Talk:The Exodus/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Killibrew, Assmann, and the exodus as memory

Editor JerryRussell has edited a sentence in the article as follows: "The lack of evidence has led some scholars to conclude that it is difficult or even impossible to link the exodus story to any specific point in history, but rather that it may be a collective memory of a sequence of events." This sentence already existed in a slightly different form, and is sourced from Killebrew 2005 p.152.

I've reverted it to the original form, which is: "The lack of evidence has led scholars to conclude that it is difficult or even impossible to link the exodus story to any specific point in history." My reason is, first, that Killebrew doesn't say "some scholars", she says "scholars". Other authors say the same thing (see, for example, the book by Moore and Kelle, which is in the bibliography). In other words, this is the majority view, and such an overwhelming majority that we can simply use it without saying "some".

Then the interesting part: Jerry wants to add a phrase about "collective memory". He's absolutely right. Many, many scholars believe that the exodus story represents a memory of something that happened. They don't, however, think that it was a single event, as the phrase "a sequence of events" suggests. The major name in this is Jan Assmann, whose book is also in the bibliography: he suggests that the Manetho story, which is told with variations in other texts of the late Classical period, is a conflation of two events, the Hyksos and the reign of Akhnaten; and he also raises the possibility that the Exodus story comes from the same setting, though whether the author of Exodus was taking this Egyptian and Greek story and turning it against them, or whether it worked the other way, is something we'll never know. Anyway, I do believe this is something we could go into further in the article. PiCo (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @PiCo:, in view of the guidance suggesting to avoid editing controversial materials while an RfC is in process, I'm leaving this alone for now. But if you follow Killebrew's sourcing, she gives the names of three scholars (Na'aman, Malamat, Hendel) in support of her statement that "...the Exodus doesn not represent a specific historical moment but rather numerous "exoduses" of runaway Asiatic slaves that were 'telescoped' into a single event". She also admits that Kitchen would dispute this: he would argue for a single historical Exodus event in the 13th century. Also, as you mention, Jan Assmann suggests that the biblical Exodus story may be a conflation of two historical events, the Hyksos expulsion and the suppression of Akhenaten's religion at the end of the Amarna era. "Two" events is not exactly the same idea as "numerous" events. There is also the suggestion from "Moses the Persian" by Zlotnick-Sivan 1 that the entire Exodus story was fabricated by the Persians. I don't see that the degree of scholarly consensus is sufficient to state a conclusion, on behalf of all scholars, in Wiki voice. JerryRussell (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello @JerryRussell: Hi Jerry. Thanks for pointing out the paper by Zlotnick-Sivan, I hadn't been aware of is. He or she is talking only about Exodus 2 and the birth narrative of Moses, not the entire exodus story. She says the birth story is based on a story about the birth of Cyrus of Persia found in Herodotus - she's not saying that the entire exodus is a fiction by the Persians. This theory isn't original with her, but it's not popular. She's opposing it to the theory that is popular, namely that the birth of Moses is based on the legend of the birth of Sargon of Akkad. That story is known from a tablet dating from the 8th century, although Sargon lived long before that.

Killebrew is talking about the theory of the "mixed multitude", which is that the exodus is remembering multiple instances of slaves escaping from Egypt, not just a single case. This theory seeks to explain the following fact: all the archaeology points to Israel arising within Canaan and from Canaanites, but (a) the Pentateuch says they came from Egypt, and (b) some names in the exodus story seem to be Egyptian (Moses's own name, for example). The "mixed multitude" phrase, taken from Exodus, is an attempt to merge these two facts.

Assmann is talking about something different. He's talking about the various stories told in the last three centuries before Christ by various Greek authors, plus Manetho, concerning the origins of the Jews and certain events in Egypt in the distant past. Assmann suggests that these stories, rather than the biblical exodus, may be a conflation of the Akhenaten story and the Hyksos. Assmann does bring the exodus story into it, but he says it's not clear what was happening - whether the Greeks had garbled the exodus story, or whether the exodus story was a sort of reply to anti-Jewish propaganda being advanced by Greeks and Egyptians in Egypt in those centuries. (Bear in mind that the current majority view is that the Pentateuch had already been written by this time - it dates from c.400 BCE, before the Greeks started writing.)PiCo (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a good overview in Lester Grabbe's "Exodus and History, in Thomas Dozeman's edited volume Exodus: Composition, Reception and Interpretation.PiCo (talk) 02:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@PiCo:, I agree that the analysis in Zlotnick-Sivan is mainly devoted to the Moses birth story. But, the conclusion in that paper raises possibilities that go well beyond that. He or she says:

"Moses exemplifies the culmination of the transformation of Egypt from a hospitable into a hostile entity. His story provided an excuse and justification for the most extravagant undertaking of the Achaemenids, namely the conquest and annexation of Egypt. ... Within this framework (c. 530–430), I would venture to suggest that Cyrus’ generosity towards the Jewish community in his realm, re- flected in the resettlement of Jerusalem and the creation of Yehud, and the controversial conquest of Egypt by Cyrus’ son were the two events that supplied the impetus for the shaping of the Exodus as a narrative of liberation from the yoke of the unjust Egypt. In no other period such a recasting of the protagonists makes sense. Within this context, the unexpected subjugation of Egypt as well as the establishment of Yehud provided the possibility of envisioning the Exodus not as an internal movement from one province to another but as a journey of liberation from a mighty kingdom to a promised land. If this reconstruction is plausible, it has the potential of illuminating one stage in the vexed and much discussed history of the making of the Pentateuch itself. I do not wish to venture at this point beyond Ex 1 f. My analysis provides, however, a precise historical context for the casting of the early ›history‹ of Moses along the specific lines which Ex 1f. adopts.

Also I agree that Zlotnick-Sivan, like most scholars, allows that the Exodus story had some pre-exilic antecedent. But if the pre-Exilic Exodus story didn't involve the Hebrews leaving Egypt, is it even recognizable as the same story? JerryRussell (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

For more on Assmann's views, consider this quote from "The Price of Monotheism" https://books.google.com/books?id=TnDw6GQVv10C (unfortunately the book does not give page numbers, search inside for 'Hyksos' to find this quote):

The biblical Exodus report does indeed show all the signs of a counterhistory, or at any rate a "narrative inversion," at least in relation to the Hyksos.... Why should not memories of Akhenaten's monotheistic revolution have found their way into this mnemohistory as well, particularly when one considers that Palestine was intensively involved in the events in Egypt, as letters from the Amarna period testify? I do not want to rule out that possibility, but my main concern here is with the distinction between anti-monotheism and anti-Semitism."

More recently, Brad Sparks reports: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3_19?no-access=true

"Based on the new work presented at the UCSD Exodus conference (see this volume) Jan Assmann has ventured beyond his pioneering concept of cultural “mnemohistories” to comment that consensus views of the Exodus are “now highly contested” because there has been “Perhaps too much unanimity as to the non-historicity of the Exodus”; the “old certainties” of Exodus as pure myth are “gone.”

Manetho and the Hyksos - Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Question: Should historical commentary and analysis by Flavius Josephus be allowed on a Wiki page, when Josephus is analysing events in the 16th century BC ? Tatelyle (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The background for this Request for Comment is in the section above. Basically we have two possible eras for The Exodus. Modern academia and theologians have assumed a date in the 13th century BC, but Flavius Josephus asserts that the date was much earlier, in the 16th century BC. And the earlier date concurs with the further assertion that Jericho was a large fortified city that was destroyed at the time of the Exodus. So the era for the Exodus, as analysed and narrated by Josephus Flavius, concurs with known history; while the era for the Exodus, as analysed and narrated by modern academia, conflicts strongly with known history.

But the Wiki page at present does not discuss this difference and dichotomy, so readers are unaware that the 13th century date for the Exodus was not always held to be the consensus view. Since this early era for the Exodus, and the association between the Israelite and the Hyksos, represents a fundamental shift in Israelite history; and since it is being narrated by Judaism's greatest historian; and since it concurs with known history; the Wiki readership should be informed about this dichotomy. They should be able to read about both of these accounts and assertions, and decide for themselves. It is not for Wiki to withhold information, and to make decisions on the behalf of their readership. A fair and balance Wiki would give both accounts.

Dispute Resolution upheld the view that Josephus is a reliable source, quoting WP:RS which says: With regard to historical events, older reports ... tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. And I think this page should uphold that view by allowing the assertion by Flavius Josephus that the Exodus happened in the 16th century BC, and that the Israelites were the Hyksos people. Josephus was not peturbed or embarrassed by that view, so why should anyone be so today? Tatelyle (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Nope to RS, yes to quotes, Josephus isn't a WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes, since it is an Ancient source, to be analyzed and evaluated by present-day scholars. In fact, quoting a pre-Enlightenment historian in a post-Enlightenment encyclopedia as if he wrote WP:RS is ridiculous. That's not the Wikipedic practice in any other historical articles about the Ancient world. Per WP:ABIAS Wikipedia has to render the present-day academic consensus, not the consensus of gullible people from 2000 years ago. My view is that Josephus is notable, but not reliable, pretty much as the Bible is notable, but not reliable as a WP:RS for Wikipedia purposes. Performing one's own analysis upon Ancient sources and then cooking one's own dates is the very definition of WP:OR. As shown on this talk page by other editors, Josephus has simply taken the Bible at face value, considering it a reliable historical source, which higher criticism by default doesn't. See also historical method for history 101. For the same reason we don't cite Edward Gibbon or Theodor Mommsen as trumping present-day WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. The wording of this RfC, in my opinion, is misleading in a couple of ways. But first, I applaud the OP for admitting up front that Josephus is at odds with modern scholarship on this matter. But as for criticism, Josephus (not using the BC/AD system) doesn't (precisely) say that the Exodus was in the 16th century. He says it was 592 years before the dedication of Solomon's Temple (in Antiquities 8.3.2). He gets that number by simple addition of dates in his paraphrase of biblical accounts, so I'm not sure why the word "analysed" is used for Josephus's 592 date. Elsewhere Josephus gives the same period as 612 years (Against Apion 2.2). So it's not that Josephus analysed his early date -- he added it up from biblical sources and then couldn't himself remember it.

As for the DRN, it's worth noting that the close of the DRN did not reach a "verdict", but kicked the issue back here to the talk page, and that the closing comments that Tatelyle is quoting never directly mention the name "Josephus," but simply talk in general about old sources, without stating a direct opinion on whether Josephus's date for the Exodus is reliable. On this talk page, the closer User:Mark Miller has not yet told us on what sort of timespans Josephus might be reliable, such as whether Josephus's date itself is reliable, instead answering that the reliability of Josephus on ancient events is too complex an issue to answer in broad terms.

It is true that Josephus was apparently not perturbed or embarassed by his own (self-contradictory) dating of the Exodus, and it is also true that Josephus was not perturbed or embarassed by the idea of a world only four or five thousand years old, by the idea of a global flood, by the idea of people living hundreds of years. Josephus himself, with respect to biblical stories, said that he was simply passing on what he found in the Sacred Books. This is not history-writing in the normal contemporary sense of the word.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs)

PS. It is simple to verify that Josephus does not give a 16th-century date for the Exodus. Begin with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, which occurred in 587 (some say 586, but this doesn't make any real difference for our purposes). Josephus, in Antiquities 10.8.5, gives the interval of 470 years as the length of time that the first Temple stood. That places the foundation of the first temple in 1057. Add to this the 592 or 612 years that Josephus claims elapsed from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, and this gives an Exodus date of 1649 or 1669, depending on which of Josephus's books we're working from. It is only by picking and choosing which of Josephus's dates to accept that the OP manages to portray Josephus as being in agreement with a 16th century date for the Exodus. If we are to equate the Exodus with the expulsion of Khamudi, as the OP suggests, we can only do so if we accept that Josephus was not in fact aware of how much time had passed between the expulsion of the Hyksos king and Josephus' own time. There has been quite a bit of discussion so far, so perhaps I've missed something, but it appears to me that the OP has not yet explained why he thinks Josephus knows the length of time from the Exodus to Solomon but does not know the length of time from Solomon to the destruction of the first Temple. This, in addition to Josephus's tendency to simply copy the "Sacred Books" (as Josephus puts it) uncritically should be considered when deciding how much weight (if any) to put on Josephus's views about chronology. The RfC speaks of "both views" as if the two options are the 13th century date, and the 16th century date. We are in fact dealing with at least three views. The scholarly date for the Hyksos expulsion and Josephus's chronological views should not be equated. Alephb (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: The OP makes a number of mistakes in his post. He says that "modern academia and theologians have assumed a date in the 13th century BC" for the exodus, but this isn't true - the dominant view in academia is that the exodus never happened at all. He says "Flavius Josephus asserts that the date was much earlier, in the 16th century BC", but this also isn't true - Josephus was simply adding up time-periods from the Book of Judges (and ignoring a contradictory statement in the Book of Kings). He says also that " we have two possible eras for The Exodus." This also is untrue - there are three, these being 1445 BCE (the date you get from the information given in the Book of Kings), a date before that, or a date after. He says that an "early" Exodus and the association between the Israelites and the Hyksos "represents a fundamental shift in Israelite history," but it doesn't, it's a very old idea, and is rejected by modern historians just about unanimously. The OP's case is that we should give a whole section to this idea simply because it was mentioned by Joesphus, but I'd need a much better argument than that.PiCo (talk) 09:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The article already has a section on dating the exodus. It's pretty short, as it should be given that the vast majority of scholars don't think there was any exodus at all, but it does discuss all three (not two) options, and has plenty of citations to scholarly works for anyone wanting to know more. Personally I think it's enough - there's already far too much on the historicity of the exodus, and if it were up to me I'd cut that whole section right back. PiCo (talk) 09:13, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• No In part because this is such a bad RfC, vague and containing a misunderstanding. Yes, "With regard to historical events, older reports ... tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing." And that applies to Josephus's reports of events that happened during his lifetime, although, as with Tacitus, those reports need to be taken with a grain of salt because both writers had their own axes to grind. His dating of the Exodus is not a report of an event as he clearly wasn't there. User:Tatelyle, what does the phrase "conflicts strongly with known history", repeated twice and underlined, even mean? What "known history" are you referring to and how did we come to know it? And although we could consider adding academic sources mentioning his dates, as Pico says, there are probably enough sources discussing the dates. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Just to note that the line "With regard to historical events, older reports ... tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing" is wrong in every detail. I know the OP didn't write it, but it irks me, because it represents the assumption of someone who hasn't studied history, ancient or modern. The oldest reports tend to be the briefest, and as time goes on, more and more details are added. People don't copy and summarise, they embroider. Nor for that matter are eyewitness reports terribly reliable, as any policeman can tell you. Anyway, this is simply wrong.PiCo (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just look at the Gospels. Don't they get more detailed the later they are written? Doug Weller talk 10:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Mark is the earliest gospel, and the shortest. It lacks a nativity, it lacks most sayings, and it lacks post-resurrection appearances. Matthew and Luke add genealogies, nativities, Temptation scenes, sayings, and post-resurrection appearances, and Luke in Acts adds the Ascension, which is absent from Matthew. John is quite different from the three synoptics, but is certainly longer than Mark and full of details missing from the others.PiCo (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
• Comment (since I'm already involved in this discussion, not sure if I should be voting or not?) The Exodus story is thousands of years old. I think it is interesting how people understood it thousands of years ago since their perspective is very different. If e.g. Pliny the Elder said something on the Exodus. I would be interested in reading that too. Yes, older writers get things wrong. But why can't their views come with discussion about where modern research has contradicted them? I think the answer to that question is that the editors who are controlling this page seem to view it as an ideological battleground. They don't seem interested in educating people. Woscafrench (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

