myth for Judaism as a religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
It didn't serve as the foundation for "Judaism as a religion". It was an escape from slavery and migration across the Sinai, which puts it in quite a different league from most of the things that are described as a "myth". It's more along the lines of Harriet Tubman helping slaves escape to the northern U.S. while stating that she had visions from God (and, BTW, often invoking the Exodus itself as an analogy of what she was doing). GBRV (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Doug Weller, I think you misunderstood what I meant because I never said "always", and also when I myself wrote "fabulous (fable)" as that was actually my own thing and I wasn't even directly quoting the WP article using that precise term in that way, (and you probably won't believe this as I almost can't believe it myself) it was coincidental for that phrasing. But the point is there's "no misrepresentation" by me (and I would appreciate you not saying that on here, assuming possible bad faith, just because I maybe was not being totally clear or you are not reading clearly or understanding totally or your thinking I was trying to make a direct quote with a phrase when I wasn't) that the article of course makes the point that a "myth" may not be fictional or a "fable", but that many times the term is used in that way. When did I say "always"? I never did. "Can" of course means "sometimes"...understood. But how often is the 'sometimes'? Obviously enough to make some academics to NOT use the word "myth" but instead the more Greek term "mythOs" to try to lessen that notion (a bit). I gave the quote that proves that (obvious and well-known) fact. Check below...
Again, quote: “in a very broad sense, the word can refer to any traditional story[27] or any POPULAR MISCONCEPTION or IMAGINARY ENTITY.[28] Because of this pejorative sense, some opt to return to the earlier mythos,[22] although its use was similarly pejorative and it now more commonly refers to its Aristotelian sense as a "plot point" or to a collective mythology,[29] as in the worldbuilding of H.P. Lovecraft.” Yes can be and oftentimes is...that it has a pejorative sense. And that it "can refer to a popular MISCONCEPTION or a VERY IMAGINARY entity". Again, no "misrepresentation" by me at all.
Because I already said that the article says that it can be something "not a fable" too. I know this already, and said it clearly on here from the beginning. The point though is that the word "story" simply does not have that same "pejorative sense" ever really at all necessarily. "Myth" has more baggage than the word "story". And is used more "pejoratively" than the word "story" is. (That specific fact is not even debatable.) "Myth" many times (especially for people who are not "academics") means "fable" or "fictional scenario". Yes, it doesn't technically have to mean that. But the admission is clearly there. That it definitely has been referred to (and can mean many times) something "imaginary" and a "popular misconception" and has "this pejorative sense"...where some scholars have been shy about using that term, because of the baggage, of conveying the idea of something false or imaginary. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Ae you calling for the removal of the word myth from all religious articles, eg we should have "Greek stories" rather than "Greek mythology", or only for certain religions? User:Gabby Merger Doug Weller (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
To be fair and consistent, sure, the word "story" for all "religious articles" (including the religion of Islam) would be NPOV and consistent despite my personal beliefs, which have no relevance.(Especially depending on the context of a specific sentence.) Or even Zeusism. Because believe it or not, there are some people on the earth who believe in pagan Greek religions and Zeus. Who even got mad at Sam Harris for remarking that the story of Zeus no one believes and is universally considered out-landish. Some don't hold to that view. So I would use clear NPOV language even for that stuff. But even more so, with Biblical accounts, because (as I pointed out repeatedly, and so has GBRV), the Bible keeps getting proven right REPEATEDLY (like with the existence of the Hittites, Belshazzar, Pontius Pilate, etc, who were once doubted by atheists and higher critics, etc, but their existence was later confirmed)...despite the constant skepticism and idiocy of pagan scholars and biased agenda-driven inconsistent Bible-rejecters. (Who give more credence to pagan Egyptians, pagan Babylonians, pagan Assyrians, though they were superstitious TOO, believed in deities, gods and goddesses TOO, and magic and miracles TOO, but they get first preference over the Covenant Jews....the Bible always gets second fiddle to pagan inscriptions or records...do I see a diabolical thing there? hmmmm....side point.) But because this is NEUTRAL WIKIPEDIA...I would say "yes", give Islam "story" instead of "myth" (hypothetically) when dealing with the story of Abraham going to Saudi Arabia to fool with black stones or whatever, or the angel Gabriel supposedly yapping with Mohammad somewhere. I would NOT call them "myths" on Wikipedia articles. Only in regular personal discussions, which WP articles are not supposed to be.
So, yes, Doug Weller, I would. The gotcha question won't work on me, sorry. I believe in being fair and balanced (UNLIKE Fox Noise) on something like supposedly neutral Wikipedia. Everyone has biases, filters, and prejudices, but Wikipedia is not the place for that (presumably).
And my only over-arching point is that though the term "myth" can refer to either something true or false, it tends to convey to many regular people (even to the minds of many "academics" too) something false, fake, fictional, fantastical, imaginary, and delusional, and has a pejorative sense too often. Not always, but too often. But the word "story" a lot less so. (And that's just a fact.) Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Gabby, as a friendly piece of advice? Don't you realize how much you're sabotaging your own efforts with posts like the one above. It's a blatant WP:SOAP violation with its completely irrelevant attacks on Islam, claims of the Bible being right, Sam Harris and other completely impertinent issues. This is the talk page to discuss the Exodus, and nothing else. If you write posts like that, even people who might be sympathetic to your cause will drop out. To reconnect to the topic, the term foundation myth is widely accepted academic concept, and changing it for a lesser used concept would take some explaining. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that Gabby Merger's tangential meanderings are not improving. Trying to 'call Dougweller's bluff' about the academic use of 'myth' across Wikipedia is a particularly poor and soapy tactic. Even worse is the cognitive dissonance (not to mention irrelevance) involved in suggesting that "the angel Gabriel supposedly yapping with Mohammad somewhere" is more fanciful than the same kind of tales found in the Bible. Also very weak is the claim that "the Bible" 'keeps getting proven right' (particularly amusing from someone who believes the stories in Genesis are not merely allegorical), as if simply putting books next to each other makes everything in all of them completely true. 'The Bible' is a collection of different types of literature from different periods, and it is not the case that all literature of other civilisations is 'given more credence'.
The simple fact is that the term founding myth is a specific term in academic usage, and we don't need to use belief or story to censor the term with an unintuitive link.
Regarding Jeppiz' other concern, I don't know that the current wording universally "makes people think of the modern country", but it may be better to indicate it as the founding myth of Judaism.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Jeppiz, Doug Weller is the one who asked me about "Greek Mythology" and brought that up first, and asked me what I would like to be done with articles like that. I merely answered his question, and got into some detail in the answer. He asked about "different religions"...and if I would be the same way (hypothetically) on other "religious articles". Sam Harris was not irrelevant because it was regarding Greek "mythology" such as Zeus, and Harris himself said that he has received angry letters and emails from people "who believe in Poseidon" after he disparaged Poseidon and the religion of "Zeus" etc...and I mentioned that to make the point that there are people who actually believe in that. So making the overall point (to Doug's question) that I would consistently use the more NPOV-sounding term "story" for those types of things too. And I hardly "attacked Islam" as what I said was barely anything really in terms of an outright "attack" per se...(and it was not "irrelevant" really...as it was an example that I used regarding, again, Doug's question to me about "all religious articles".) So, Jeffro77, if I was being "tangential", it was only because (sorry to say) Doug Weller was being so first with me in that comment, if that's the case. I merely answered his question thoroughly. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
And now you're going off on a tangent about a tangent. The fact remains that you are wrong about the point in question.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