As stated, per WP:PAGs our duty is to render the present-day WP:RS/AC or majority view and also the views of significant present-day scholarly minorities (like Kitchen and Hoffmeier). We don't have a duty to render whatever has been predicated about the Exodus in the past 2500 years. Josephus may be cited, the WP:BURDEN to show that he is germane to our article is upon the editor who wants to include such quotes, i.e. show that Josephus is still cited in WP:SOURCES about this subject (he does not have to be cited as reliable, just cited at all would do). If even Kitchen and Hoffmeier would not pay much attention to Josephus, why should we? (I am not stating that this would be the case with these two scholars, so the WP:BURDEN to show that they pay attention to him in upon the editor willing to cite Josephus.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Woscafrench, or at least if I understand correctly what you're saying. This article goes on and on about "is the Exodus true," and tries to show that it isn't. That's fine, but it's not worth more than a paragraph. Far more important is what it means - this is the central story of Judaism, vitally important to Jews, and we barely give that a mention. (And there's no voting, this is just a discussion on whether or not the article should discuss Josephus' ideas on the date).PiCo (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

True, but there is the article Book of Exodus which discusses what's missing from The Exodus. So I guess that the later is about the (un)historical event, while the former is about theological significance. I would not object to their merger. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• Yes The arguments about whether Josephus is a primary or secondary source, or whether he is a WP:RS, are beside the point. He is a very noteworthy and important ancient source. As such, his views should be represented here. It is also permissible to make limited use of ancient primary or secondary sources as direct quotations or paraphrases, where no interpretation is involved. If Josephus said that the Exodus was 592 or 612 years before Solomon's Temple, we can say so. It would be preferable to look to modern scholars who might provide some analysis of what Josephus said. JerryRussell (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said above: Josephus is notable, he isn't reliable. So, I don't object to quoting him, I object to establishing objective historical facts, stated in the voice of Wikipedia, based merely upon such citations. Since he is that notable, I guess that it is a piece of cake to fulfill the above-mentioned WP:BURDEN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tgeorgescu:, do you think it would be possible to make use of some of Tatelyle's proposed content if it were written so as to make it clear that the statements are highly debatable opinions, not historical facts stated in Wikipedia voice? The existing article contains exactly one sentence about Josephus' own thoughts on the matter: Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos with the Jews.[47] I'm not sure that's an adequate treatment. JerryRussell (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how it should be worded, but yes, some quotes from Josephus and their evaluation from WP:SOURCES would be OK with me. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, but The question is stated poorly. The fact that Josephus said anything about this (or anything else) is worthy of being mentioned as a historical fact, i.e. that he said it, and piece of evidence (or piece of historical fact, as you will), along with analysis and criticism of that piece of evidence. But using Josephus as a reliable source that anything Josephus said actually happened, absolutely not. What Josephus said is an important fact in scrutinizing the history of whether or not the Exodus really happened, but his statements cannot be regarded as a reliable source for proof that it happened. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

• No, but... I'm putting this comment in-between other comments because the proper structure of the RfC is messed up below. There should be a voting section and a discussion section kept apart. Josephus was a notable ancient writer and what he wrote on the exodus is notable. However it should be presented through the filter of a modern historian who has studied Josephus and can place his work in historical perspective. It is clearly unacceptable to present Josephus as a reliable source of fact. The OP's endless quotation of one sentence of WP:AGE MATTERS while ignoring the rest of that guideline doesn't show the OP in a good light. Zero^talk 12:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Reply by OPThere appears to be some confusion about the analysis by Josephus. The main point he makes, on several occasions, is that the Israelites are the Hyksos people, and the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus. This analysis by Josephus therefore points to an earlier date for the Exodus, which agrees with the earlier dates given by Josephus. The date for the Hyksos exodus has not been precisely determined, but we might assume the early 16th century.

There is a comment here saying that modern historians don't assume the 13th century for the Exodus, they say it never happened. But assertions of no evidence by the likes of Finkelstein are fully based upon the assumed 13th century date for the exodus. Had Finkelstein been looking for evidence in the 16th century it is likely he would have found the required evidence - evidence for the Hyksos exodus. Including the fact that Jericho was a fortified city - unlike the statements currently made by Finkelstein.

Again the claim is made that Josephus is 'not reliable'. Can someone show us where that is stated. The Wiki guidelines actually say historians closer to the date if the events are MORE reliable. And Josephus is indeed closer to these events (although still displaced by 1500 years). And please remember that Josephus had access to documents that are no longer extant, and so he had more information at his disposal than modern historians.

Weller contends that the gospels got more detailed as time goes on. Does anyone have solid evidence for the dating of the gospels? I have read that Luke is actually older than Mark in some analyses, as it is more dependent upon the writings of Josephus. I hardly think this assertion about the gospels is relevant.

Weller then asks "what does the phrase 'conflicts strongly with known history' mean"?? What I meant is that the modern assumed 13th century date for the exodus results in no evidence found. So the assumed date for the Exodus 'conflicts with known history', because the history is simply not there. Which leads to claims that the exodus never happened, as many modern historians claim. But surely a good historian might then wonder if the assumed date is wrong. And then they might read that Josephus thought it took place at an earlier date, and it was coincident and conflated with the Hyksos Exodus out of Egypt. Had Finkelstein reasearched this earlier 16th century BC Exodus story, he may well have found a great deal of evidence - including the fact that Jericho was indeed a major fortified city that was destroyed in that earlier era. Suddenly, one of Finkelstein's major criticisms of the Exodus account becomes a major confirmation. You see how a small change in perspective alters the conclusion. And I think Wiki readers should be aware of that alternative view. I did quote modern historians who agreed more with Josephus than Finkelstein, but these sections were deleted.

I think the best comment made here is that the entire article appears to be a debunking of the Exodus story - instead of explaining the Exodus story - presumably because it is 'biblical' and not trustworthy. (I am Atheist, btw). But this is actually historical data, from the Torah, Antiquities, Manetho, Chaeremon, and Lysimachus, even if you don't believe it. The present article is similar to an examination of the Trojan Wars, without mentioning Homer. In my view, this article should give the biblical explanation, and then give the modern historical examination for contrast. And a part of that biblical explanation is the possibility of an earleir date for the Exodus, plus a symmetry with the Hyksos Exodus, and also the fact that Jericho was indeed a major fortified city that was destroyed at this time. And at present that information is not present in the Wiki article. Tatelyle (talk) 09:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Again the claim is made that Josephus is 'not reliable'. Can someone show us where that is stated." Wikipedia doesn't have a list of all the non-reliable sources out there. The burden is on you to say why Josephus is a reliable source, and simply telling us over and over that Josephus lived only 1500 years after the events is not going to be taken seriously by most editors here. And it's easy to see why Josephus isn't reliable. He doesn't meet the general criteria for a reliable source when it comes to events that occurred very long stretches of time before he lived. You could easily work this out for yourself if you just searched through Antiquities for the word "year" and tried to work out a coherent chronology from him. He generally just copies the Bible's years, and he's really bad at it -- there's discrepancies of at least 400 years in more than one place in his work. As for what Finkelstein would have found -- Wikipedians don't write articles on the basis of what they think academics would have found. They write in terms of what academics have found. There is no reason to think Josephus had access to more information than modern historians. He certainly had access to some documents that don't exist today, but he couldn't read a lot of archives that we can read today. He didn't have archeology, he didn't have carbon dating, and he couldn't even read Egyptian records. He had to work from second-hand and third-hand sources for a lot of things that we can read first-hand today. And even though you keep saying it, there's absolutely nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that says a first-century writer who couldn't read hieroglyphs and couldn't add up numbers accurately is a more reliable source than modern historians. "The Wiki guidelines actually say historians closer to the date if the events are MORE reliable." No, they really don't. They say that early reports may sometimes be free of some problems in later reports. But Josephus is by no means an early report of the Exodus. He lived fifteen hundred years later, had never met anyone alive during the Exodus, and was incapable of reading anything written by any Egyptian around the time of the Exodus. He was playing a very long game of telephone conducted in multiple languages that he couldn't understand. Alephb (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bible gets quoted all over the place, but we don't consider the Bible as WP:RS for history. Same applies to Josephus: he may be cited, but he is not WP:RS. As I said above, there nothing in policy which implies that Gibbon or Mommsen would be more reliable than present-day scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle:, what do you think of Assmann's statement in "The Price of Monotheism":1

"The biblical Exodus report does indeed show all the signs of a counterhistory, or at any rate a 'narrative inversion,' at least in relation to the Hyksos. It turns kings into slaves; an expulsion into a ban on emigration; a descent from the Egyptian throne to insignificance into an ascent from oppression to freedom as god's chosen people."

In other words, if the biblical Exodus account is somehow related to the Hyksos expulsion, it's not a historical account. It's a polemic that turns real history on its head, in order to make a narrative point. JerryRussell (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Alephb says: 'Josephus couldn't even read Egyptian records'. On the contrary, Josephus lived in an era when Egyptian was still spoken - the Ptolemies inscribed all their temples in heiroglyphs. And as Strabo said, the majority of priests in the Temple of Jerusalem were Egyptians. I have no doubt that Josephus, as the master of all he surveyed in Judaea, after the Jewish Revolt, had access to translation and translators of Egyptian scripts that are no longer extant. As he makes plane in Against Apion, with his commentary on Apion, Manetho, Chaermon and many others. And may I remind you that it is entirely possibke that Josephus was more reliable than modern historians. His assertion that an early Exodus was coincident with a fortified Jericho that was destroyed, is perfectly correct. Tatelyle (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Russell says: "what do you think of Assmann's statement in "The Price of Monotheism" ".. Not that it counts for a Wiki article, but I think the two exoduses were one and the same, just as Josephus says. Both of these exoduses were:

Of a people known as shepherds; who both wore earrings and curly side-locks of hair; who had a leader called Yakob or Yakobam; who experienced three days of darkness (Tempest Stele); who only a few decades before had experienced a great ashfall (Santorini) (a pillar of fire and smoke); who only a few decades before had experienced a great tsunami (waters parting); who had a war with the (Upper) Egyptians (Hyksos civil war); who left Egypt from Pi Ramesse (ie: from Avaris, same city); who numbered several hundred thousand; who are likely to have killed the bull worshippers (as Manetho appears to report); who crossed the deserts to Judaea; who destroyed Jericho (likely to have been a Hyksos seige); who settled in Jerusalem; who built a temple there (Strabo says the priests of the Temple were mostly Egyptians). etc: etc:

You must admit there are many points of commonality between these 'two' events, that would lead any diligent historian to speculate that these were the same event. And then when it is realised that Judaism's greatest historian says that they were indeed the same event, to concur with his assessment. Why otherwise competent historians like Silberman and Finkelstein do not make this comparison and conflation, or at the very least discuss it before rejecting it, I do not know. I have searched around for modern comentary on these many comparisons, but not found much bar the 'unreliables' like Ahmed Osman. Are modern historians in error with their Hyksos omission? I think so. I think Josephus is much more reliable in this matter than our modern historians, because what he says makes sense, while modern commentary and analysis of the Exodus is a Swiss cheese of unacceptable lacunas and voids.

And finally, I still think that Wiki readers should know that there are other possibilities out there, that may make more sense than the classical interpretation. So a section on what Josephus says, perhaps backed up by modern historians who agree with Josephus, would be a valuable asset to this page. How can we deny readers the choice, simply because Josephus may not be 100% reliable in his many thousands of different assertions? After all, if Josephus is correct in this, as seems likely, then nearly all modern historians are wrong and unreliable, and should not be referenced in any Wiki page - for ever more. That, after all, is what some commentators here are calling for. Tatelyle (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think that you aren't think you're reading this carefully enough. Doug Weller talk 19:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle:, there is a problem with the hypothesis that the Hyksos exodus and the Amarna shut-down were one and the same event. The best primary sources for both of these events are the Egyptian records (hieroglyphs, monuments, etc.) The historians who specialize in deciphering those records agree that the Hyksos exodus occurred at the beginning of the 18th dynasty, under Ahmose I, circa 1550 BCE; while the Amarna period refers to the rulers Akhenaten thru Tutankhamen, the tenth thru thirteenth rulers of that dynasty, about 200 years later. While the Biblical account may conflate elements of both these historical events, it's far from an accurate representation. Manetho's version of the story also seems to conflate elements of both historical periods, and does not seem especially accurate, either.

In my opinion, Ahmed Osman does meet minimal requirements as a WP:RS. He is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and his books are published by Bear & Co.; this company publishes many WP:FRINGE authors, but it's a step above SPS. His reliability would depend on the claim being made, and he would be a reliable source concerning his own views.

But, is it true that Osman considers that the Hyksos expulsion occurred during the Amarna era? At any rate, Osman's view that Moses and Akhenaten were literally the same person, would be a minority view among modern historians. It's so far from the mainstream that it would be considered a WP:FRINGE view. But that doesn't mean it can't be represented at Wikipedia. It just needs to be put in perspective. JerryRussell (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Doug Weller, from the viewpoint of WP:PAGs, what Tatelyle states does not fly. In no other article on the Ancient world does a mere citation of an Ancient historian trump abundant present-day scholarship. He might have more luck at Conservapedia. Our WP:PAGs are against him, definitely WP:OR is. Let's summarize: no new empirical discovery, no scholarly sources, just cooking his own dates based upon fishy Ancient manuscripts. Of course Josephus may be cited, but he may be cited in order to be shown that he got it wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle:, do you agree that Josephus thought that the Hyksos exodus (under Ahmose I) was identical to the Hebrew exodus? And also, that he denied and ridiculed Manetho's story about Osarsiph and the lepers, while at the same time recognizing that Manetho intended it to be a story about the Hebrew exodus?

Considering the four historical narratives: the Hyksos expulsion, as described by Manetho; the rejection of Akhenaten's monotheism and the destruction of Amarna (as reported by modern historians); Manetho's lepers led by Osarsiph, as reported by Josephus; and the Biblical narrative of the Exodus: do you believe these are all describing one and the same event? JerryRussell (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of that answer, "What is truth?" is an ages-old question. For Wikipedia (certainly in such matters) truth is what most universities teach as true. Neither Finkelstein and Silberman, nor we are idiots. Finkelstein is politically Zionist, but he does not see archaeology as the servant of political propaganda. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Tgeorgescu, WP:NPOV is policy, and it says All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. As I've written elsewhere on this page, I see that academic consensus on this topic is breaking down, if indeed it ever existed. But I do see a near consensus that the Hyksos eviction did not occur during the Amarna period. And I'm not meaning to offer Tatelyle a soapbox. I'm just trying to understand what he's saying, because I'm confused. Or maybe he's confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The WP:RS/AC is about two matters: (a) there is no direct evidence for the Exodus and (b) it did not happen as in the Bible. As PiCo stated, there might be a real event behind the Exodus story, but at this point we don't know what that real event was. It could have been a distant memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos, or it could have been like three groups of 200 slaves each have escaped from Egypt, learned about Yahu from the Shasu and then integrated among the (proto-)Israelites, teaching them their liberation ideology. Such events are not amenable to archaeological investigation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, let me quote again from Spark's 2015 book chapter "Egyptian Texts relating to the Exodus: Discussions of Exodus Parallels in the Egyptology Literature": 1

"Some 30 ancient Egyptian texts with Exodus “parallels” or Exodus-like content have been identified by 56 Egyptologists, archaeologists, and Semiticists from 1844 to date in the professional literature. Additional texts are identified in the present study for a total of more than 90 Egyptian texts containing Exodus parallels. ... Based on the new work presented at the UCSD Exodus conference (see this volume) Jan Assmann has ventured beyond his pioneering concept of cultural “mnemohistories” to comment that consensus views of the Exodus are “now highly contested” because there has been “Perhaps too much unanimity as to the non-historicity of the Exodus”; the “old certainties” of Exodus as pure myth are “gone.” JerryRussell (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is exactly the point that Tatelyle is making; but Josephus did equate the Hyksos expulsion with the Hebrew exodus. Manetho's story about Osarsiph and his lepers was also recognized by Josephus as a story about the Exodus, and modern scholars have recognized that Manetho was talking about the Amarna period. So that equation is also supported (indirectly) by Josephus. All of this has been duly noted by modern scholarship. There's no reason this shouldn't be discussed in the Wikipedia article. JerryRussell (talk) 15:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Googling for "brad sparks professor" (without the quotes), I cannot find anything about where he would be teaching. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's in the book:[1] Brad C. Sparks Archaeological Research Group. Los Angeles-San Diego. CA. USA exodus@eng.ucsd.edu, this[2] ""Our managing editor, Brad Sparks, did a yeoman’s job of checking every detail from archaeology, to Egyptology, to Hebrew texts."" I think he works here Office of Engineering Computing (OEC) for a University. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jerry Russell said: "Do you agree that Josephus thought that the Hyksos exodus (under Ahmose I) was identical to the Hebrew exodus?". Yes, of course. Josephus goes as far as saying that the Hyksos are 'OUR PEOPLE'. (I placed that quote in my original update, but it was deleted). There is no doubt that Josephus considered the Israelites to be exiled Hyksos.

Based upon the available evidence, it seems certain that Manetho, Chaeomon and others were recounting two exodus events. The first was the great Hyksos-Israelite Exodus of several hundred thousand people in the 16th century, at the time if Ahmose I. The second exodus was the smaller exodus of 80,000 lepers and maimed priests, which is obviously the Amarna exodus. (Josephus says this was not linked to the Israelites, but he may be mistaken due to personal bias.). The biblical and Antiquities accounts may have telescoped these two exodus events into one.

The reasons for suspecting the second exodus to be linked to Amarna include..... They were from the 'stone quarries' on the eastbank of the Nile, just as Amarna was also a 'quarry' (many stones being cut for the new city) on the eastbank of the Nile. There were just 80,000 people, which equates well with the size of Amarna. The 'lepers' were theological lepers, not real lepers - to go alongside the 'maimed priests'. The entire Amarna dispute was about a theological experiment by Atonist 'heretics', who were obviously theological lepers and maimed priests to the Amen priests in Thebes. Why both Josephus and modern academia continue to regard these people as real medical lepers, I do not know.

Note the links to the biblical story here. The 'lepers' were exiled to the quarries, while the Israelites had to make bricks for pharaoh. The god of Akhenaton was called Aton or Adon, while the god of the Israelites was called Adon. And all the Israelite male children were slaughtered, while Akhenaton only had daughters. etc etc etc. ........ The links and similarities are manifold, but modern history does not see any of this because they disregard anything and everything 'biblical'. So it is only the likes of Ahmed Osman and other more fringe authors who ever bother investigating these many similarities. See also Ralph Ellis 'Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs', although not quotable.

Again, much of this information should be in this article. Firstly, because ancient historians record it. Secondly, because some reputable modern historians do analyse it (the two professors I quoted in my update, that were deemed 'not reputable enough'.). And if anyone here does not like this additional information - I think that answer is tough. As was mentioned above, the primary rationale of Wiki is balance, which means including as many opinions as possible. Clearly, we have two MAJOR opinions here. There is the classical cabal of reputable historians, who insist on a late Exodus and therefore have to conclude it was mythical, because they cannot find any evidence. Then there is the biblical, Josephan, and minor modern historian's view, which is of an early Exodus - for which there is abundant historical evidence, as I related in my list of Hyksos to Israelite similarities. To omit one of those opinions, is a dereliction of duty as a Wiki editor - the duty is towards balance and neutrality, not to take sides. And I think that Wiki readers do need to know that there are two sides. Tatelyle (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorescu said: "Neither Finkelstein and Silberman, nor we are idiots.". No, but they were negligent. They only considered a 13th century BC exodus, as their book makes clear, but for uncertain reasons. I could not see a firm historical rationale for only considering the 13th century BC. And the result was that they could not find any evidence for an Exodus. Well, that is not surprising, really. But if you asked them to rewrite that book based upon a 16th century BC date, they would find a lot of evidence for the Hyksos-Israelite Exodus. So the book by Finkelstein is worse than incomplete, it is misleading.

I ask you - how many exoduses of nearly 500,000 people out of Egypt do you think happened? Was this an annual event? Simple logic would strongly suggest that if we have two similar stories about such a momentous event, that they may actually be one and the same. And they were - they were the Hyksos-Israelite Exodus. Tatelyle (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

So, let's rehearse our data: Josephus himself puts the event in the 17th century BCE, a modern revision of Josephus puts it in the 16th century BCE and the Amarna period was in the 14th century BCE. Josephus took biblical chronology at face value and even then he was not very good at adding numbers, or at always getting the same result. Any disagreements? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle, where is the evidence that the Hyksos expulsion involved a large number of people? Manetho / Josephus said so. But is there archaeological evidence that confirms such a large flow of people from Egypt to the Levant at the beginning of the 18th dynasty? Aren't most archaeologists now saying that the Hyksos were an elite ruling cadre who were thrown out of Avaris, rather than an entire population? JerryRussell (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Documentary filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici has been an advocate of the Hyksos Expulsion = Biblical Exodus theory. Wikipedia has an interesting article, along with a critique of the theory, at The Exodus Decoded. JerryRussell (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Jerry - I will have to look up data on sources for the Hyksos exodus. Certainly there is ample evidence for the Hyksos-Upper Egypt war. However... since the 13th century exodus date is allowable in this article, even though the conclusion was it never happened; why is a 16th century exodus date not allowable in this article, even though many are concluding that it never happened? If you regard this exodus event as mythology then we simply have two 'mythological' dates, so why not mention both of them?

Quite clearly the bar for inclusion in this article is not historical proof for an actual exodus, merely that an ancient tradition exists. Well, an ancient tradition also exists for a 16th century BC exodus, that is coincident with the Hyksos, and so that should have equal page-space as the modern interpretation for the biblical exodus. Tatelyle (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

As stated below, the 16th century is one of the five centuries (or options) when the Exodus has supposedly happened. And it is not even Josephus' own view, for all he knew the Exodus took place in the 17th century BCE. So, by affirming the 16th century you have already granted that Josephus is unreliable (i.e. that modern scholarship trumps Josephus). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

User:Tatelyle keeps saying that Finkelstein and Silberman did not consider the possibility that the Exodus could have occurred outside of the 13th century. This is false. Their book, The Bible Unearthed does, in fact, discuss the Hyksos, and discusses the ways in which Manetho's (and therefore Josephus's) account of the Hyksos is at odds with the archaeological and inscriptional evidence, and the ways in which the Hyksos do not match up with the Israelites. They also discuss why they think the Exodus narrative more reflects the realities of the seventh century than any more ancient period in Egyptian history. It is fine if Tatelyle disagrees with Finkelstein and Silberman, although it is also irrelevant because personal opinions of editors don't count for anything on Wikipedia -- it's all about what's in reliable sources. What's not right is the continued misrepresentation of their position. Alephb (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If you have reasons why the Hyksos were distinct from the Israelites, no-one is stopping you from putting that in the article. Woscafrench (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the current mention of the Hyksos as it stands now in the article. I just don't want this RfC to be mislead by the repeated claim that Finkelstein and Silberman don't consider earlier dates. Now, if someone took the article in a direction where it was listing similarities between Hyksos and Israelites, then I would feel the need for material on their differences to balance it out. But as it stands, the article seems all right to me (as far as Hyksos are concerned). Alephb (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The idea that the Hyksos were the same as the Israelites doesn't appear at all in modern scholarly works. It's purely a popular-level theory.PiCo (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle:, what's your reply to Alephb's comments on FInkelstein and SIlberman and misrepresentation of sources a few sentences above? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Dougweller: I will have to get anoher copy of Finkelstein's book and reread (not at home at present). I was replying to the Finkelstein quote that is in the current Exodus page, which via GoogIe books clearly shows that Finkelstein was arguing against the 13th century Exodus, by saying that Jericho was just an unfortified village (completely unlike the biblical description of Jericho). That is clearly a false argument, if he has already considered the Hyksos as a potential date for the Exodus. Finkelstein should have pointed out that Jericho was indeed a fortified city during the Hyksos Exodus, and therefore the biblical description is a good match with the Hyksos-Israelite Exodus argument.

Tgeorgescu keeps saying that Josephus points to a 17th century Israelite Exodus. Not really - he points twice to the early 16th century, and just once at the late 17th century. And since there was a large gap between the start and end of the construction of the Temple (which was begun by David), a range of dates is to be expected. Besides, Josephus calls the Hyksos nation 'our people'. He could not make it more plain that the Israelites were the Hyksos, and therefore that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus.

Besides, are we so sure about the date of the Hyksos Exodus? The Hyksos-Egyptian war began under Kkamose, and finished under Ahmose, and the modern date for Ahmose's reign is not settled to better than +|- 30 years. So is the modern chronology any more accurate that Josephus? Really? Tatelyle (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

You shouldn't conclude that an author failed to address an issue just because the limited preview on Google Books doesn't show him addressing an issue. This should go without saying. Alephb (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Alephb, but if Finkelstein did indeed make a balanced exploration and analysis between the 16th century Hyksos date and the classical 13th century date, then why did the Wiki page not reflect that? Why the bias in the Wiki page? And why all the vehement opposition when I tried to introduce the earlier Exodus date? I don't follow. Surely we only need to quote Finkelstein, for the early date? I have bought a copy of Finkelstein, and will read as much as I can tomorrow. Tatelyle (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, you can't use the absence of something on a Wikipedia page as an argument that an author has never addressed something, either. That should also go without saying. Alephb (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb says that Finkelstein and Silberman (F&S) DO address the Hyksos issue, regards the Exodus.. BUT THEY DO NOT. In fact, they studiously ignore the entire issue. For instance, here is a scholarly investigation into the Exodus event, and (F&S) do not mention Josephus Flavius once. Which is a bit like writing a history of Jesus without mentioning the Gospels. It was Josephus who had access to the much older version of the Torah, and it was Josephus who read and critiqued the venerable chroniclers of those early eras. You cannot understand the historicity of the Exodus event, unless you take Josephus into account. And so (F&S) say things like the following:

>> The Torah mentions that the Exodus took place 480 years before the Temple.

But no mention of Josephus' dates, nor Josephus' assertion that the Israelites were the Hyksos. So from the very beginning F&S have only looked at one strand of evidence, and ignored the other.

>> The Hyksos invasion and exodus was a parallel story to the Israelites.

But no thought is given to whether they could be the same people. None at all. The eventual conclusion is that a memory of the Hyksos invasion may have influenced the biblical authors.

>> The city of Pi-Ramesse mentions Ramesses, a name from the late 14th century BC. And so historians have argued that the Exodus must have happened in the 13th century.

But even F&S do not point out that Pi Ramesse was Avarice, the Hyksos capital - the one being built on the other. F&S have already been through a number of anachronisms, but cannot see that the mention of Pi Ramesse is anachronistic, and so the Exodus may have been Hyksos Exodus. This is a basic error unworthy of otherwise competent archaeologists, and probably caused because F&S have not referenced Against Apion and perhaps know nothing of Josephus' account of this era. The upshot of this, and other failings, is that F&S agree that the biblical account was based in the 13th century BC (but written in the 7th century BC), and so they make no further comparisons with the Hyksos Exodus whatsoever.

>> No mention of the Israelites is made during the Hyksos period.

Indeed, because Josephus says the Israelites were called the Hyksos. So why is anyone looking for the name 'Israel' in the 16th century BC?? This is really basic stuff.

>> There are no finds in Egypt that can be associated with a distinct foreign ethic group.

This statement is absurd. F&S have just been talking about the Hyksos being Semitic immigrants into Egypt, and then they say there were no distinct foreign ethinic groups in Egypt. Quite obviously there WAS a foreign ethinc group - they were the Hyksos, who Josephus equates with the Israelites.

>> The escape of a group from Egypt during the time if Ramesses II is highly unlikely, and a record would have been made of this.

The rest of the arguments by F&S are purely based upon their presumed 13th century date for the Exodus. And they conclude time and time again that the Exodus did not happen, because there is no evidence for it AT THIS TIME. Yes, indeed, because the Exodus did not happen at this time. My notes on the rest of these chapters read: 'wrong era... wrong era...'. It is very easy to see no evidence, when you look in the wrong location. Admiral Nelson used the same technique to his great advantage (turning a blind eye).

>> The Transjordan was sparcely populated during the Late Bronze Age.

Yeah, but if you look in the Middle Brinze Age, when the Exodus happened, the Transjordan was highly populated. Turning a blind eye again.

>> There is a specific incident of Hyksos domination in the Delta, in the Middle Brinze Age.

Ahh - we appear to be on the cusp of a breakthrough here. F&S are about to make a bold comparison between the Israelites and the Hyksos. And.... And... And they blew it. No mention whatsoever. They were different peoples, with no similarities whatsoever. (Apart from being Semites with a pharaoh called Yakob, with earrings, and curly sidelocks of hair, who took over Lower Egypt, who had a war with the Egyptians, who experienced three days of darkness and an ashfall, who experienced a large tsunami, who took large tributes from the Egyptians, in return for leaving Egypt, who left from Pi Ramesse or Avarice, some 500,000 strong, and went to Judaea, and are likely to have sacked Jerich enroute. Apart from that, there is no comparison at all.) (Ahmed Osman gives 15 reasons why he thinks the Hyksos sacked Jericho.)

>> How could an army in rags..... A disorganised rabble....... (ie, the Israelites)

F&S seem to have taken the proleteriat exodus story as the gospel truth. In reality, the Israelites were paid a huge tribute in gold, silver, cloth and oil, to leave Egypt. And as they left Egypt, they looted all the Egyptians and took all their wealth. This was NOT an army in rags, and nor was it disorganised, it was the highly capable and well resourced Hyksos army. Which is how they were able to kill all the Egyptians, and then killl 2,000 bull worshippers, and then go on to destroy Jericho and all the other cities of the Transjordan. In real history, the reason why the Hyksos decided to flee rather than fight is an interesting question, as they seemed to be in a strong position. The Tempest Stele appears to indicate that the Hyksos were given tribute to leave, the same as the Israelites were.

>> The situation in Cannan between 1230 and 1220 BC.

I will not bore you with this absurdity. The entire chapter on the conquest of Canaan is based upon the 13th century. And surprise, surprise, F&S find no evidence for the conquest of Canaan in this era. Well, if you adopt the Nelsonian position, and turn a blind eye, that is not surprising. Yet as F&S admit, there WAS a thriving Transjordan in the 16th century BC, and cities like Jericho were heavily fortified, and destroyed, at that time. And Ahmed Osman gives 15 reasons why Jericho was destroyed by the Hyksos (ie, by the Israelites).