...that's cute I must admit. LOL. But the point is that Doug Weller brought up Greek mythology, not I. So I was merely responding to HIS "tangent"...if that's the case. And in my previous comment I was answering Jeppiz's remarks about "Sam Harris", as somehow "irrelevant" when (again) it was about "Greek Mythology"...and the point to Doug was that I would try to be consistent, regardless of my personal position on these "other religions". And how was I "wrong about the point in question" exactly? It's a proven fact that the term "myth" (though broad) tends to convey more so the thought of "fictional"...more so than the term "story" does. And that the term "story" is more NPOV-sounding. Nothing "wrong" in those statements I made, Jeffro77, just factual and proven by WP's own article on the subject, as the quote kinda clearly shows and proves. "Myth" is loaded, carries a "pejorative sense"...though is technically accurate (depending on how it's used, and in "academia"). But still with the negative connotation. And not so the word "story". And again, cute comment of yours...I was literally laughing out loud when I red it. "And now you're going off on a tangent about a tangent". Yeah, maybe...but too bad that it was originally Doug Weller's "tangent". Regards..... Gabby Merger (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The only relevant content in your response is about the word myth, but your claim that it "carries a "pejorative sense"" is misleading. The term can be used in a pejorative sense, but it does not in this case, because it is being properly used in its academic context.
The fact that it takes you over a dozen sentences to (poorly) address only one relevant point is quite irritating.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
But the rude unfair accusation and remark you threw about me of "tangential" when Doug was the one who brought it up, and I was simply answering his question (was I to ignore his question??) is what's very "irritating". So why not just stay away from me like I told you? Why are you even on this talk page and checking my edits as usual with your WP violation of constant hounding and second-guessing, as this article was never something you edited before I did, because of your "watchlist", and why are you on this section bothering me with your usual rude jabs and snarky uncivil gripes and snipes, and obvious bias and double standards? You actually said I was with "tangential" things when it was clearly Doug Weller who brought up "Greek mythology", not I. But you'll automatically see something in me, though it took place from someone else. But because Doug Weller is more in your camp, you won't call him out on his "tangent". When he (not I) was the one who brought up that gotcha bluff stuff in the first place. And insanely make it like I was the one who went off on tangents, when I was merely answering Doug's question. You're, frankly, really impossible, Jeffro77, as that was shown a long time ago already, which is why I did not want to deal with you anymore, at all, and I told you not to with me either. But you can't help yourself with your "watchlist" and constant hounding.
I was answering Doug's question. Was I supposed to dodge and ignore it? But look at the rude uncivil remarks you made on this thread to me. And totally inaccurate. And nonsense about "tangential" AS IF I was the one to first bring up "Greek mythology" when A) Doug Weller clearly was the one who did, and B) I was simply answering his question and giving reasons for the answers. I already conceded that "myth" is technically correct, but because of some negative connotations not quite as NPOV sounding as the word "story". That's it. You notice I never reverted again or bothered with the edit again. But it's not necessary for you to diss and make cold unreasonable unfair remarks to me, that you won't make to Doug Weller because he's an Admin and you agree with him in the overall subject matter. That's bias all over the place. He was tangential, not I. He brought that stuff up, not I. Was I supposed to ignore his question?? Gabby Merger (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No one is interested in your continued 'meta-analysis' of the discussion.
Why am I on this page? As you already know, I was made aware of your recent POV edits at this article by Jeppiz, by way of his comments at ANI that you have treated him the same way you have previously treated me.[1] Consequently, it has been necessary to again review your recent edits for similar POV problems at other articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Gabby Merger was referring to the fact that skeptics and atheists had once claimed that the Babylonians, Assyrians, etc, allegedly were fictional just because the Bible mentions them, since they claim the Bible is fictional. Then archaeologists found the ruins of Babylon, Nineveh, Ashur, etc, and the skeptics quietly dropped their argument. Likewise for so many other issues (Pontius Pilate, etc). Gabby was also referring to the fact that skeptics constantly claim that Biblical accounts need to be backed up by pagan accounts such as Egyptian government records, although they know perfectly well that almost all the surviving Egyptian "government records" are religious monuments listing their achievements on behalf of their gods and goddesses, hence these are 1) just as religious as anything in the Bible; 2) these monuments only list Egyptian achievements and never defeats or other setbacks, making them less reliable than the Bible (which does list plenty of defeats as well as embarrassing details such as David's adultery with Bathsheba, Solomon's dabbling with paganism, etc, etc). So there's a double standard.
As for the use of the term "myth": Wikipedia is not an academic site, being intended for a general audience which tends to view the term "myth" as synonymous with "nonsense"; so it is in fact a loaded term that should be avoided in favor of less ambiguous language. You're willing to do that with the term "Israel" - which I agree needs to be changed to avoid confusion - but the same principle should apply to the term "myth". GBRV (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a few things wrong with your claims about "skeptics and atheists". By definition, the only position maintained by atheists is that they do not believe in the existence of a deity. Atheism does not confer any opinion at all on the existence or non-existence of cities or civilisations mentioned in the Bible, nor any claim about the historicity of any particular story minus its theological elements. It is also not the case that 'skeptics' 'claimed' that certain nations 'were fictional' on the basis that they're mentioned in the Bible. Nor is it the case that 'skeptics' hold that everything in the Bible 'must be false'. Conversely, the veracity of anything in particular in one 'Bible book' does not mean that other claims by different authors from different time periods 'must' also be true merely on the basis that someone later decided both books belong in 'the Bible'. 'Skeptics' also do not assert that 'biblical' records 'must' be 'supported' by 'pagan' records. Scholars do not give any more credence to the superstitious religious claims of 'pagan' nations than they give to the stories in the Bible.
The link in question specifically uses myth in its academic context, and there is no reason to make the link less intuitive by censoring it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to a group of specific skeptic/atheist authors in the 19th century who did in fact claim that the Babylonians and Assyrians didn't exist because these authors were unwilling to accept anything in the Bible that wasn't backed up with arbitrary amounts of archaeological evidence. I didn't say that ALL skeptics and atheists believed that or continue to believe it, although plenty of them use similar arguments to dismiss events such as the Exodus. My point was that if these authors' logic wasn't sound on that point, then a similar argument about the Exodus isn't sound either. Relatively few historical events are confirmed by archaeology, and historians usually don't require archaeological confirmation.
Likewise for my point about specific skeptics who do in fact demand proof from pagan Egyptian records to confirm the Exodus. I already explained why that argument is flawed.
You didn't address the points I made about the use of the word "myth" (i.e. Wikipedia is not designed solely for an academic audience, so why should WP articles use terms that have a different meaning in academic usage than in their common vernacular form? Most of the population uses the word "myth" to mean "fantasy", regardless of its academic usage). GBRV (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You did not specify any particular "skeptics and atheists", and even if you had, their atheism would be irrelevant to any claim about whether particular cities existed. Additionally, 'skeptics' did not claim things didn't exist specifically because they were 'in the Bible', but because there was insufficient evidence. The sceptical position is that there is not evidence for a claim—any claim—until there is evidence for it.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd have to look up the exact names of these authors, since I don't have a photographic memory.
When you say that skeptics merely demand additional evidence, that overlooks the fact that most historical events from ancient times aren't attested by more than one or two sources, and only occasionally by archaeological evidence. Normally, if even one source mentions something (in this case the Babylonians and Assyrians), it would be considered sufficient even without archaeological evidence; hence the people who rejected these civilizations were applying a different standard due to bias. Likewise for the Exodus - a fairly mundane migration which would normally not be disputed, nor required to have archaeological confirmation since migrations are rarely attested in the archaeological record. GBRV (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