In short, the book by F&S is a travesty of good investigative archaeology. They ignore the assertions of the greatest Jewish chronicler - Josephus Flavius, who says the Israelites were the Hyksos - and therefore ignore an entire branch of this enquiry that could have yielded some interesting and highly pertinent similarities and parallels. The result is a myopic investigation that turns a blind eye to the glaring similarities between the Israelites and the Hyksos. Indeed, while it is briefly mentioned that their histories are parallel (in one sentence), the commentary swiftly moves on as if those similarities are wholly unimportant and can be dismissed out of hand. Yet despite these many failings by F&S, their research is held up as being the apex of modern understanding of ancient history, while Josephus is pilloried as being wholly unreliable as he produces a +/- 30 year range of dates. Frankly, if I were a betting man, I would place my money on Josephus being correct, not F&S.

Tatelyle (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You're continuing to misrepresent Finkelstein and Silberman. At no point do they say that there are "no similarities whatsoever" between the Israelites and the Hyksos. In fact, they say almost the exact opposite -- see page 54-56 of the Bible Unearthed. And as for Josephus' dates -- as I've already explained, he is more like a century off if you want to equate the Hyksos and the Israelites, and he also doesn't "produce" the dates in an analytical way, he just copies his chronology (sometimes with mistakes of 400+ years) from the Bible.

If you want to equate the biblical Jacob, who never ruled over Egypt, (Yaʕaqob) with the Hyksos Yaqub-Har, you open another can of dating worms. Take the 130 years Jacob lived before entering Egypt (Josephus, Antiquities 2.7.6), 215 years from Jacob entering Egypt to the Exodus (Antiquities 2.15.2), plus 612 years from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple (Antiquities 20.10.1), plus the 470 years from the foundation of the Temple to its destruction (Antiquities 10.8.5), and you get 1427 years from the birth of Jacob to the destruction of the Temple in 587. That puts Jacob's birth in 2014 BC, which would make Jacob about 415 years old when Yaqub-Har ruled over Egypt (if Yaqub-Har was even a Pharaoh). Hopefully this will help give you some idea of why the other editors here have not been impressed by all your talk about how strikingly accurate Josephus is for correlating the chronology of the Hyksos with the chronology of the Israelites. Of course, if you pick and choose enough between Josephus's various contradictory statements you'll find some plausible dates here and there, but the idea that Josephus is some kind of highly impressive chronological source for your Israelite = Hyksos equation will probably continue to leave the other editors here unimpressed. Alephb (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

You beat me to it. Of course they discuss the Hyksos in comparison with the Israelites. They also mention with approval Donald Redford's views, "has aruged that the echoes of the great events of the Hyksos occupation of Egypt and their violent expulsion from the delta resounded for centuries, to bcome a central, shared memory of the people of Canaan." etc. Tatelyle has the book, it's pages 68 and 69. Doug Weller talk 11:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Not having read through this entire thread, but only the opening question, I have to ask. Who the hell thinks Josephus is an RS?! Seriously? No. We're not going to ascribe reliability to a "historian" who lived thousands of years before the historical method or basic methodological naturalism were first described. This is akin to relying on creationist "historians." We cannot classify an author as a reliable source if said author doesn't even have an identifiable method of truth-seeking, let alone one which is accepted as useful and accurate by experts. Josephus is notable, sure. Josephus' views are due, sure. But Josephus is not, by any measure, a reliable source and we cannot state his claims in wikivoice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this whole mess started with a DRN muddied the waters more than anything else. The closing editor made statements to the effect that Josephus is, in some undefined subset of cases, a reliable source. We're having issues with a tangle of WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:UNDUE issues. On the other hand, we've attracted some editors who are doing decent work on the article, so clouds and silver linings and all that. Is there some procedure by which an RfC closes at some point? Alephb (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PS -- relying on Josephus isn't just akin to relying on a creationist historian. Josephus was a creationist historian (though not a historian in quite the modern sense, of course), who explicitly said, in the part of Antiquities that deals with the Exodus, that he was recounting what the Sacred Books said. We are dealing with the dumbfounding question of whether someone who copies the Bible is a reliable source on events described in the Bible. I asked the DRN closer, User:Mark Miller, "Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews, gives a history from the creation, less than 10,000 years ago, to a global flood in the time of Noah, to Moses parting the Red Sea with a staff, to David, to the Babylonian captivity, to Alexander the Great, to Fadus the Procurator. About where in that timeline do you see Josephus's claims become reliable?" A reply was given, but it didn't give any kind of clear response to whether Josephus was reliable on creation, the parting of the Red Sea, or any of the specific things I was asking about. This gave our OP a great deal of encouragement to continue.Alephb (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

PPS. If you do want to go wading into the backstory at all (though of course I wouldn't blame you if you don't), the relevant DRN is here: [3].

Certainly any serious historian would make a note of what Josephus said, since Josephus was closer to the event, and had access to written work which doesn't exist now (e.g Manetho). Taking note doesn't mean "repeating it at face value", but simply "presenting it as a piece of evidence". Whether that makes Josephus a reliable source in the official Wikipedia definition I don't know, and to be honest I don't really care. The conclusion of the DRN was that the editors who didn't want this article to mention Josephus's Hyksos theory, had been distorting the meaning of Wikipedia policy to get their own way. Somehow everyone seems to be pretending that they didn't hear that. Woscafrench (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

My view is quite clear: Josephus may be cited, but he isn't in any sense reliable as a source for objective historical facts stated in wikivoice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

"The conclusion of the DRN was that the editors who didn't want this article to mention Josephus's Hyksos theory, had been distorting the meaning of Wikipedia policy to get their own way. Somehow everyone seems to be pretending that they didn't hear that." That seems like a fairly broad brush to paint a whole group of editors with. As for myself, I've already said I'm perfectly happy with the article's current mention of the Hyksos. What I object to is things like this [4] and much of the reasoning that has accompanied this RfC. As for the DRN, I also remember that instead of reaching any kind of formal verdict, the closer kicked it back to the talk page for further discussion. And that is exactly we've been trying to do. Alephb (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

• The close on that DRN is one of the most ignorant (as in:not familiar with the particulars of the issues and relevant policies) and ham-fisted (as in "let's play count the falsehoods and fallacies in the close!") closes I've ever seen. I'm a little surprised that close hasn't made turned into a "please stop volunteering at DRN discussion" by now.

The discussion never really got off the ground, absolutely no attempt was made to find a working solution, it was just one editor coming along, asking a single, unrelated question then closing the discussion with a closing commentary that doesn't bear any resemblance to the request.

There is no evidence in the DRN of editors using "a number of contradicting Wikipedia policies and guidelines", nor is it possible to imagine how one could use contradicting policies to make the same argument, and if it were possible, that would strongly suggest that it was a very good argument (since multiple policies support it). The equivocation of fringe views and the scholarly consensus in the close is, itself the sort of reg flag one expects to see most often as evidence in ANI discussions about TBANS. To say that "muddied the waters" is an understatement of epic proportions; the whole thing looks like nothing more than the last time a sockmaster tried to drag me to DRN and have one of his socks act as the mediator. Not that I'm suggesting that's what happened here, only that it seems very apparent to me that the closing remarks were composed not with the actual, present (if aborted) discussion in mind, but with a conclusion derived from some foreign rationale. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow...there's a whole lot to unpack with that.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle/Josephus have not been singled out for special treatment. What Tatelyle wants has never been allowed and it will never be allowed. Writing RFCs contrary to WP:PAGs could be seen as trolling. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That's true: what the OP demanded at DRN has never been either Wikipedic practice or policy and will likely never be either Wikipedic practice or policy (as long as Wikipedia remains committed to high encyclopedic standards). What Tatelyle demanded there is simply not compatible with how Wikipedia works. Let's not beat around the bush: for Wikipedia present-day WP:RS/AC by default and mercilessly trumps any Ancient or Medieval source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, my last comment was way to hyperbolic (not my first, which I think was just hyperbolic enough;). There's a trout button on my page if anyone feels the need to use it.

The big factor that I haven't seen addressed (which is not to say that it hasn't been) is how one interprets Josephus as having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I mean, I have a few books that devote at least a chapter or two each to Josephus, and they spend most of that time critiquing his accuracy or defending his usefulness, despite poor accuracy. I wouldn't even consider this one of my primary interests. I'm sure those with more exposure to the literature than I have seen much more criticism of Josephus' writings than I. Has Josephus ever issued a self-correction? I'm unaware of it. It would be shockingly unusual for an ancient historian to even do such a thing, in my admittedly limited experience. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Herodotus was called the father or lies, wasn't he? If we would cite him as WP:RS on a par with WP:RS/AC, lots of Wikipedia articles would look differently. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

While I would generally argue that Herodotus gets more hate than he deserves (I think he's the only ancient historian who approached his sources critically, and I seem to recall a few passages of the Histories seemed to be dripping in sarcasm as he relates some outlandish notions), I'd still laugh in the face of anyone suggesting he was an RS. Otherwise, we'd have to write that the Nile was flooded by melting snow. You know, from all the snowing it does in Sudan. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Abitrary convenience break

• Comment from DRN volunteer - In the closing comment of the original DRN I stated; "The opposing editors have used a number of contradicting Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an attempt to exclude a source and author.". That should have been; "The opposing editors have used a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines in contradicting ways in an attempt to exclude a source and author" (bolding for emphasis).

I felt (among other things) that it was conflicting to say it went against WP:SOURCE for a WP:PRIMARY to be used; "There can be no compromise about performing original research upon a primary Ancient source." The thing is, if it is a primary source (which be definition it is not) then WP:OR supports its use; "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The argument being that it is original research to use an ancient source because it is a primary source. Basically using a link to the top of WP:OR to argue that another part of the policy page says it could not be used. The use of Josephus as a RS is acceptable per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/WP:RS AGE}. I apologize if that was confusing.

As for the rest of this, DRN volunteers are not administrators and they do not pass judgement but do have opinions. The close at DRN was a general closing because the two opposing editors had failed to demonstrate how the author could not be used per Wikipedia and guidelines however, it was my opinion that this was not about the source. If it was, this would simply go to the reliable sources noticeboard. This seemed to me to be more about the narrative of the article itself and that the editor was attempting to introduce text and sources that might have contradicted that narrative. This is a content dispute but the argument against Josephus simply failed and the use of the author and any content from them had to be discussed further with larger input.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The two editors you're refering to are myself and Tgeorgescu.The edits we've opposed by Tatelyle have included the removal of scholarly sources and replacement with original research [5], [6] and misrepresentation of Finkelstein and Silberman [7]. As far as I can tell, the diffs in this paragraph represent all of Tatelyle's edits to the main page, and all of them are problematic. This isn't about the opposing editors (at least not the opposing editors in the DRN who provided summaries of the dispute) attempting to keep any mention of Josephus out of the article. This is about whether any references made to Josephus should be done in accordance with the various well-established guidelines on reliability and sources. The DRN closing, "The opposing editors have used a number of contradicting Wikipedia policies and guidelines in an attempt to exclude a source and author", makes it look like the two of us are on some kind of crusade to keep mentions of Josephus out. I think both of us have been pretty clear that, if done appropriately, there is no problem with this article mentioning Josephus. He's certainly not a reliable source (I fail to understand why you've repeatedly kept insisting that he is), but he is notable and worth mentioning. And the article currently does mention him, in a way that is free of misrepresentation and without original research. And you don't see me or Tgeorgescu yanking those references out, do you?

If you feel that any of the three diffs in this comment do in fact represent good edits, I'd be happy to explain why I don't think they do. If you don't feel that any of the three diffs represent good edits, then we were perfectly justified in opposing them and there's no need to imply that we're "attempting to exclude an author and a source" in some kind of "contradicting" way. Alephb (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

No Ancient or Medieval historian is used as WP:RS, in any Wikipedia article about the Ancient world. Such historians may be quoted if notable, but they are not on a par with present-day WP:RS/AC. As I stated, I do not object to citing Josephus. I object to citing Josephus as if he wrote WP:RS. That is the difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an RFC. Whatever question you posed with this RFC is seriously muddied by not having asked a precise question in regard to your concerns. This is worded to be all of weikipedia. DRN is not a behavioral noticeboard or the edit warring notice board. Editors have to decide if they want to add content, how much content and in what context to add content. Editors may all agree not to add content with a single hold out. A consensus is not what everyone agrees with, it's what everyone can live with. Can Josephus be used as a reliable source? Yes, knowing that the author, publisher, work itself and the context it is used all effect the strength of a source. Josephus is not a primary source when summarizing Josephus's opinion or text but would be a primary source if just a part of a discussion about the author or his works. I can't make it simpler than that. Work forward not backwards.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"Whatever question you posed with this RFC is seriously muddied by not having asked a precise question in regard to your concerns." Who is "you" in this sentence? Are you under the impression that Tgeorgescu posted the RfC in the first place? Alephb (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you ask? Are you under the impression the reply was meant for them because I didn't indent around the last post?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, you used the word "you" and seemed to be addressing whoever you think it is posted the RfC, unless I'm reading you wrong. Given that Tatelyle posted the original RfC, it would seem strange to address him here because "you" usually refers to someone a little closer in the thread. Unless you thought I posted the RfC. So . . . who's "you"? I'm just having a little trouble following here. Alephb (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You do like to discuss the contributor a lot more than the contribution. You also like to prolong discussion with unnecessary questions. If you are so confused I will have to begin wondering if you have the competence for this discussion of if you are simply failing to get the point. Either way, you seem to fail to understand how a DRN volunteer tries NOT do discuss a person individually and I have already identified you both as the opposing side.

I tell you what, finish out this RFC and just remember, continued use of the talk page to argue without a basis in Wikipedia guidelines and policy is a misuse of the talk page. If you are wondering who I am talking to and why, then you are simply not focused. Not like I wandered over here on my own. I seem to remember someone asking me to respond. Don't like the response? Oh well.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

All right. Next time I'm uncertain about your use of an expression like "you" or "a major contributor to the reliable sources noticeboard" on an RfC page, I'll try to remember that asking for the name of who you're referring to is an offense to the etiquette of the DRN process. I have very little experience with DRN, and you've been around it and Wikipedia longer than I have, so I'll defer to you on that issue and try not to waste your time figuring out who you're talking about. I'll leave those sorts of specific questions for more focused and competent editors to sort out, so that you don't have to feel I'm wasting your time. Alephb (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

"I have very little experience with DRN" It is clear you don't have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. You've been here since 8/15/2007 and with that ten years you've made just 6919 edits. Your inability to grasp simple things or the guidelines themselves leads me to believe you may not be here to build an encyclopedia. Of those 6919 edits, how many are arguing or debating on the talk page? As for me being around a lot longer than you...no. I have been here about 8 months longer than you but my editing is about ten time more than yours and I am behind many other experienced editors with ten years in.

"I'll try to remember that asking for the name of who you're referring to is an offense to the etiquette of the DRN process." I'm sorry but that is not a statement made in good faith.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

About 7% of my edits are to talk pages, although I couldn't off the top of my head give you a percentage for how many involve disagreements. Certainly I use talk pages for plenty of non-disagreement-related routine stuff as well. It's true that I've been here since 2007, but about 99% of my edits are within the last twelve months. You are, of course, free to speculate all you like about whether I'm really here to build an encyclopedia, and at this point I'm not sure defending myself would be at all productive. As you've already questioned my competence, my ability to understand simple things, and so on, I'm not sure continuing to talk would do me any good here. Alephb (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I can easily believe your talk page contributions are as low as you state but that isn't a good thing. Part of collaboration is to discuss edits and contributions to help improve the article. Sure, there are tons of obscure articles that can be worked on with no other input. I cannot claim or accuse you of actually not being here to build an encyclopedia based entirely on your talk page contributions or even lacking competence (which, by the way, simply means not understanding how Wikipedia works, not that you lack competence in the general sense) but I can state that that you might indeed be failing to get the point.

"I'm not sure continuing to talk would do me any good here." not if all you want to do is argue semantics or discuss the contributor and not the contribution. It feels a lot like you, Alephb, have dug in your heels and do not wish to budge. That is fine but it doesn't actually move things forward. I am not sure if you wanted to clarify your position or convince me that there was never an event. Information changes over time, especially in regards to archaeology because the science began as basically looting tombs by adventurers and treasure hunters. Some very early works are no longer considered fully accurate but...almost none are tossed out entirely in terms of educational use or encyclopedic value. Many subjects, such as this, do need some explanation as to how and why science has changed. Consider how the new precision radio carbon dating is now challenging many older, established dates. While it is considered an absolute fact that the new technology is far superior, it still requires analysis by professionals to publish and then we, as editors, must determine how it is to be presented with due weight to academic consensus. Do we just edit all the new dates and data in along with supporting RS and remove all the old content, or do we look to find sources that add the proper context and explain to the reader (through a summary of a reliable source) why there is suddenly a completely different set of dates for a subject discussed for hundreds of yeas?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark, with every comment you make here, I am loosing more and more respect for you and your judgement. You've already dodged an earnest question for no appreciable reason, and now you're making personal attacks with from whatever angle you can find (seriously, criticizing someone for presumably posting too much to talk pages, then turning around and critizing them for not posting enough to talk pages?) and I don't see a single shred of good faith in anything you've said. I get that my earlier comment about your close was harsh, and I've already apologized for it. But if all you're going to do is attack others for not agreeing with you, you seriously need to get lost before someone decides to drag an admin in to take a look at this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, for the future, user's talk page use percentages are available on this handy tool, allowing a critic to decide more efficiently which kind of talk page use critique they prefer to make: [8]. Alephb (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

It's a nice tool. I have it on my user page but it isn't even needed in this instance as my point wasn't whether you had too much or too little talk page discussion but of the nearly 7000 edits over ten years, I am sure not all of that was to article space.

I originally implied in comment that I was speaking directly about the RFC proposal with this; "This is an RFC. Whatever question you posed with this RFC is seriously muddied by not having asked a precise question in regard to your concerns. This is worded to be all of weikipedia." The immediate concern was who I was speaking to in the misstatement and even immediately implied I was suggesting it was another editor with; "Are you under the impression that Tgeorgescu posted the RfC in the first place?". No, actually I thought it was you Alephb but that isn't point. The content was not directly being questioned as wrong but who I was referring to. The very first reply to my original comment was also similarly focused on identification of the "two Editors". Read my first reply; Why do you ask? Are you under the impression the reply was meant for them because I didn't indent around the last post?". I asked specifically if they thought that I was replying to the other editor. I never said I didn't make the mistake. Instead of just stating that neither editor made the RFC proposal this was their comment (bolding for emphasis); "Well, you used the word "you" and seemed to be addressing whoever you think it is posted the RfC, unless I'm reading you wrong. Given that Tatelyle posted the original RfC, it would seem strange to address him here because "you" usually refers to someone a little closer in the thread. Unless you thought I posted the RfC. So . . . who's "you"? I'm just having a little trouble following here" Does it really matter that much to go so far in discussing the editors that the focus is on who I mistakenly referred to? Wouldn't it have just been easier to say, "The RFC was proposed by..."?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. I wasn't sure who you were talking about, so I asked. I had no idea that it was going to be such a major event for you. I'm not going to try and justify the exact wording of a simple question in detail. This is getting really weird. Alephb (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting since that's what I just said you did. You made it a major event but about the editor/editors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark, please drop the stick. I have a high tolerance for abuse directed at me, but when I see abuse directed at another editor I get a twitchy urge to go to ANI. Your line of argument here is getting dangerously close to abusive, and I'm pretty sure that an ANI case is not going to go the way you want it to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't show much concern when it was Tatelyle at the receiving end earlier. Perhaps you aren't as unbiased as you think you are? (although certainly your direct interactions with Tatelyle were constructive, as oppose to what other editors then followed up with) Woscafrench (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Here comes a newbie who does not want to accept from any experienced user the advice that Josephus did not write WP:RS. Don't you think that this pissed them off? A gullible man who takes biblical events at their face value has never been WP:HISTRS and will never be, get over it and come back to discuss serious subjects. All this whining about "Josephus did write RS" is an attack upon the ground rules of this website. It's like willing to teach Intelligent Design in a bona fide biology department. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Get over what? You're the one getting offended by people disagreeing with your religious beliefs. Do you not know the "ground rule" of this website is that there are no rules? Woscafrench (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't show much concern when it was Tatelyle at the receiving end earlier. First off, my comment explicitly stated that I hadn't read through the whole thread, so if Tatelyle was getting grief, I was unaware. Second, Tatelyle is pushing a position that is not only at odds with policy; it's downright fucking ridiculous. There is no world in which Josephus is going to be considered as reliable as a modern scholar. Not even in the same ballpark. Even Herodotus, whom we mentioned earlier, who is ten or even a hundred times the historian Josephus was isn't anywhere near as reliable as a modern historian.

Perhaps you aren't as unbiased as you think you are? If you're suggesting that I'm biased against biblical literalism, then you're only wrong in that you think it's a bias, instead of a studied opinion informed by a great deal of information.

You're the one getting offended by people disagreeing with your religious beliefs. Tgeorge hasn't done anything to suggest that he's getting offended by people disagreeing with his religious beliefs, this is a totally bullshit comment that has no place here.

Do you not know the "ground rule" of this website is that there are no rules? No, it isn't. The ground rule is "This is an encyclopedia." WP:IAR is a policy that we use when other policies prevent us from following the real ground rule. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Seriously (and this is not an "attack piece", it is just common sense advice they seem to ignore), if Tatelyle and Woscafrench continue to insist that Josephus wrote WP:RS, they will feel more at home at Conservapedia or Citizendium, this is not a place to their liking, since it is grounded upon contemporary academic views. Anyway, the idea that a RFC trumps WP:PAGs is downright ridiculous. So, in the "Josephus did write WP:RS" camp we have two editors, one of them has stated that he does not think that Wikipedia would have rules, and the other seems unable to learn or comprehend our WP:RS rule. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorge, to be fair; if treating Josephus like an RS improved the project, I'd be all for ignoring policy and going for it. The problem is that it really obviously doesn't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but rules are there to decide matters in which editors disagree, so that they know who's right and who's wrong about an edit. So, instead of subjectively deciding what improves the project, our rules offer a way of deciding between those who think an edit is an improvement and those who think that that edit is not an improvement. This is in the end politics (not of the liberal or conservative sort, but nevertheless politics). As WP:NOTFREESPEECH puts it, "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchist communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism." Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude any more material about this/ The section on potential dates already covers the possibilities (three, not two) contemplated by reliable sources, and that is sufficient. Including a raft of additional material just "because Josephus" would be undue weight, especially given the nature of the material (simple arithmetic, that ignored a datum, and came to conflicting sums from the same author anyway – not "analysis"). As others have pointed out, Josephus's own writings, like other historical manuscript materials, cannot be used as reliable sources themselves, but are primary sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Not. Josephus' work could hardly been peer-reviewed according to modern academic standards. For similar reasons, we do not verify facts based on the works of Beda Venerabilis or other Medieval or Renaissance historians. Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

13th century Exodus?

Here's an article at biblearchaeology.org 1 by archaeologist Bryant G. Wood discussing the "Rise and Fall of the 13th Century Exodus Conquest Theory." I'm not sure if this website has a reliable publishing process, or if it's just an SPS blog, but the article is well cited. Wood says:

The 13th century exodus-conquest theory was formulated by William F. Albright in the 1930s, based largely on Palestinian archaeological evidence, and promoted by him throughout his career. In the years following Albright’s death in 1971, however, evidence for the proposal dissipated and most Palestinian archaeologists abandoned the idea. ... A strong advocate of the theory is Kenneth A. Kitchen, who recently gave a detailed exposition of it in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament."

Wood is arguing from an evangelical fundamentalist perspective, and advocates for a date of 1446 BC for the Exodus. He equates the Hebrews with the Apiru of the Amarna letters. So here's yet another theory. JerryRussell (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries BCE, all mentioned as dates for the Exodus in less than 24 hours... not a good omen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, Bryant Wood is a genuine archaeologist, but he's an outlier, a believer in the literal truth of the Bible, hence, I guess, his advocacy of a 1446 date (based on 1 Kings). As Tgeorgescu seems to hint, the mainstream view is that the Biblical version of the exodus never happened. Our article does say this, but...PiCo (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The Wood article explains why Finkelstein & Silberman felt that the 13th century exodus theory needed to be answered & defeated. Of all the "Exodus historicity" theories, it's the one that has had the most academic support. JerryRussell (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible new work on the article

It seems the overall view on Tatelyle's suggestion that the article devote significant space to Josephus and a pre-1446 date for the exodus doesn't have support (see the thread above). It also seems that there is support for more treatment of the relationship of the Hyksos to the exodus. My reading of academic sources leads me to support this - it's mentioned quite often.

Some editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the existing Historicity section, which seems like overkill. I'd agree with that, too. It's enough to have a single para, or two or three at most, saying that the biblical exodus isn't supported by evidence. (Which, of course, means there's no date).

So what I propose is that the article has an Origins section divided in two subsections. The first would talk about the origin of the exodus story in the bible (composed in its present form c.400 BCE). That's already there and I doubt it needs expansion. The second section would talk about its origins in memory-history. My reading of the sources leads me to the view that many, maybe most, scholars, think the Persian-era authors, and the traditions behind them, drew on something real and wasn't just outright invention. The Hyksos story is one of those supposed sources, Akhenaten another, and there are others (the origin of Moses, for example, but also things like Batto's ideas on the mythic elements in the Red Sea story).

Perhaps we could also have something on the Exodus story in later tradition - I did come across something on this, but not sure it's really much to say.

Ideas and views? PiCo (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I mostly like the organization of the existing 'historicity' section. It lists the primary arguments against literal historicity, each in its own subsection. That is, 'Numbers and Logistics', 'Archaeology', 'Anachronisms', 'Chronology', and 'Route'. I don't see the length of any of the sub-sections as excessive.

The subsection on 'Dating the Exodus' is like the item on the SAT test question that doesn't fit with the rest, right? All the other subsections give reasons why historicity is doubted. This subsection presumes that it did happen, and asks "when"? I think the facts covered in this subsection could be distributed elsewhere in the article, and this subsection could be deleted.

The article also already has a section on "Possible sources and parallels", and this needs to be expanded. The subsection on 'Manetho and the Hyksos' could give more information about Josephus' own views, for example. We could add a subsection about 'Akhenaten and the Amarna period'; a subsection about the 'Apiru' (which is basically Bryant Wood's theory); and maybe a subsection about the 'mixed multitude' theory.

Then at the end we could add a section about "Historicity theories" which would say something like "While the vast majority of scholars believe that the Exodus didn't happen, a few continue to say that it did. For example, Kitchen says X because Y, Osman says W because Z," etc. JerryRussell (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell, I've tried to reflect your suggestions by moving material around. I'll do some more work when I have time. PiCo (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ipuwer: I deleted that section because it's unnecessary to go into so much detail. I sentence saying there's no connection to the exodus will be enough (I'll add that soon). The article on Ipuwer is there for anyone wanting more detail. Please remember also that I was the one who originally wrote the section. PiCo (talk) 11:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The "Apiru" are covered in more detail in the article Habiru. There have been various attempts to connect the Habiru to the Hebrews, but the term "Habiru" seems to have been used for a fairly diverse grouping of foreigners. Dimadick (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And the apiru belong to the wrong period of history - they belong to the Bronze Age, and the Israelites don't appear until later. Still, there could be a linguistic link and it's worth discussing.PiCo (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would support PiCo's view of a rewrite. All I was ever asking for is equal treatment for the modern assumed biblical date and the earlier Josephus date. There is no point giving details for one, and excluding the other. That is not what the Wiki reader is expecting from an encyclopaedia - they want all the pertinent details. Especially when they come from someone as influential as Flavius Josephus - who had access to manuscripts that are no longer extant, and had access to the original Temple Torah, which had to be at least 1,600 years older than any extant Torah that modern scholars work from.

Although I prefer the Josephus date, because I see more merit and evidence in it, I never said it should preclude the assumed biblical date, nor prevent a mention of a link to the Amarna 'exodus'. They are all valid precursors to the exentual Exodus text in its final form, and each could have effected the eventual composition. (Josephus makes this clear, when he argues strongly for a link to the Hyksos, but vehemently rejects a link to the 'lepers and maimed priests', which may have been a reference to Amarna). Tatelyle (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I would not call it a wrong period. Most efforts to place the Patriarchs of the Genesis and the Exodus within a real-world historical context, seem to place these figures in the Bronze Age (c. 3300-1200 BC). The relevant books of the Bible were written in the Iron Age, but they depict the lives of distant ancestors of historical Israelites. Placing the setting centuries or millennia before the time of writing. I have not come across theories placing a historical Moses within the Iron Age or the Neolithic.

The typical guesswork concerning the identity of the Pharaohs in the Book of Exodus (in the absence of specific names or personal descriptions) seems to include every Egyptian dynasty between the 13th and the 20th. Also the later Biblical accounts concerning Solomon having a Pharaoh as a father-in-law have led to speculation about this Pharaoh being a member of the 21st or 22nd dynasty. If one ascribes to these theories, Solomon's ancestors would be contemporaries with earlier dynasties. Dimadick (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle, the problem of either 1258 BCE or 1550 BCE is a false dilemma, since there are literally several dozens of scholarly dates for the Exodus. So, there is no shortage of them. 1258 BCE has been privileged because it has (or had) the most academic support. According to Lawrence T. Geraty - Dates for the Exodus I Have Known on YouTube, those who grant historicity to the Exodus cannot agree among themselves upon when it would have taken place. It is like Bart Ehrman being asked why he doesn't render the opposite view. His reply was that it isn't like there were two views to choose from, it is more like having 300 views to choose from. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with PiCo's re-organization of the material, and I've updated the section title 3.2 to "Behind the Exodus traditions: Possible sources and parallels" for further clarification of the contents of the section.

It may be true that there are dozens of scholarly dates for the exodus (or, dozens of historical events and figures which have been proposed as sources & parallels). But, my sense is that there are three that get the lion's share of attention in the scholarly literature as well as popular culture. These are (1) Exodus = Hyksos expulsion; (2) Exodus = Followers of Akhenaten, driven from Israel at the end of the Amarna period; (3) Exodus - Whatever happened that caused the destruction layer allegedly late 13th century BC in Hazor, Debir, Bethel and Lachish.