My question wasn't a 'got'cha' question and resulted in the answer I expected. My problem is, as it's been before with editors who have said the same thing, is that they always start by trying to change articles pertaining to their religion. Understandable, as is the comment that discussion here should only be about this article, but besides the fact that I think we are using the word 'myth' appropriately, I think that the encyclopedia needs to take an NPOV position on religion as a whole, and we can't do that if we start by trying to remove the use of the word in articles relevant to one of the major religions. And it is, of course, a fact that by definition the Exodus story is a founding myth. I'll comment on Gabby Merger's page about the accusations they made above. Doug Weller (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

But you're using the term "founding myth" in a technical academic sense that most of Wikipedia's readers won't understand, and most of them won't follow the link to see how the term is being used, nor should they need to. The normal procedure is to use language that will be readily understood by a general reader. This isn't a big change, and it's consistent with normal policy, so why are you guys so stubbornly opposed to it? GBRV (talk) 07:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You are quite wrong. The word myth is readily understood by most English readers, and the mainstream scholarly view is that the Exodus is a myth. The term is not being used in a pejorative manner, and there is no good reason to censor the term with an unintuitive link. There is a difference between a term being used pejoratively and some readers not liking the mainstream view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Doug Weller has been arguing that the academic usage doesn't mean "fictional nonsense", while you seem to be arguing the opposite. Maybe the two of you should decide which it is. GBRV (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Um, 'technical' academic sense? How about 'normal' academic sense. We expect a lot of our articles to be based on academic sources - I strongly object to simplifying the terminology to the point it removes the meaning. Are you really suggesting that most of our readers won't understand it and are too stupid to follow the link? What do you think links are for? Doug Weller (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't an academic journal, but rather a general encyclopedia designed for a general audience. If readers are expected to follow links because the article is deliberately using terms whose academic usage is different than what they may be used to, then that's a problem with the way the article is written. GBRV (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been very active in this discussion, but it's clear that is has become very unfocused. I'd recommend GBRV to read WP:SOAP, perhaps also WP:OTHERSTUFF. This article is about how to develop this article, and the current discussion makes it very clear that there is no consensus to change the current wording. I'd recommend everybody to move on, as this discussion is very much going in circles. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I've only made the same type of comments that you just made in your response to Sh33na : i.e., just as you cited examples of cases which lack archaeological evidence and also more hypothetical examples of underlying principles, I've cited examples of what historians normally expect when it comes to archaeological evidence and examples of how claims that violate these normal rules have led to gaffes in the past, such as claiming the Bible was making up the Babylonians and Assyrians. But yes, the debate isn't achieving anything. GBRV (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion for awhile waiting for it to get back to the "myth" wording, as it jumped out at me the first time I read the article. I was a bit shocked. The word "story" isn't much better, as it sounds like something you would read to a child at bedtime about a Prince and Princess falling in love. If anyone is voting, I'd go for "belief" or something else.

And while I am here, no evidence cannot mean it did not happen. Look at Kathleen Kenyon's work in the 1950's that was taken to be absolute truth until only a few years ago, due to lack of evidence. Sh33na (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

That's not what Kathleen Kenyon says, but if you want to change that article I suggest you start with an explanation on the talk page. As for lack of evidence, again we need to discuss that using sources, as discussion of the historicity of the Exodus isn't appropriate here. And if you want to discuss your claim 'no evidence cannot mean it did not happen' I suggest you go to the Flood myth article and bring sources there saying that. Doug Weller (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Meant to say no evidence doesn't have to mean it did not happen. You get my drift. Thanks. Sh33na (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