Maybe add two more to that list: Peter James' association with the Hyksos arrival (rather than their departure), and Wood's idea for the association of the invading Hebrews with the Apiru.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryRussell (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Neolithic says: 'Most efforts to place the Patriarchs of the Genesis and the Exodus within a real-world historical context, seem to place these figures in the Bronze Age (c. 3300-1200 BC).'

But there is a big difference between the Middle Bronze Age MBA, and the Late Bronze Age LBA. During the MBA the Transjordan was populated with major fortified cities, which were destroyed at this time, and this agrees very well with the biblical account of an armed conquest of that region. And this agrees well with the notion by Josephus that the Israelites were the Hyksos. In great contrast, during the LBA the Transjordan was sparcely populated, and nothing in this era agrees with the biblical (and Josephus) accounts. It is during this LBA era that Finkelstein and Silberman can find NO EVIDENCE of the Exodus. Well, if you are looking in the wrong era, that is hardly surprising. Tatelyle (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As I've said before, Finkelstein and Silberman do in fact address the idea of an earlier date for the Exodus, and provide reasons for why they, and most scholars, have never bought into an Exodus in the 15th century or earlier. At this point, I'm puzzled by your continued implication that they overlooked the earlier possibility. It also doesn't particularly matter whether you, or any other editor, think Silberman and Feinstein make sense here. What matters is what reliable sources think about the Exodus. We're not here to propose our own personal cases for whether particular things are true or not. Nor is the rejection of an earlier Exodus unique to Silberman and Finkelstein. It is found across the board among mainstream figures in biblical scholarship. William Dever, probably the most well-known archeologist on the so-called "maximalist" side (maximalists believe that a great deal of the Bible is historically reliable), describes the situation this way in his Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

"“The specific time frame for the Exodus is now confirmed as the middle to late 13th century B.C., not the 15th century B.C. as formerly thought. The old “high” date, based on imprecise and contradictory biblical schemes of chronology, was determined using the following calculations: Work began on the Jerusalem Temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, and that was 48o years after the Exodus (1 Kings 6:1). Since we know that Solomon died in 930 B.C. (14:25-28; “Shishak” = Sheshonq I, now ca. 945-924 B.C.), and he reigned 40 years (11:42), he would have ascended the throne in 970. Thus we add 48o to 966 to get 1446 B.C. - the exact date of the Exodus. But such a high date does not accord at all with the archaeological record in Palestine; today only a handful of diehard fundamentalists would argue in its favor.

“All authorities today agree that the major break in the archaeological sequence in Palestine that would have to be correlated with a shift from “Canaanite” to “Israelite” culture occurred at the end of the Bronze Age, ca. 1250-1150 B.C. This, then, is the Bronze Age, ca. 1250-1150 B.C. This, then, is the actual historical context for the biblical story we know, even though the writers do not tell us that (and, writing centuries later, without the benefit of modern scientific knowledge, could not actually have known it). For instance, the biblical writers speak again and again of the villain of the piece, referring to him simply as “Pharaoh.” This personage, if historical, can only be the infamous Ramses II of the 19th Dynasty (ca. 1290-1224 B.c.).”

This is not a matter of Tatelyle versus Finkelstein and Silberman. This is a matter of Tatelyle versus the field of biblical studies. Alephb (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, so many objections have been brought to Josephus being reliable that we no longer trust Tatelyle to render an adequate view of his story. So my advice to him is: first, get your story straight (you seem to be confused about many details), make a list of events about which you claim that Josephus is accurate, list their purported dates, state which present-day scholars affirm such story (they have to be professors and published at reliable presses). What we cannot do is take at face value a story which is built on shifting sands, wherein any attempt at falsification is rejected through the ad hoc moving of the purported event to another historical period. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No. If editors don't like another editor or don't trust them, then it is up to you to demonstrate that their behavior or their opinion is incorrect. We do not use the talk page to discuss the editor in an attempt to discredit them or use a discussion as an excuse to add cause to distrust someone. It's not about the editor, it's about the contribution. You cannot impose your own ban of an editor on a page as a consensus. Take it to ANI or collaborate and work together without trying to demonize each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

“Trust comes on foot, but leaves on horseback”. It is my sincere impression that the OP has not advanced a clear and coherent report of Josephus' view and seems confused about its details/implications. It could be just my impression, but rejecting all objections through the ad hoc picking of another date for the objected event did not help. In fact, I doubt that a coherent picture of Josephus' view could be given, seen that Josephus committed several arithmetical errors and has advanced different datings for one and the same event. So, sooner or later, Josephus' view gets corrected through a present-day insight: it might be WP:OR or it might be a serious scholar. E.g. Josephus (at least in one instance) places the Exodus in the 17th century, Tatelyle claims that Josephus really meant the 16th century and that there was a second Exodus in the 14th century. So there is a claim that in the 16th century hundreds of thousands have left Egypt and in the 14th century 80 000 people have left Egypt and these two combined would be what the Bible reports as the Exodus. As a source for the Amarna stuff has been given a newspaper article, and the scholar who wrote the article has emphatically stated "Evidence there is none". No scholarly source has been given for all this, Tatelyle's personal analysis of Josephus' writings excepted. So, there is nothing to demonstrate about Tatelyle's view: the WP:BURDEN is upon him to find scholarly sources which affirm what he claims. He has to present verification for his claim. Otherwise the WP:RS/AC has already been shown in the article, quoting both the majority view and significant minority views (like Hoffmeier and Kitchen). Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

... ... I see Tgeorsescu is keeping up the personal attacks, saying this is all Tatelyle' own opinions and works. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was asked to provide modern scholarly opinion on Josephus's assertions, and did so - providing the opinions of two professors. But that update was deleted, because the other editors did not like my professors. So these editors have become the guardians of what is considered primary research; of who is considered a 'reliable' source; and which modern scholarly opinions are allowable. ... But Mark Miller has rightly pointed out that Joseohus is a secondary source who can be considered reliable (if with caution and with appended caveats). I don't mind caveats being added to the assertions that Josephus makes.

... ... And the book by Finkelstein and Silberman has also been misrepresented once more by these editors. See my extensive comments on that book in a section above (many separate paragrphs). At no time do F&S analyse the similarities between the Hyksos Exodus and the Israelite Exodus, and this has been made clear in private correspondence with Prof Israel Finkelstein, who said such a comparison was "a non-starter". So they did not consider any similarities, because they do not believe this avenue of research worthwhile. The only comparison they make is that a memory of the 'similar sounding' Hyksos Exodus may have been included in the biblical version, for literary purposes, which is why it became 'similar sounding'. So there is NO POINT using F&S as modern scholarship regards Josephus' assertions, because they make no analysis. And may I remind you that F&S do not mention Flavius Josephus once. Not once. So the opinions of F&S are totally irrellevant, when judging whether Josephus' assertions about the Hyksos are worthwhile for inclusion in this Wiki article.

... ... And again the assertions of Josephus are being deliberately misinterpreted here. Josephus does indeed mention a 16th century date for the Exodus, but let us leave these dates aside for a minute. More specifically Josephus, having just related the story of the Hyksos exodus, says the Hyksos were correctly called Shepherds, because the Israelites were indeed shepherds. And the Hyksos were correctly called Captives, because the Israelites were captives. (Against Apion 1:14). The identification of the Israelites with the Hyksos could not be more clear. He then says that the Hyksos were "our people" (Against Apion 1:26). Again the implication is clear.

... ... Since Mark Miller has rightly identified Josephus as a reliable source who can be quoted, these assertions and analyses of ancient history by Josephus should be included. Even if a caveat is added that much of modern scholarship no longer agrees with Josephus' analysis. So it is right and proper that the The Exodus article has two (or more) sections representing the various options for the Exodus chronology. A Hyksos-Israelite Exodus chronology; an Amarna-Israelite Exodus chronology; and a 13th century Israelite Exodus chronology. (The latter being purely based upon the name Pi Ramesses in the Torah and has no other redeeming features, which is why it was so easy for F&S to discredit it. Had F&S done a proper analysis of the 16th century Hyksos-Israelite Exodus, their task would have been much more challenging.).

Tatelyle (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are two sources: Rosenberg and Assmann. About Rosenberg: it is not a scholarly source, it is a newspaper article sketching a view of the Exodus and which clearly states there is no evidence for such view the Exodus. Assmann says: "Three different interpretations have been proposed for this story. ... But all three interpretations have their weak points. ... Thus the legend of the thirteen-year rule of the lepers can be seen as collapsing reminiscences of Amarna with memories of the Hyksos, experiences of Assyrian conquest, Persian and Greek rule, and ultimately the encounter with the Jews." Assmann does not agree with Josephus, keywords: legend, collapsing... memories. So, Rosenberg's article is a weak source, it is not a breakthrough, it is just speculation. And Assmann does not agree with your case. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As I can see it, Tatelyle clearly has an WP:AGENDA in proving Josephus being accurately associating the Israelites with the Hyksos. And no, Josephus is not a secondary source per Wikipolicies WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:WPNOTRS, and WP:PSTS and not Mark Miller. And the main question...Is Josephus an accurate source when it comes to the historicity of the Exodus? To summeraize academia consensus, no. And as I can tell in the RfC, the Wikicommunity doesn't favor Josephus either. So Tatelyle, you can cherrypick all the content you like from sources per WP:SYNTH, manipulate all the Wikipolicies, and accuse editors of personal attacks, you're just going to hit another brick in the wall. Your behavior as I would summarize it, simply WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

... Tgeorgescu mentions Rosenberg and Assmann. I am not sure what they have to do with this discussion, as I have never mentioned them. The professors I cited were Henstenberg and Freund. Perhaps Tgeorgescu can explain.

... JudeccaXIII says Josephus is not a reliable source, and yet Mark Miller has already stated that: "Can Josephus be used as a reliable source? Yes, knowing that the author, publisher, work itself and the context it is used all effect the strength of a source." And clearly Miller is the more correct here, as direct quotes from Josephus are used throughout Wiki, without modern analysis, especially in regard to events in 1st century Judaea.

... JudeccaXIII says I have an agenda in proving Josephus correct. I am sure there is WP that demonstrates that a Wiki topic does NOT need to be proven correct. Indeed the entire The Exodus page is currently worded to emphasise that this subject is entirely wrong - a complete myth or a fable. But it is still a Wiki article. The analysis of the Exodus by Josephus is no different to mentioning the biblical Exodus narrative, or the similarities with the Amarna episode (which already gets a mention). It is just one more interesting possibility that has been mentioned by both modern scholarship and also by a venerable Jewish historian (Josephus). Indeed, I could simply quote F&S in this Wiki page, to say there are 'similarities' beween the Israelite Exodus and Hyksos Exodus.

... But the assertion by Josephus is more interesting, as he says that the Israelites were the Hyksos, and this is as worthy of mention and discussion within Wiki, as the mention by the Torah that there was an Exodus. And it matters not if Josephus was 100% correct, just as it matters not if the account of the Exodus is correct, it is still a valid topic for discussion. It is just a shame that F&S, those really reliable scholars who can be mentioned, did not even mention Josephus in thier analysis. Which is a strange lacuna in their research - omitting Judaism's greatest historian.

... And since we are now discussing editor opinions, it is my opinion that it is JudeccaXIII and Tgeorgescu who appear have an agenda. (Not liking any association between the Israelites and the Hyksos). At the very beginning I was told that Josephus was a primary source and could not be used, but I demonstrated he was not primary for the Exodus era. Yet my update was still deleted. I was told I needed modern scholarly opinion, so I provided it. Yet my update was still deleted. I was told that my modern references had poor reviews or were too early, but I demonstrated good reviews, and that Wiki likes earlier scholarly references. Yet my update was still deleted. Mark Miller has asserted that Josephus can be considered reliable and quotable, and yet this is again being contested. ... Perhaps JudeccaXIII and Tgeorgescu could confirm here that they have no fundamental objection to the link between the Hyksos and the Israelites being discussed on Wiki - that they are genuinely arguing policy and not arguing to remove content simply because they disagree with it.

Tatelyle (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no genuine objection against citing Josephus as notable opinion. I do have an objection against citing Josephus as fact. Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg died in 1869. Are you kidding me: is this present-day scholarship? Freund's book got scathing reviews for essentially being an ego trip (or kind of stuff for vanity presses), instead of archaeological scholarship. What is Freund notable for? For discovering Atlantis! That says enough about the kind of scholarship he is doing: it is worse than being proven wrong, it is woo. That would be like quoting Dr. Oz for medical claims in wikivoice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: I think Tatelyle may have misunderstood you. Tatelyle wrote "Mark Miller has already stated that: "Can Josephus be used as a reliable source? Yes, knowing that the author, publisher, work itself and the context it is used all effect the strength of a source." And clearly Miller is the more correct here, as direct quotes from Josephus are used throughout Wiki, without modern analysis, especially in regard to events in 1st century Judaea." You mentioned context, which of course is important here. I have already said that Josephus can be used, attributed, for 1st century Judea, although I wouldn't trust him any more than I would Tacitus. But I don't think we can use him as a reliable source for events that, if they occurred, and I don't think they did, were many many generations before he was born. I'd prefer to use him through the views of modern scholarship. Freund and Hengstenberg aren't acceptable for the reasons given above. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the editor may be placing too much weight on only a part of what I am saying. But oddly enough, I try to clarify myself below. We edit conflicted.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"It is my sincere impression that the OP has not advanced a clear and coherent report of Josephus' view and seems confused about its details/implications. It could be just my impression, but rejecting all objections through the ad hoc picking of another date for the objected event did not help. In fact, I doubt that a coherent picture of Josephus' view could be given, seen that Josephus committed several arithmetical errors and has advanced different datings for one and the same event." Be open minded. We are not trying to make conclusions here, just summarizing what the sources state. It may sound like a logical argument to make but it can be said of many authors who are sourced on Wikipedia, that they make mistakes in the actual source being referenced but that does not disqualify them or the source unless the context is completely different.

"So, sooner or later, Josephus' view gets corrected through a present-day insight: it might be WP:OR or it might be a serious scholar. E.g. Josephus (at least in one instance) places the Exodus in the 17th century" How do you know this? Is it because it has been debated in scholarly works? If even just to correct Josephus' opinion as sourced through strong references, wouldn't that be within the scope of the article?

"As a source for the Amarna stuff has been given a newspaper article, and the scholar who wrote the article has emphatically stated "Evidence there is none". A newspaper article written by a scholar is not scholarly work. It would be considered an opinion piece in most instances about history especially if it is a discussion of their own work. It would not be independent of the subject if they write an article about their own discoveries.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Donald Redford in "Egypt, Cannan and Israel in Ancient Times"(1992, p. 412) states that the Exodus account is a Canaanite version of the story of the Hyksos expulsion. Redford is quoted in Finkelstein & Silberman, who admit that Redford might be correct. The view that the Exodus and the Hyksos expulsion were one and the same, is also the subject of a popular History Channel documentary produced by James Cameron, The Exodus Decoded. Assmann also mentions the comparison, but views it as a literary inversion more than a historical account. And of course, Josephus said that the Hyksos were the Hebrews. At the same time, I understand that most historians reject the equation for a variety of reasons. Why not spell this out in the article? JerryRussell (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. There's probably all sorts of ways to do that right and all sorts of ways to do that wrong, but since it looks like you've gathered up a decent little pile of sources and you've been reasoning through the issues involved in what looks to me like a reasonable way to me. It's worth a shot. Alephb (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell says: "...most historians reject the equation for a variety of reasons. (but )why not spell this out in the article?".