As a general rule, that is correct. There is no evidence (I believe) of me having a cup of green tea at work ten days ago, yet it happened. Then again, for some events we (or rather the scholars we cite) can say with some certainty the event didn't happen if there is no evidence, as it could not have happened without leaving any trace. If someone would claim there was an advanced civilization of 60 millions people on Antarctica until September this year, then the lack of evidence would be a sure indicator that the claim would be wrong. Likewise, the Mormon claim of an advanced Hebrew civilization in America can be refuted as there would have been archaeological evidence of it. Similarly, most historians seem satisfied that the lack of any evidence for the Exodus is conspicuous enough to say it did not happen. That is not an argument any WP user is allowed to put into an article, but if qualified scholars base it on meticulous research, then we can most definitely cite those scholars. Jeppiz (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, that's exactly the mentality which led some 19th century authors to claim the Babylonians and Assyrians never existed (despite being mentioned in written sources outside the Bible), until archaeologists finally found the ruins of their cities. The lack of current archaeological evidence doesn't logically prove anything because that argument is based upon a fallacy called an "argumentum ex silentio". The reason it's a fallacy is because a current lack of X amount of corroborating evidence may merely mean that it hasn't been found yet. More importantly, historians usually accept written sources even if they aren't backed up by archaeology: most of the stuff in Julius Caesar's "Commentaries on the Gallic War" isn't backed up by archaeology, but historians still accept it. GBRV (talk) 09:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Why are we still discussing this? We use what the sources say, not what someone things logic says. If a source says that we can still see hut circles in the deserts that are thousands of years old but nothing that suggests the Exodus happened, we can use that. This is what archaeologists do. Archaeology barely existed in the 19th century and comments about that are irrelevant. There were probably geologists in the 19th century that believed in a global flood. All historians accept that Caesar lived at the time and that his account was contemporary. All this is irrelevant here, on this talk page. Can we discuss things that are relevant, like sources? Doug Weller (talk) 10:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
In a similar article, there's been a recent dispute over how to determine the consensus among RSs. You can't just go by what a few authors claim about the reception of their own theory, because that's a case of using partisan sources commenting about their own ideas. This article uses much the same trick to claim that certain viewpoints are dominant. GBRV (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Nativity_of_Jesus.23Edit_war I did not have the strongest sources (PiCo suggested to base that WP:RS/AC claim on the strongest sources). But, no, you did not read WP:RS/AC very well or you don't really agree with it, anyway, you are not allowed to deny it in every talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's what WP:RS:AC says, verbatim: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view. Otherwise, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."
It doesn't say that an author's claims about his own theory's reception should be taken as trustworthy. Granted, it doesn't say the opposite either, but you seem to be claiming that if it was published in a source considered an RS then the author's opinion on literally anything would be trustworthy, which isn't how it's supposed to work, as both StAnselm and the mediator (UY Scuti) pointed out at the DRN page, if memory serves. We've been over this repeatedly. GBRV (talk) 10:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
See the reply written by a Christian at [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The post you linked to just repeats what you've been arguing, and doesn't address my rebuttal to that argument. GBRV (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the way WP:RS/AC has always been applied inside Wikipedia: consensus claims by very reputable scholars are accepted as valid, until the contrary is proven. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
We're not getting anywhere with this. Both I and StAnselm have explained why consensus hasn't been established. GBRV (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree. In other words, as per WP policy, we keep "foundation myth" as we all agree no consensus has been reached to change it. In the absence of consensus, the previous version remains. Case closed. Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, since you have emphatically declared case closed - the next time this debate comes up, and it will, you might keep in mind while discussing myth vs. story or some other wording: First sentence: "...is the founding myth of Israel..." Two sentences later: "The exodus story..." is used. In the next paragraph, the wording of "story" is used 4 times. Off the case. Never really on it. Sh33na (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't "declared" anything, I've merely pointed out that we all seem to agree there is no consensus for a change. Jeppiz (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't agree on THAT issue, since I was referring to the academic consensus issue rather than the "foundation myth" wording, which still needs to be resolved. Since Wikipedia isn't an academic journal, the standard policy is to use wording that's clearly comprehensible by the general public. Here's an example illustrating why "myth" should be avoided: when Ann Curry wrote a book calling the battle of Agincourt a "national myth", that phrase gives many people the impression that she was claiming the whole thing was fictional. That wasn't her point, but the word "myth" can imply that since it has multiple meanings and its academic usage can differ from the popular usage. I would suggest we use something like "foundation narrative" instead. GBRV (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you please quote this "standard policy"? Doug Weller (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's the policy requiring language which is "understandable to as many readers as possible", while avoiding "wikilinking... as a substitute for parenthetic explanations": MOS:JARGON.
And let's not get involved in a silly semantic debate over what constitutes "technical language", because the MOS clearly says that the language needs to be understood by as many readers as possible, regardless of whether you consider it technical or not. How many readers in the general public understand the use of the term "foundation myth", especially the use of the term "myth" to mean something other than its vernacular definition of "fictional story"? I'm only suggesting a tiny change in keeping with standard policy, which should not require so much debate. GBRV (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz wrote: "I tend to agree. In other words, as per WP policy, we keep "foundation myth" as we all agree no consensus has been reached to change it. In the absence of consensus, the previous version remains. Case closed." Jeppiz (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Emphatically declared, stated, said, professed, asserted, decided, notified, announced, informed ... you pick the wording. It was said, Jeppiz. You've decided the case is closed, and I don't think you have that right. While I agree a dead horse has been beaten beyond recognition at this point, can you state "case closed" with any authority? Someone else can, and probably/hopefully will for this round of discussion, but until then... Sh33na (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit war

The cover of a book does not amount to a verifiable reference. Also, quoting Josephus is original research; contemporary mainstream scholars should be cited instead of ancient historians. There is no evidence that the Hyksos were (part of) Israel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The word "myth" has been discussed to death, see archives. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Unverifiable statement: "some scholars posit that the exodus narrative perhaps evolved from vague memories of the Hyksos expulsion, spun to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt." Finkelstein and Silberman don't say that, they say that it is impossible to know if it is so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, THEY DO say that. Have you read the source ? That is what it says, as is also stated on the article about the book. They are saying it is possible there is a connection between the Hyksos and the Exodus narrative. The Hyksos are known to be Semitic Canaanites, the same ethnic grouping from which the Hebrews were from. The discussion on the link between the Hebrews and the Hyksos goes back all the way to Josephus and Manetho, and even before this possibly in some other sources. The Hyksos are said by Finkelstein to be Semitic and to have inhabited many of the same regions in the Sinai and Lower Egypt as mentioned in the Exodus narrative (e.g. the Land of Goshen). Regardless of your ignorance to the obvious presence of Semitic Canaanites in Egypt at the time the Exodus narrative likely took place, it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your opposition is nothing more than original research and is not a justifiable reason to omit cited material. Israel Finkelstein is a VALID source. The same critique you have been making against my edits, "original research", is in fact what you are now pushing here. End of story. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I do acknowledge that Finkelstein and Silberman are a valid source. See for yourself what they wrote at https://books.google.nl/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&pg=PA69&dq=finkelstein+silberman+hyksos+impossible+say+whether&hl=nl&sa=X Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"The 2004 discovery of fragments of the Hebrew Bible at [[Ketef Hinnom]] dating to the 7th century BCE, shown to have specific textual parallels with the Book of Numbers, suggests that at least some elements of the Torah were current before the Babylonian exile.<ref>Davila, James, [http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/2004_09_26_archive.html#109644758320238769 "MORE ON THE KETEF HINNOM AMULETS in Ha'aretz]," ''Paleojudaica'', Sept. 2004.</ref><ref>Barkay, Gabriel, et al., [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1094-2076%28200312%2966%3A4%3C162%3ATCOKHU%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage "The Challenges of Ketef Hinnom: Using Advanced Technologies to Recover the Earliest Biblical Texts and their Context"], ''Near Eastern Archaeology'', 66/4 (Dec. 2003): 162-171.</ref><ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/science/28scro.html?_r=2&8dpc=&pagewanted=all&position=&oref=slogin& Solving a Riddle Written in Silver]</ref><ref>[http://www.bpnews.net/17741 'Silver scrolls' are oldest O.T. scripture, archaeologist says]</ref>" could be properly sourced, but in this article it is off-topic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
So, who are the scholars who affirm that the Exodus is based upon vague memories of Hyksos expulsion? They are not Finkelstein and Silberman, since they opine that it is impossible to establish the truth value of this claim (see the words outlined in yellow on the Google Books link). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH problem: the view has to be verified upon a certain page or pages of the book through something written by a scholar, not simply inferred by the reader who reads the titles of the sources included in the book. We simply abstract what scholars wrote, we do not write ourselves reviews of their scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, OK, your play on words here is ridiculous. The page numbers to the Finkelstein source are referenced in the sections I entered in the article. As for the material itself, it is specifically stated by Finkelstein that it is possible that the Exodus narrative was based on the memories or oral traditions of the Semitic Canaanites being expelled from Egypt during the Hyksos period. How could this not be included in the article ? Josephus and Manetho were discussing this as far back as Roman times. Excluding the content I added is nothing more than subjective opposition from you based on your own POV. Finkelstein is a valid source, and what I entered matches what was stated in the source. It will be re-entered into the article. 173.238.79.44 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
"It is impossible to say whether or not the biblical narrative was an expansion and elaboration of vague memories of the immigration of Canaanites to Egypt and their expulsion from the delta in the second millennium BC. Yet, it seems clear that the biblical story of the Exodus drew its power not only from ancient traditions and contemporary geographical demographic details, but even more directly from contemporary political realities." (p.69)
"Older, less formalized legends of liberation from Egypt could have been skillfully woven into the powerful saga that borrowed familiar landscapes and monuments." (p.68)
"The Egyptologist Donald Redford has argued that the echoes of the great events of the Hyksos occupation of Egypt and their violent expulsion from the delta resounded for centuries, to become a central, shared memory of the people of Canaan." (p.68-69)
"It is clear that the saga of liberation from Egypt was not composed as an original work in the seventh centry BC. The main outlines of the story were certainly known long before, in the allusions to the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness contained in the oracles of the prophets Amos and Hosea a full century before." (p.68)
"These stories of Canaanite colonists established in Egypt, reaching dominance in the delta and then being forced to return to their homeland, could have served as a focus of solidarity and resistance as the Egyptian control over Canaan grew tighter in the course of the Late Bronze Age...with the eventual assimilation of many Canaanite communities into the crystallizing nation of Israel, that powerful image of freedom may have grown relevant for an ever widening community." (p.69) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DifensorFidelis (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
This section supports that which I entered in this article as clearly Finkelstein IS saying it is possible that the narrative was based on the expulsion of Semitic Canaanites, likely including the ancestors of the Israelites, during the Hyksos period. It is also stated that the narrative did draw from ancient traditions. As for the other content I entered, other pages specifically mention that the Hyksos did occupy the Sinai in the mid to late second millennium BC, including areas which correspond with locales in the Biblical narrative such as the 'Land of Goshen', which corresponds with the location of the Hyksos settlement at Avaris (p.55). 173.238.79.44 (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, then Donald Redford is at least an answer to my question "who are those scholars?". Although it is something of a faith leap from "shared memory of the people of Canaan" to "the basis of the Exodus story". We have to be careful not to put our own words in the mouth of scholars. Finkelstein and Sliberman say there is a parallel development of the Hyksos memories and the Exodus story, they don't say that these are basically the same. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2016 (UT C)
"The basis of the Exodus" is related to my interpretation, but that is not what I entered into the article. Finkelstein and Sliberman are merely saying the Exodus narrative has a possible connection or foundation in an earlier oral or written tradition based in some form on experiences of the Israelites' Canaanite ancestors during the Hyksos period, which is at the present time impossible to verify. Redford mentions the events of the Hyksos period as being an influence, but Finkelstein and Sliberman also mention in the quotes above that it could have played a role. In any case, the article is semi-protected right now, and thus I can not edit it for a few more days as I just registered an account on Wiki. Fidei Defensor (talk) 12:05 am, Yesterday (UTC+0)

To be sure, not all of your edits were wrong, but the manner in which you pushed valid edits together with unacceptable edits is itself unacceptable. The lead about Redford should be further researched, and his own papers should be quoted instead of the vague relationship between Hyksos memories and the Exodus (which could be just apparent similarity or parallel development) presented by Finkelstein and Silberman. In history unfalsifiable hunches are not worth much, that's why their work is not the best source to describe such hypothesis (for them such hypothesis lies in a limbo were it can be neither affirmed nor denied, so "it is not even wrong"). If Redford stated that memories of the Hyksos led to the Exodus story, he should be quoted stating it verbatim. Also, the claim that the Hyksos are the new game in town in respect to Exodus research should be cited from a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

One source about the Hyksos memories as ground of the Exodus: Michael D. Oblath (2004). The Exodus Itinerary Sites: Their Locations from the Perspective of the Biblical Sources. Peter Lang. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-8204-6716-0. Another: James K. Hoffmeier (19 February 1999). Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Oxford University Press. p. 226. ISBN 978-0-19-976123-4. So, it isn't false that some scholars claimed such link. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that Redford's paper is from 1963, so meanwhile he could have changed his view. Thus the hypothesis could be outdated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Route? And was Jordan crossed west-to-east or east-to-west?

Is there a map available which shows the likely route (or routes), particularly near the end of the journey? In particular, could the article state whether the Jordan was crossed from west to east or from east to west?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

From east to west in the Torah narrative - plains of Moab to Jericho.PiCo (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ahmose Stele

Apparently there is no mention of it in the article, though should certainly belong to literary parallels section.GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for this, sure. PiCo (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Editors Thomas E. Levy‏, Thomas Schneider‏, William Propp. Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective: p131. Springer 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 21:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The paper you're referring to is by Malcolm Weiner ("Dating the Theran Eruption: Archaeological Science Versus Nonsense Science" - it begins on page 130 of the edited volume). His purpose, to quote the abstract, is "to assess the arguments for and against placing the eruption of the Theran volcano at c.1525 BCE and for associating the Ahmose Tempest Stele with the eruption." In his conclusion (page 139) he says: (1) a tsunami or storms caused by the Thera eruption have been put forward as explaining the plagues (or at least that's how I read what he says); (2) the exodus has been said to retain a distant recollection of the Hyksos. (He says more, but that will do for now). Of these two points, our article deals explicitly with the second, the Hyksos. On the first, the idea that the Tempest Stele records after-effects of the Theran eruption, he says that the connection is doubtful. I think this sort of thing belongs in the Ten Plagues article.PiCo (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly my point - an academic work has been made to demonstrate the doubtful connection between Thera eruption and the plagues (and Hyksos exodus), and thus this article on Exodus should include such arguments. Many readers are looking for this information on Thera-Exodus theories and find nothing, even though a pile of articles has been made on this topic. Yes - most academic articles do not confirm this Thera-Hyksos-Exodus connection (or at least not all the three together), but those discussions should be included in Historicity section. Deleting all mentions of those discussions is counterproductive to the purpose of that section.GreyShark (dibra) 10:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you'll find anything useful to us in Weiner's article - I didn't - but you're welcome to draw our attention to anything you think significant. PiCo (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Whom do you refer to saying "our"?GreyShark (dibra) 22:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Anyone/everyone reading this. PiCo (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
GreyShark - I apologize because I'm definitely in your court, but the paper seems to me to be essentially a thought experiment and (in my opinion) is not the type of academic work for which PiCo is referring. I think if you could boil it down to one or two sentences and then put it up on Talk for discussion, we could certainly weigh in with a more definitive tone. Typically Wiki editors are not receptive to the "this should be in the article" comment without a suggestion as to what should go in. Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
What Ckruschke says - you're invited to craft a para or two that sets out what you'd like to see. I was proposing some books that might be useful (I don't think the article by Weiner is useful to you).
Walton (he's not in our article biblio) says: "Two basic positions have emerged ... the so-called Early Date and Late Date views." That pretty much covers your concern (thread at the top of this page) about identifying these two positions, and you could use it as an intro sentence (reworded to avoid plagiarism of course).
Try also Carol Meyers' "Exodus". (It's in the biblio). She says that attempts to use the bible's own chronology to date the exodus are "an exercise in futility" - that covers your other point, the question about using the biblical chronology. You could combine Walton and Meyers in a single sentence, with two sources.
Our article already discusses one reason why the biblical chronology is "an exercise in futility" - it's symbolic, not historical. There are three sources given for that and you should look at them. (Of the three, Shea is ultra-conservative, but he agrees with the others).
Our article deals very concisely with the reasons modern scholars reject both the early and late dates; you can look at the sources given there, and also look at Walton, who goes into considerable detail.
So, read all these, and come up with a concise paragraph - we need to avoid bloating the article. PiCo (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Passover as a magic ritual