Which is what I have suggested all along. I have never argued that Josephus is the font of all knowledge - just that he is probably Judaism's greatest chronicler, who happens to have a unique view of the history of the Jewish people. He may be completely wrong, just as the entire Exodus story may be completely wrong, but his insight is worth recording and repeating for posterity.

These alternate views and arguments may not be in fashion at present, but who knows what the future may bring? Had Homer not recorded the legends of the era, would Troy have ever been discovered? Did Homer need to be 100% correct before he could be published? Had Ventris not advanced his hairbrained theory that the Mycenaeans spoke proto-Greek, would Linear-B have ever been decyphered? Did Ventris need to be 100% correct before he could be published?

I could go on, but I think you get the drift. A valuable insight by an esteemed chronicler is a valuable insight, even if it eventually proves to be incorrect - just as an incorrect mathematical formula can act as a springboard to greater enlightenment an eventual cry of 'eureka'.

Tatelyle (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

In fact, only PiCo was opposed to mentioning Josephus' view, the rest of your opposition is opposed to quoting Josephus as WP:RS. Big difference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I've made an attempt to make an edit along the lines I suggested above. The citations need some cleanup, and I promise I'll take care of this in a few days if my edit basically survives. However, I confess being puzzled about my own sentence "Most modern historians reject any identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites, for a variety of reasons." I can think of a few reasons that have been given, but none of them actually strike me as making any sense at all. So I'm leaving it to others to provide citations or an explanation of this allegedly dominant viewpoint. JerryRussell (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I thought that the experienced editors agreed that Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg is outdated (WP:SOURCETYPES), Freund has too often peddled woo (WP:FRINGE) and that The Exodus Decoded should be consulted for more information. But I see a problem with WP:ONEWAY for mentioning it in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the "allegedly dominant viewpoint," I've collected some potentially useful citations and deposited below, so as not to disrupt the flow of this thread too much. I think it's clear that the scholarly mainstream doesn't think that the Hyksos were the Israelites, whatever echoes of the Hyksos saga might have found their ways into biblical tradition. Certainly, I could use a better quote if anyone knows how to scrounge one up, but I think the quotes below are pretty good. I second the concern about citing Freund, who thinks he has discovered Atlantis. And any use of Hengstenberg, I think, should make it clear to the readers that he represents an era very different from the current one in biblical scholarship. Some or many readers may not come to the article realizing that a lot has changed over that time. Alephb (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I, for one, would be willing to give up Hegstenberg if we can keep Josephus and Redford as sources. The movie, I think, should be kept because of its notoriety. Freund works for a reputable university, his book has a reputable publisher, and it got good reviews as well as bad. Writing about Atlantis doesn't automatically prove that an author is fringe, either. What exactly did he say about Atlantis? JerryRussell (talk) 06:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Freund has starred in some documentaries, including one wherein he claims that he (co)discovered Atlantis. Reputable archaeologists were horrified by such idea. About his book: it might be true, it might be false, anyway it is more about Freund (how great he is and his musings about archaeology) than about archaeological scholarship (well, to be fair, it is more about textual criticism than about archaeology). Also, Amazon reviews claim that it is riddled with errors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read Freund's work on Atlantis, but here's a newspaper story, in which the non-Freund authorities cited think he's being irrational. [9] As far as I can tell, mainstream archaeologists have not considered his theory worth mentioning in scholarly journals. Another author who has been repeatedly mentioned above (Ahmed Osman), thinks Jesus was actually King Tut. The fact that, after roughly a month of discussion, these are apparently the best sources anyone's found saying that the Israelites were the Hyksos should probably tell us something about the level of academic support for the idea. Among living people, can you think of anyone who equates Israelites with Hyksos who hasn't discovered Atlantis or alleged that Jesus was a Pharaoh? The discussion has been very long so I might have missed someone.Alephb (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Side note -- can we get a title for the Redford book? Right now it's just cited in the article as "Redford & 1992".Alephb (talk) 07:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

If we go by F&S, it's Donald B. Redford (1992). Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-03606-9. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry-Russel said: Most modern historians reject any identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites, for a variety of reasons..

Yes, the lack of modern comparisons between the Israelites and Hyksos is astounding, and possibly due to religio-political conformity pressures. The dreaded 'consensus'. Certain topics have become taboo in the 20th century, while earlier historians like Hengstenberg were free to record their thoughts. So I do have to laugh, when people say that modern scolarship is better than in the Victorian era.

This is the trouble with people railling that an author 'wrote about Atlantis', in an attempt to villify them and close down discussion. People also wrote about Troy, and no doubt some editors here would try to villify them too - were it not for the discovery of Troy. And this villification is despite the legend of Atlantis bearing many similarities with the destruction of Santorini. Should the investigation of Santorini result in an immediate expulsion from a university? Really?

Finkelstein's analysis of the Hyksos it typical of modern scholarship. The closest he gets to an analysis of Hyksos-Israelite similarities, is to say that there is no mention of the Israelites at the time of the Hyksos. Yeah, well that is not surprising, if they were called 'Hyksos' in that era. And this is the modern scholarship, that is preferred here?

I will take a look at the new revisions later this weekend. Tatelyle (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that while Finkelstein and Silberman's Bible Unearthed is a broad overview of a large number of issues involving the relationship of the Bible to history, the bibliographies in the book do lead the reader to much longer discussions of the various issues involved. Some issues they didn't discuss at great length because they were writing a book, not an Encyclopedia. They didn't particularly need to lay out the case against "the Hyksos are the Israelites" in great depth because the scholarly world has already concluded that the Hyksos aren't the Israelites. So they briefly summarized some of those reasons and provided the reader with all sorts of books that go into further depth on many of their sub-topics. One of those books in Donald Redford's Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, which I've just started reading relevant chapters of. It lays out a mainstream set of ideas on the Hyksos and the Israelites in greater depth. So does William Dever (focusing more on Israelite origins than the Hyksos), in Who Were the Ancient Israelites and Where Did They Come From? Just because one particular book dismisses the Hyksos = Israel equation in just a few pages doesn't mean there isn't a substantial literature on the Hyksos and on the Israelites that sheds more light on the relationship between the two groups.

If your goal is to challenge the consensus of modern scholarship, the place to do that really isn't Wikipedia talk pages. Wikipedia exists to pass on the results of up-to-date scholarship, and to summarize significant minority views within modern scholarship in somewhat less detail, and not as a location for revising the consensus or trying to convince people the consensus is wrong. If you want to do that, the best outlet would be to try to publish your opinions in peer-reviewed outlets. If they won't publish you, then maybe you could get a blog or something and try to change minds that way. But Wikipedia isn't here to correct or get ahead of mainstream scholarship. If you want to move Wikipedia's overall approach on the Exodus, the most efficient way to do that -- the only way to do that -- is to try and change the current scholarly consensus, not to convince Wikipedians that the scholarly consensus is wrong. If you can convince the scholarly world that the Hyksos were the Israelites, I and the other Wikipedians will happily edit Wikipedia to reflect that view. That's how Wikipedia works.Alephb (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's true, "I came here to tell you that WP:RS/AC got it all wrong!" is bizarre behavior for a Wikipedia editor. While one has freedom of belief, Wikipedia is not the avenue for expressing such beliefs. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTFREESPEECH. See e.g. [10]. Otherwise, advocates of pseudoscience find sometimes their home in universities, e.g. Michael Behe still teaches in a university, same applies to transpersonal psychology supporters. According to WP:FLAT, the claim of being persecuted like Galileo does not help one gain support inside Wikipedia. It is more often than not a symptom of pushing WP:FRINGE viewpoints. So shouting "Persecution!" is bogus. But I agree that Freund could become a very big name if it becomes clear that he really discovered Atlantis. Till now there is no evidence that he did so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, here we go again. I discuss the topic and academic views on that topic, and you turn that around to vilify an editor. Same old, same old. Look, we already have enough academic and historical discussion on the question of Hyksos VS Israelites, but some editors have done everything in their power to prevent that discussion. Two editorial roadblocks preventing enlightenment. I was merely lamenting the large number of academics who will not mention those similarities, including the thread favorite - Finkelstein. In private correspondence he said that the Hyksos vs Israelite issue: "is baseless – a non-starter which takes research back to the 1950s." So there you go - the perfect academic to quote in this Wiki article, while everyone else is to be branded as 'unreliable' because their views are unpopular with certain editors. Tatelyle (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

This is about a policy we have at Wikipedia called WP:FRINGE. It's not an optional idea that some editors prefer, it's a content guideline. So far, the only two living figures I have seen cited as supporting the "Hyksos are Israelites" claim are one who thinks he discovered Atlantis and one who thinks Jesus was king Tut. This isn't about Finkelstein -- Finkelstein's very public opponent William Dever the same thing about the "Hyksos are Israelites" theory, as do Geraty, Collins, Grabbe, and most likely every single living academic cited in our enormous bibliography section. The accusation that we're branding "everyone else" other than Finkelstein as unreliable is false. Please stop misrepresenting the things we're saying. Finkelstein and Silberman make up only two of the 69 citations this article has. Alephb (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

True, we don't do vilification for the sake of smearing scholars, but for a website which is essentially a huge appeal to authority, scholarly reputation matters a lot. Indulging in fringe or non-mainstream views matters a lot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a serious misconception, that Wikipedia is "essentially a huge appeal to authority". As the cited article states, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. On the contrary, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That is, a compendium of all views that have been published by reliable sources. As editors, we do not judge what is true or false, although we do gauge the extent of scholarly support for each viewpoint. And as per WP:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.JerryRussell (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The appeal to authority is not in itself fallacious. It would be a fallacy to quote an auto mechanic upon what is the best treatment for small cells lung cancer, but it would not be a fallacy to quote a professor of medicine upon what is the best treatment for it. Of course, it would be a fallacy to claim that the professor would be infallible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that all appeals to authority are fallacious. But the truth of any valid proposition does not depend on the authority, but rather on the evidence and reasons given by the authority for the proposition. So where is the expert authority for your view that Wikipedia is "essentially a huge appeal to authority". Who else has even said that? It sounds like original research to me. JerryRussell (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Basically, it is all written in WP:RS and WP:VER: if appeal to authority would be outlawed, Wikimedia Foundation would be branded as a criminal organization. See e.g. [11]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Ahaha, so @Ian.thomson: agrees with you. I still say that there is no authority for this view in the policies cited. Wikipedia certainly does recognize and repeat arguments from authority, but does not exclude other viewpoints. We have an article Historicity of Jesus which rightly states that virtually all Biblical scholars agree that Jesus existed. But that article also includes a link to Christ myth theory, where the case to the contrary is presented accurately and, as much as possible, without bias. If Wikipedia were nothing but an appeal to the academic consensus, that fringe article CMT wouldn't even exist, and the link in the main article would be prohibited by WP:ONEWAY. But of course the fringe article does exist, and the link has survived the editorial consensus process also. JerryRussell (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: I just got off work, I'm not agreeing to anything that doesn't involve a pretty lady between 18-45 and am not reading anything beyond the two posts above me (and so am only speaking on general principles than on this article). And articles about fringe topics are supposed to be about academic assessment of those fringe topics (citing proponent sources as we would cite a subject's own statements about themselves). That said, if there is an academic assessment of a fringe position, we should include it somewhere on the site. Not all minority positions are necessarily fringe, either. But again, I'm not entirely sure what's going on. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ian, sorry if this came as a distraction. I just wanted to let you know you've been linked and quoted in the above discussion. JerryRussell (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Scholarly Consensus vis-a-vis Hyksos = Israelite

I've drawn up a list of references that might be useful if and when we get to clarifying how mainstream scholarship views the Israelite = Hyksos equation. If anyone has any they'd like to add, please comment. What I desire most of all is to see clear statement, preferably using the term "consensus" or equivalent phrases, that can be used in summarizing the state of things.

I'm looking for a clear quote by a mainstream scholar who says "The Hyksos are not the Israelites and most or all scholars agree with me." I haven't found yet one that direct, but I have found a batch of quotes which pretty clearly indicate that most scholars don't buy "Hyksos are Israelites." My impression is that this is because there's basically no mainstream scholars discussing the question anymore. Of course, whether the Exodus narrative contains some traces of memory of the Hyksos is a less strong claim, and is pretty common. So far, the closest thing I've found is by Ahmed Osman. "Nobody today takes seriously Josephus's identification of the Hyksos and the Israelites as the same people." I have reservations about using him as a source, even just for establishing this scholarly consensus; he clearly espouses some very fringe views. However, in less direct ways its easy to see that the scholarly consensus does not equate the Hyksos expulsion (16th century) with the Exodus, primarily in the way contemporary scholars talk about dates. The following quotes, especially the last one, might help one or more editors as they work on how mainstream scholarship views the Hyksos = Israelite equation.

"But it is primarily the archaeological evidence from excavated Palestinian sites that has been used to bolster the current scholarly consensus that if there was an Israelite Exodus from Egypt, it must have occurred sometime during the 19th 13th century."

"First, the current consensus of archeologists is that the new settlements in the central highlands in the Iron age, which are usually taken to be Israelite or Proto-Israelite, did not result from invasion or immigration, but that the material culture was essentially Canaanite. Consequently, defenders of the Exodus have to reduce its scope, so that it only involved a small group that had no impact on the material culture, or suggest that the biblical story conflates several mini-Exoduses that took place over a few centuries."

"The consensus of archeologists at the beginning of the 21st century is that the early Israelites evolved within the land and culture of Canaan. There is no archeological evidence that they came from either Mesopotamia or Egypt."

I hope one or more of those prove useful.Alephb (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's another.

"A few scholars have tried to relate the exodus to the Hyksos, but they were anticipated by Josephus or — even more likely — were inspired by him. But, in fact, there is little in any account of the Hyksos that suggests Israelites and nothing that suggests an exodus."Alephb (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's an analogy that might be helpful. Would anyone say that the Plymouth colonists were the American people? In one sense this is obviously false: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution hadn't been written yet. So, politically, they were not American. Also, millions of immigrants of many races and nationalities poured into the US for hundreds of years afterwards. So the Plymouth contingent represented a tiny percentage of Americans, and they were far from representative of the broad ethnic makeup of the later culture. Yet the Pilgrims are also regarded as prototypical, and revered as such in the Turkey Day holiday. (And also heavily criticized for their imperialist treatment of the native Americans they encountered.) So in a sense they were the American people, and in another sense they weren't.

Most scholars do say that the Hyksos were Canaanites. Also, I see broad agreement that the early Israelite culture developed out of Canaanite culture, but long after the Hyksos were driven from Egypt. And, the influence of Egyptian culture on both the later Canaanites and Israelites can hardly be denied.

The Grabbe quote doesn't exactly claim a scholarly consensus, as it admits that "a few scholars have tried to relate the exodus to the Hyksos." But I'm puzzled by the statement that nothing in any account of the Hyksos suggests an exodus. In fact, by all accounts, the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt and into Palestine, and there is archaeological evidence to this effect. JerryRussell (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there's a wide range of scholarly opinions, on a continuum from "the Hyksos were the Israelites in a pretty straightforward way" (the fringe view) to "the Hyksos were Canaanites and their story wound up as part of the cultural background later when some Canaanites began to consider themselves Israelites" (a common view) to "the Exodus story in no way reflects anything about the Hyksos" (I'd have to dig around more to try and get a fix on whether this is a common view). I posted these quotes to provide material for sharpening the sentence "Most modern historians reject any identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites, for a variety of reasons.[citation needed]". I definitely don't want to give the impression that these quotes rule out all relationships between Hyksos and Israel -- just that they mean, for the most simple kind of relationship (that the two are two names for the same people), that modern scholars don't buy it. We agree on that much.