Doing a search on Google books, it looks like this is mostly Bernard Levinson's idea, so the idea should be attributed to him, rather than the much vaguer "scholars" or "some scholars". StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you searched very far. Levinson doesn't make any attempt to argue this idea, he merely states it, as a fact. Of course it's only a fact in so far as any reconstruction of ancient history is a fact, but it's universal - I don't know of anyone who holds any other idea. If you want to say "some scholars believe" then you need a source - Levinson, to repeat, merely states a fact. PiCo (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
He was certainly not the first, but he is by far the most cited.[3] This older (1972) source does use "a number of scholars". (According to Haran, the alternatives would be to say is was a purificatory sacrifice, or that it merely contained "apotropaic elements".) StAnselm (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
The other problem we have here are the words "Despite the biblical story..." Many of these scholars would argue that this is precisely what we have in the story: blood warding off the Destroying Angel (interpreted in a demonic sense). So we would also have to demonstrate that this dichotomy is universal, and not just Levinson's. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think any scholar today, outside a few voices in the wilderness, believe that the exodus happened - hence "despite the biblical story". (We have several sources for that in our article, the Moore/Kelle work for a start). Yes, something lies behind the the Book of Exodus, there's a tradition that stretches back to the 8th century in the northern kingdom (not in the southern), but the Torah was written in it's current form in the 5th century and isn't a guide to ancient history (we also have sources for that - and again it's an overwhelmingly mainstream view).
I suggest you look at this book by Tamara Prosic: read from the marked section on page 19, but pay particular attention to the discussion that begins on page 21, which summarises scholarly views of the origins of the Passover from Wellhausen on. Note that Wellhausen, Beer and other of the earliest scholarly theories are now outdated - the acceptance that the Exodus is not historical only became general from the 1990s. Then we can have an informed discussion.PiCo (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
But Prosic doesn't help you at all! She provides a survey of scholars, ascribes the apotropaic theory to Gray, de Vaux, and Levinson, and specifically notes that Englnell and Segal both reject it. Prosic herself concludes (p. 49) that "when we take into consideration the specific setting in which this Passover sacrifice takes place the assumption about the protective powers of the rite is untenable". Did you even read her??? StAnselm (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a page 49 in my version of Prosic on google books - it ends at page 45. The point I want to make is that no scholars believe that the Passover originated in the way described in Exodus. If you like we can rewrite to reflect that. I would also mention that according to Exodus the Passover is, indeed, protective - the blood is painted on the doorframes to protect the Israelites.PiCo (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, take my word for it that that's what Prosic says. But it looks like, based on Prosic, that at the very least we need to stick with User:GBRV's version of "some scholars". StAnselm (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so. Based on Prosic we'd have to say that no scholars believe the Passover originated as described in Exodus. I'd be happy with that. (See page 31, where Prosic is talking summing up the scholarly positions: "...[a]ll previously mentioned scholars maintain that Passover was not originally connected with the exodus..." - here she making an exception for T.D Alexander, who apparently takes the Book of Exodus at face value, which we've already established a fringe position).PiCo (talk) 08:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Come on, that's a distraction and you know it. What we clearly have in the sources is that (only) some sources consider it to have originated "as a magic ritual to turn away demons from the household". StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
We have it in the source that the majority of scholars maintain that the Passover did not originate as described in the Book of Exodus. I'm happy to change the article to say that. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It really does look like you're ignoring the question; on what basis can we say that "scholars" say that it originated as a magic ritual to turn away demons, if it is clearly only some scholars who belivee this?
I'm suggesting a change that removes mention of apotropaic origins, or indeed any origins at all. I'm suggesting we use Prosic to say that most scholars do not believe that the Passover originated in the manner described in Exodus. That, after all, is the point - not how the Passover originated, but whether the Exodus (book of) is relevant to that origin. Note that the book is, despite this, utterly relevant to the Passover as an element of contemporary Jewish life - our article says this.PiCo (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is one thing to say that the Exodus is not historical. It is another thing to say, specifically, that the Passover originated from magic ritual. Given this, I would think that "some" works well. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We don't have a source saying "all" or "some" or "many" or "most" or any other adjective. From Prosic we can say that most scholars don't think the Passover originated as described in the exodus story.PiCo (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
We do have a source for "a number"; see above. StAnselm (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
PiCo, just because "most scholars don't think the Passover originated as described in the exodus story" doesn't mean, then, that most scholars (or whatever near absolute statement might be considered) believe that the Passover originated from "magic". And, furthermore, StAnselm points out that "a number" is workable. Maybe this is acceptable, then? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
PiCo - Doesn't Prosic only refer to a group of "previously mentioned scholars"? That's a subset, and a rather small one, and certainly not an exhaustive list and therefore cannot be used to claim a "universal" consensus or even necessarily a majority. Why is Prosic the only authority on this, by the way? Countless thousands of people have written about the subject of Passover. GBRV (talk) 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
If you think that most scholars (or any number) do think that the Passover originated as described in Exodus, give us a source. Otherwise we take Prosic.PiCo (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Alexander, of course, whom Prosic mentions. Unlike you, she doesn't regard him as fringe. Most importantly, (p. 32) she concludes that "there is hardly any consensus among scholars" regarding the origins and development of Passover. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure he does, actually. When I read him I don't see him saying that the book of Exodus is history. And you're quoting Prosic out of context - she says actually that almost no scholars accept the book of Exodus at face value on Passover, but that there's no consensus on how it actually developed. Not that it matters, since the proposal now is to say that almost all scholars doubt that the Passover originated as described in Exodus - with her as source.PiCo (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Dating section

I think the dating section is a mess - propose to split into 4 subsections:

  • traditional (Jewish, Jewish-adjusted and Samaritan versions of the dating)
  • Early Exodus (scholar putting the event to 15-16th century BCE)
  • Late Exodus (scholar opinions putting the event to around 13-14th century BCE)
  • No basis (scholar opinions claiming that the event is a myth).

This would make the dating a much more clear issue.GreyShark (dibra) 10:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What you term the "Jewish" date is more normally called the Masoretic; what you term the "Jewish-adjusted" date is more properly termed the Seder Olam dating; and the Samaritan dating is a variant of the Masoretic, though neither is likely the original. None of these are scholarly and none have any followers outside quite extreme Christian and Jewish religious factions. The Seder Olam calendar, in particular, is ridiculous from the point of view of known history, compressing the entire Pwersian Empire into 52 years.
No modern scholars put the exodus in the 15th/16th centuries, nor in the 13th/14th; the consensus is that there was no exodus. Our article reflects this. PiCo (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
To deny a theory you need to describe a theory. You are mainly busy with historical revisionism, which has nothing to do with the article. There is no consensus that there was no exodus; maybe there are opinions that there was no exodus in the 13th century, but the occasion of Exodus is a deal of controversy, and there are various theories in this regard. You are not improving Wikipedia by removing notable academic sources discussing those issues, basically violating Wikipedia's pillars. You may get banned for this.GreyShark (dibra) 20:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the consensus remains, Kitchen and Hoffmeier dissent from the consensus by arguing that the Exodus was "not impossible". To this day there is no external corroboration of the Exodus story from the Bible. A very shorthand introduction to this problem written by an Evangelical historian: [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
An YouTube documentary is available at [5]. This documentary is in several ways outdated (e.g. Documentary Hypothesis is not widely hold as valid, there is no evidence of David and Solomon's United Monarchy, etc.), but displays statements made by major scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
From the documentary, 0:23:00-0:24:00 (Bietak speaking) dates the possibility of Exodus between 1275-1208 BC. So that's when it could have taken place, if it took place at all. From 0:24:00-0:25:00 Dever says there is no evidence found for a mass migration corresponding to the Exodus. I do not claim this is the only possibility, but only that this is the consensus view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
So few opinions is unfortunate for a TV show. At least three would do better, especially that entire books and multiple articles have been compiled on 1540, 1512, 1491, 1446, 1312, 1290 as potential exodus dates. Where are those theories in the article? Some of those are refuted for sure, but refuted theories deleted by PiCo implies historical revisionism promoted by radicals. This is a very bad non-encyclopedic practice; certainly also non-academic (but Wikipedia is not pretending to be academic of course).GreyShark (dibra) 21:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, you could mention some reliable sources to that extent, but they have to be recent (i.e. not outdated) and written by top scholars (full professors at reputable universities). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@GreyShark - does it really matter? "Masoretic" means the text of the Hebrew bible curated by the masoretes (or whatever alternative spelling you might like). The Masoretic calendar, which is what you're talking about here, is the internal calendar of that text. It dates events from the Creation, the Year Zero, to a point around December 164 BCE, when the temple was restored after having been defiled by the pagan Greek king of Syria - the span is exactly 4,000 years. The Samaritan calendar is a slightly different and only goes to the end of the Book of Joshua, because that's the last book in the Samaritan bible. The Greek Jewish bible has yet another version of the calendar. None are likely to be the original version. Nor would I call any of them the traditional Jewish calendar - that's the one contained in the Sefer Olam Rabbah, which differs yet again. I think you know all this already. I think you know all this already. None of them are actual calendars in our sense - all of them are primarily religious, and can't be used for dating real history.PiCo (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Masoretic, coming from Canaanite / Hebrew / Samaritan word Masorti = traditional. When i said traditional Jewish or traditional Samaritan it is exactly what Masorti stands for. Just to clarify.GreyShark (dibra) 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The offer still holds: find full professors who advocate such dating in reasonably recent publications (but not merely in order to dismiss such dates as fringe). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
What Tgeorgescu says.PiCo (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
There is some information at The Exodus#Date, mentioning 1446 BCE and why it is not credible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but the whole paragraph in the lead is referring to 13th century BCE exodus theory (correct me if i'm wrong). To my view readers should know that "the historic and archaeological evidence points out that there was no exodus"... in the 13th century (Late Exodus). This is clearly said by all archaeologists in The Bible Unearthed. Nothing about Early Exodus dates.GreyShark (dibra) 19:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - @PiCo: considering your remark on my talk page concerning Hill et.al., do you agree to add information about the Early and Late Exodus dates?GreyShark (dibra) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll reply in the section at the bottom of this page - it's confusing having two conversations on the same topic.PiCo (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Prof. Larry Geraty makes a fair summary of various dates at Dates for the Exodus I Have Known lecture during the UCSD EXODUS CONFERENCE in 2013. That is a fair basis for the article section: conventional Early Date, conventional Late Date and Other theories (very early date, Thera theories, very late exoduses, etc).GreyShark (dibra) 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
With the mention that the date from Seder Olam is completely WP:FRINGE/PS as far as historians are concerned, although it may have a religious significance for certain true believers. It's not the only instance of fringe dating of the Exodus from that video. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Exodus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Historicity

We don't need to extensively discuss the historicity, but the lead is just vague enough to dismiss any attempt at it. "The historicity of the exodus continues to attract popular attention, but most histories of ancient Israel no longer consider information about it recoverable or even relevant to the story of Israel's emergence." Now it pretty much says 'No that doesn't matter, shut up though'. Then the final unattributed quote of that section makes it even more enigmatic. If we're going to have a lead section about historicity, it really shouldn't be this mystical when archeologists have literally given up on it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Kitchen's and Hoffmeier's religiously biased arguments amount to nothing but speculation (possibly.....possibly). To finish the summarizing section with this quoatation seems extremely biased. A similarly biased quotation on the other side would be Michael Sherman's quote in the lead of the rationalwiki article on Evidence for the Exodus:

"We are told that these people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert — they escaped, as slaves from Egypt, and so forth. There is not a shred of archaeological or historical evidence, outside of the Bible, that this is even true! That it ever even happened! You would think that if a people spent 40 years wandering around in the desert they'd leave some archaeological evidence? There's absolutely none. There's no evidence that somebody named Moses even existed."

I believe this article would greatly benefit from a more neutral, evidence-based review of the historicity of the Exodus Greenman262 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Comparing the current lead with the crude and clearly biased statements from RationalWiki does not necessitate finding a middle road. The last sentence in the lede is referenced and attributed and is not really even a debatable statement - the Exodus "narrative" is often referenced by many people groups. Also the historicity section already says there is essentially "no evidence" for the Exodus and that Kitchen and Hoffmeier and their theories are ignored by the rest of the scientific community. So I guess I'm struggling to understand your point.
That being said, if you have specific suggestions on improving the page, please feel free to express them. As you are new to Wikipedia, you may not be aware that statements placed in Talk to the effect of "this page is terrible" are generally ignored unless the editor also poses some solutions to the problems he/she sees.
Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
I;m not familiar with wp policy. My original point was that the section as currently presented is biased (albeit far less so than the rationalwiki counterexample). Their arguments as presented here are merely speculation and essentially 'absence of evidence does not imply absence of evidence'. The summary of the historicity section should in my view be based on historical evidence.
Greenman262 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
But there is no historical evidence. There are only religious texts written after the alleged events occurred. And even historical evidence rarely trumps physical evidence - after all, they say "History is written by the victors". That's not quite true as historical evidence can, for instance, include diaries, shopping lists, etc. But I digress. Whoever told you that absence of evidence does not imply absence of evidence was misleading you:

If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...[1]

— J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
You are also asking us to delete the positive evidence, eg "The culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains are in the Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite." Doug Weller talk 16:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Moreland, J.P.; Craig, W.L. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. InterVarsity Press. pp. 155–156. ISBN 9780830826940. LCCN 2002154307.
What I'm asking is to move or delete the baseless conjecture and make the section reflect the evidence (historical, physcial) or in this case, complete lack thereof. I agree with you with respect to the salient differences between different instances of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. My view is that Kitchen's and Hoffmeier's conjecture attempts to give credence to treating this as an instance of a search for a 'flea' rather than an 'elephant' which seems disingenuous. It is true that not every grain of sand in the Sinai desert has been turned over but the substantial amount of excavation which has been performed has not yielded one iota of positive evidence.  :::: Greenman262 (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Greenman262 - What would that be? Doug Weller and I have already stated that the statements in the text that you have specifically stated that you took issue with were fair and corroborated by legitimate references. So which "baseless conjecture" would you like to move or remove that you have not already cited? Not trying to be difficult, but Wikipedia isn't meant to mirror everyone's specific POV - its meant to reflect the consensus POV. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
Not every publication in academic literature is worthy of being called a legitimate reference. The arguments by Kitchen and Hoffmeier as presented here are:
1. possibly the Egyptian records of the presence of the Israelites and their escape have been lost or suppressed;
2. possibly (or probably) the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace in the desert;
3. possibly the huge numbers reported in the story are mistranslated
1. There is no positive evidence whatsoever for the Exodus OT narrative, despite Egypt's 3000+year history of writing. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever for widespread Hebrew servitude or plagues.
2. what did they do for decades in the desert? how did they survive? The 'or probably' is especially disingenuous in my opinion
3. possibly the story is made up?
The 'consensus POV' on the historicity should be based on the scientific consensus, which pays no mind to Kitchen's and Hoffmeier's religiously biased speculations. Why then end the summary of the historicity section with this? Greenman262 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
To the user who undid my edit: Can you or anyone else please explain why the summary of the historicity section should end with speculations? It drives the narrative of the article in a disingenuos way. The article defines the message of the Exodus as
that the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belong to him through the Mosaic covenant.[1][Notes 1] It tells of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai (including the Ten Commandments), and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[2]
I'll grant your side that the absence of archaelogical evidence in the Sinai desert is not sufficient in itself to deny the possibility of Hebrew people having traveled from Egypt through the Sinai. However, the notion of the Mosaic covenant, which is THE central part of the Exodus story, has ZERO historical support whatsoever outside the old testament. Is is too much to ask that the SUMMARY OF THE HISTORICITY (!!) section reflects this fact and does not attempt to muddy the waters with religous-based speculation?
As to the credentials of James K. Hoffmeier, he is Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology at Trinity evangelical divinity school. Note that this is NOT a university but a seminary, whose mission statement is to be 'an evangelical learning community united around the gospel of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.' I would hardly call this a reliable source. Furthermore, although he has published in numerous archaeolical journals he fails to provide a shred of actual evidence for the Exodus.
I'm fine with it being moved to some other part of the article but it should not be the final sentence of the summary of the historicity. Greenman262 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I didn't undo your edit, but you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how edits work if there is established consensus on a section and other editors disagree with your opinion. Both I and Doug Weller have given you our opinions as to how we believe your edits are contrary to the consensus version of the page. You seem to think if you put up a wall of your opinion and then wait, that you can just go ahead and make whatever changes you want, consensus be damned. This is not how it works.
If you would like to make revisions, please place the EXACT sentences and your proposed edit into Talk and we as a community on this page will look at it and come to a consensus on your proposal. Please do not make any more unilateral changes on this page. Ckruschke (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
The following sentences in my opinion have no place in a summary of the historicity of the Exodus
possibly the Egyptian records of the presence of the Israelites and their escape have been lost or suppressed; possibly (or probably) the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace in the desert; possibly the huge numbers reported in the story are mistranslated
My point is that ending this particular section with these sentences drives the narrative of the article in a disingenuous manner. These sentences could be moved to a separate section titled "'Fringe Views' or could be integrated into sections such as 'Numbers and logistics' and 'Archaeology' Greenman262 (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Greenman262, shouting and writing everything in capitals is a poor strategy to convince people about the merits of your arguments. As for some of these arguments: "not sufficient in itself to deny the possibility of Hebrew people having traveled from Egypt through the Sinai". It is probably sufficient to indicate that they did not spend a significant period as desert nomads and/or did not have the numbers to leave evidence of their presence behind. However, Wikipedia does not care what its editors feel or think about any particular subject. It needs sources which make the connections and deductions for us. It is a frustrating aspect of the Wikipedia experience, but you have to realize it if you want to participate. Find sources which support your arguments.

  • "the Mosaic covenant ... has ZERO historical support whatsoever outside the old testament." While I honestly think that Little Red Riding Hood has a better claim at historicity than the Book of Exodus (less need of suspension of disbelief and more plausible motivations for the characters), if our sources do not bring up the historicity of divine intervention, we can not address the matter in a Wikipedia article. Remember, no original research.
  • "Professor of Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern History and Archaeology". So Hoffmeier probably is knowledgeable in the relevant fields of study and could even be called an expert. The likelihood of his personal bias on the matter and that his workplace sounds fishy is not enough to erase his comments. Editors should not delete whatever they [Wikipedia:I just don't like it|do not like] or goes against their personal beliefs.
  • "I would hardly call this a reliable source." It would be unreliable in whatever article has to do with the resurrection of Jesus. However, that does not mean that they are fans of Biblical literalism and are necessarily in denial of evidence.
  • "he fails to provide a shred of actual evidence for the Exodus". He does not have to provide evidence. Historians and archaeologists provide interpretations of the historical record and of various specific sources. Not every conjecture is based on concrete evidence, but that does not mean we can casually reject potential explanations for this or that problem. Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. My main point which I capitalized for clarity is that K&H's views should not end the summary of the historicity section but should rather be moved to a seperate "Fringe Explanations and Views" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenman262 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The section you are referencing is a summary of the Historicity section. You cannot move this content into a separate section as it would no longer summarize all viewpoints/issues of the section.
I really think you are making a bigger deal out of the two sentences than is merited - simply because it is the last two sentences doesn't mean it carries more weight. Whether you believe it or not, this is still a scholarly viewpoint of those with literal Biblical backgrounds. As I state and others have as well, not all content on a Wiki page is not required to be agreeable to all readers. Ckruschke (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2016 (UTC)Ckruschke
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Exodus/Archive_12&oldid=764286673"