Is there archaeological evidence of the Hyksos settling in Canaan? I know there's evidence that the Hyksos king Khamudi was kicked out of Egypt, but I'm fuzzy on whether there's any agreement that a significant number of Hyksos were exiled to Canaan. Some number of Hyksos rulers get expelled from Avaris, and wind up in Sharuhen, which is then destroyed by Egypt under Ahmose I. I'm not sure if there's any noticeable present of Hyksos after that, except as a general term for Asiatics used by Egyptians.

The Plymouth analogy looks helpful to me as setting out one possible scenario, but, to push back a little, I'm not sure how widespread the view would be that there was a distinctive Hyksos settlement in Canaan after the expulsion of Khamudi (and some undetermined number of others). To put it this way: the expulsion of Khamudi occurs in 1550, and the first mention of the name "Israel" comes about 1220 or 1208. The Amarna letters, our most detailed source on the government of Canaan between the two periods, date around something like 1330. Between the founding of the Plymouth colony, we can trace how the Plymouth colony was incorporated into the Massachussets Bay colony, which became Massachussets, which became one of the founding states. The Amarna letters, as far as I know, don't seem to record any group that can be positively identified as a successor to the Hyksos, or as a predecessor to the Israelites. Whatever number of Hyksos came to Canaan (100? 1,000? 10,000?), it seems that they disappeared into the broader Canaanite society, and that Israel was an internal development in which some Canaanites began to become "Israel," culturally distinct from other Canaanites, around say 1250ish. Alephb (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Alephb:, thanks for your comments, and cleanup edits. Also, thanks very much for the quotes to help out with my citation needed. I agree that it's impossible to trace what happened to the Hyksos after Sharuhen was destroyed. It's very possible that they assimilated into the broader society, or for that matter they might have been killed to the last man. On the other hand, the notion of the "twelve tribes of Israel" could indicate some sort of communal memory of the formation of Israel as a confederation of distinct tribes. It's easy to speculate that the Hyksos might have been one of those tribes. Such speculations can only get Wikipedia editors in trouble. :) JerryRussell (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The struck-out speculation could be right, for all I know. Maybe I could have been more clear with the last paragraph I wrote. I wasn't trying to convince you that the Hyksos disappeared, I was trying to sketch out the mainstream scholarly relation between the two as well as I understand it. I probably worded it in a way that made it sound like my own opinion more than I should have, and could have been more careful. I also could be confused on some detail of the scholarly consensus here. But that's my general reading of the literature currently. I'm starting to work on parts of Donald Redford's book, and it looks to me like a really good source. Alephb (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb:, I meant to be poking fun at myself as much as anyone, with my struck out speculation. I don't find it easy to stay off my soapbox. I used a couple of your references to fix my , I hope you agree that I stated the mainstream position correctly. JerryRussell (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, at least to my eyes those last two sentences look about right. For the record, I didn't think you were poking fun at me. I thought you were poking fun at yourself, but just bringing up the subject of soapboxing made me start thinking about what I'd just said in the previous paragraph. Alephb (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I have made a minor edit to clarify that Josephus also said that the Israelites were the Hyksos, as well as modern scholarship. It is a minor edit of only five or six words, so I do expect that this edit will not be deleted this time. Tatelyle (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Or, more precisely, Josephus thought that Manetho's story of the Hyksos was a distorted version of the true story of the Israelites. Alephb (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

No he did not. Stop amending history to suit your agenda. What Josephus said was: "Now thus far he (Manetho) followed his ancient records; but after this.....". So it is clear that Josephus thought the account of the Hyksos Exodus was an honest account of the Israelite Exodus. But Manetho then went on to relate the separate story of the Exodus of 80,000 maimed priests and lepers, which Josephus vehemently disagreed with. But that was a totally seperate exodus event, nothing to do with the Hyksos. I have amended the text to cover this point. Tatelyle (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done some touch-up to @Tatelyle:'s edit. But, I think he's correct that Josephus strongly endorsed Manetho's account of the Hyksos, while attacking Manetho's narrative about Osarseph and the lepers. JerryRussell (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Osman and Ellis

I'd like to say a word of appreciation for @Tatelyle:. He's come under a lot of criticism above, but I think it's because of his persistence that the section on the Hyksos is a lot better now than it was before we started.

In addition to the three sources now cited in the article for the view that hyksos = Israelites (Freund, Hengstenberg, and the Jacobovici movie) there are at least two other current advocates of the theory, Ahmed Osman and Ralph Ellis.

The guidance in WP:ONEWAY is that Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. In this case, the Hyksos = Israelite theory is certainly discussed in a serious and prominent way in many academic RS, even if it is ultimately dismissed. So, I believe in this case the encyclopedia is best served by providing full sourcing.

Furthermore, Osman is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and his books are cited there. Most of his books are published by Bear & Co.

Ellis' work is published by Adventures Unlimited Press, which is owned by David Hatcher Childress. It is not a vanity press or SPS. They publish all sorts of "fringe" views, but I would argue that AUP is at least on a par with Osman's publisher. JerryRussell (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

To be sure, most of us had no objections against describing Josephus' view. We had objections against using Josephus as if he wrote WP:RS. So, the same would have been achieved without so much fuss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, while we are reviewing this for lessons to be learned: instead of simply reverting Tatelyle's original material, some more experienced editor could have revised it to conform with Wikipedia policies. Then perhaps most of the controversy would have been averted. See WP:PRESERVE. JerryRussell (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

While Osman mentions Josephus' equation of the Hyksos with the Israelites, I don't believe he supports it. In 'Moses and Akhenaten' (1990) he says the opposite: "Josephus made an error by identifying the arrival of the conquering Hyksos as the Descent into Egypt of the Israelites and their subsequent expulsion by Ahmosis as the Exodus." (p. 28) So Osman supports Tatelyle's view about what Josephus says, but he also supports the mainstream view that Josephus was mistaken. I have removed him from the referencing. JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

If there is any further discussion about whether Ellis supports Josephus's views about the Exodus, or whether Ellis may be used in this context as a reliable source on his own views without violating WP:DUE, please use this section so that we can keep track of the consensus. I would say that Ellis's views on this matter are actually more nuanced than such a simple summary would indicate. He believes that the biblical story is a conflation of the Hyksos and Amarna episodes, with some inaccuracies compared to the actual historical events. JerryRussell (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Ellis is a fringe author, more so than Osman and Freund perhaps (definitely more than Freund. He self-publishes through Edfu books[12] - take a look at his publications if you doubt that he's fringe. I don't see any thing that justifies using him - unless of course you can find where he's been discussed concerning these views in actual reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 14:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller:, I don't fully understand the relationship between the Edfu Books label and AUP. The books carry both imprints. I don't think AUP is a self-publisher or vanity press, but I could be mistaken about that. AUP would certainly be in the category of a WP:QUESTIONABLE publisher, and the guidance is that "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited". However, questionable sources and even SPS "may be used may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..."

I completely agree that Ellis is WP:FRINGE. But in the spectrum of fringe, IMHO he is in the best possible place. His work consists of highly creative alternative theoretical formulations. It has aspects of wild speculation, but he always offers grounded justifications for his views. When he comes up with something new and radical, I most always wind up nodding and saying "maybe". Ellis is coming from a completely secular, scientific perspective; unlike Freund, who is a religious conservative.

I feel that WP:COI requires that I confess that I'm a huge fan of Ellis and I've read most of his books. I've never met him but we are Facebook friends. I think he has at least some peer reviewed publications. I don't know to what extent his work has been reviewed or discussed by any mainstream sources; I could contact him and ask.

In this particular case, we don't really need Ellis to support the point being made; Hengstenberg and Freund should be sufficient. But as I mentioned above, I feel that the encyclopedia is well served by citing him as well. I don't see that the WP:RS policy should rule this out, and I think it's a benefit under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, although I agree it's a matter of editorial judgement and there's no mandate. JerryRussell (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if Ellis had any peer reviewed publications. He's certainly not as high profile as Sitchin and Osman. Nothing shows up on Google books from anything mainstream. He's rarely discussed on the websites that discuss (from a critical perspective), fringe authors. And I think he's the fringe author who really, really dislikes me. I know his perspective is secular, I dispute that it's scientific. Doug Weller talk 18:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, why do you say that Ellis personally dislikes you? I'm sorry to hear that. JerryRussell (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's him, but if it is I'd say it's because I don't consider him a reliable source and have argued that before and removed him. I guess it could be Scott Creightin I'm thinking of. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, I contacted Ralph Ellis on Facebook and obtained the following information.

1. He considers that Adventures Unlimited Press (AUP) is a legitimate publisher, and not a vanity press or self-publisher. He says he receives royalty checks for his books. Reviewing the AUP website, this seems to be correct. It appears that they follow a business model similar to New Traditions (Bear & Co.), Osman's publisher. They are not academic publishers. They publish titles about spiritual, religious & political topics that appeal to a popular (rather than scholarly) audience.

2. He is a peer-reviewed, published scientific author. He is especially proud of this recent article, which has been one of the most downloaded papers this year. Ellis & Palmer (2016), Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks.

3. His work in biblical studies has been discussed in the mainstream press, for example: Is this the first true portrait of Jesus?

Having said all that, there's no doubt that WP:FRINGE rules do apply. The use of such sources are limited at Wikipedia. However, they may be used as sources concerning their own ("fringe") viewpoints. JerryRussell (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realized Childress had published all his books. That doesn't qualify to make him a reliable source, of course, as that's not what we'd consider a reliable publisher. See WP:SOURCE. I think he fails on all 3 criteria. I'm surprised he got published there - I thought it might be because of his co-author[13] but his field doesn't seem that relevant. So far Google Scholar shows no articles citing the paper. As for the Daily Mail, there are good reasons why we no longer use it as a source. I know that it publishes a lot of similar fringe material. It's not exactly mainstream press. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug, you didn't address my point that there is a spectrum of reliable sources, and the context determines whether a source is adequate to make the claim. The article makes the claim in Wiki voice that the Hyksos are not the Israelites, and that Josephus is mistaken. Yet there is a significant minority voice that takes Josephus seriously. This consists of highly notable filmmakers like Jacobovici and Cameron; "fringe" academics like Freund; and non-academic researchers like Ellis. How is it consistent with WP:NPOV to make this entire modern minority viewpoint disappear completely in our article? JerryRussell (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

About the "Daily Mail", I would call it a mainstream tabloid with huge circulation. Isn't it still considered reasonable to look at sources like that when considering notability or noteworthiness of an author, even if they shouldn't be used as evidence of the validity of the fringe claim being made? JerryRussell (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Daily Mail has a bad reputation for fact checking and for promoting fringe stuff. The article was written by a freelancer[14] who is hardly a reliable source. There's been no serious discussion in mainstream sources that we can use. As for his article, I don't know why Elsevier has a journal whose peer review is all done by one Chinese university, but the fact that it allows an article written by people with no qualifications that I can see and that is, as I thought, by a climate denier (Ellis, see The Climate Scandal] shows (sadly not for the first time) that peer review doesn't always work. Doug Weller talk 07:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

So, if I have this straight, we now have a climate denier, someone who thinks he found Atlantis, and someone who thinks Jesus was king Tut, all proposed as support for the Josephus side of things. We truly are grasping about deep in the fringes for references here. Alephb (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an interesting turn of the conversation. I've been reading Ellis's books on biblical history for years, but never knew that he had any interest in the modern climate change debate until yesterday. It makes sense, though. Ellis believes that the events of the Hyksos expulsion through the late Amarna period, could be related to climate change. He also thinks that the ancients related climate change to precession. He says that the religious changes were expressed in terms of precessional eras and the passage of the Zodiac from one constellation to the next.

I haven't participated in editing Climate Change articles here at Wikipedia, and I don't consider it an area where I am working to develop personal expertise. But I will say that regardless of editors' opinions, Wikipedia has written about these topics at Global warming controversy and Climate change denial. In spite of the frequent use of "Wiki voice" to criticize climate change skeptics, those voices do come through. And the constant drumbeat of ad hominem argument has not done anything to convince the public, who have elected a "Climate Denier" as POTUS. I do believe that the public would benefit if mainstream scientists would drop all the ad hominem attacks and listen to what their opponents are saying.

As to whether "peer review doesn't always work", is Doug Weller's argument above based on some sort of nationalist or racist disdain of Chinese universities? As the POTUS has observed, the Chinese are formidable competitors in manufacturing and the world economy. I can only surmise that their universities must be doing something right.

Perhaps the fact that such an excellent paper as Ellis and Palmer can't get any mention in US journals, is more of an indication that something is wrong with Western university peer review? Ellis says that his paper is one of the most downloaded and widely read in the field, and it's been written up by Chuck Devore in Forbes and Daily Caller. (I don't have time to provide full links, Google what I'm saying if you have any doubts.)

Doug Weller's attack above on freelance journalist David Burke is also pure ad hominem. The article was apparently sold to several UK newspapers: Daily Express, Belfast Newsletter, Yorkshire Evening Post, and picked up by Yahoo News and edited by their correspondent Andy Wells. Where is the basis for believing that Burke wasn't capable of interviewing Ellis and summarizing his viewpoints as a secondary source? Are all of these UK news outlets to be dismissed as tabloids? Or is it possible that all those papers picked up the story because it's of tremendous human interest? And isn't such mainstream interest an aspect of Wikipedia noteworthiness criteria? JerryRussell (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: Doug is expressing realistic and reasonable caution about Chinese universities. I worked at one of the better ones, and spent most of my time working against another one of their other (native) teachers who told them to prepare for a test where the questions are about your experiences and opinions by memorizing the example answers in the textbook. "Chabuduo," a concept that represents jury-rigging and corner-cutting to the exclusion of proper work, is rampant even in higher-ranked national universities like I worked in.

My freshmen students spent half their time in propaganda classes. Not even something you could call "history" or even "civics," just raw propaganda. This isn't foreign aspersions: the school, knowing what "propaganda" means to western ears, decided that's what the classes should be called in English. That was considered at least as important as catching them up on the fundamentals to whatever field they were going in to.

The university (and public sidewalks... and lots of other places) had slick, polished tile in all the walkways, even outside. When it got wet, I would slip while wearing combat boots with the sort of grip that let me walk on a 70° rock incline. Whenever it rained, there was a good chance one of my students would show up to class in crutches or even miss class. The university thought the tiles were "pretty" and not a problem.

I once locked a door exiting my classroom (full of future engineers) because it wouldn't stay shut without locking. You could turn the lock in the wrong direction indefinitely, but only had to turn it in the correct direction for one rotation. When class ended, I watched several of them line up, spin the lock around the wrong way several times, nearly pull the handle off the door, turn the lock in the same direction, and repeat this three or four times before the next person in line did the same thing.

One of my students was convinced that The Martian (film) was a documentary. This wasn't a linguistic error, he was able to define what a documentary is and he knew the term "science-fiction." He even knows who Matt Damon is. And the only things that will stop him from graduating in a couple of years are if he gets bored or his family decides that it's time for him to take a nominal position in his family's company.

I was qualified to teach at a university with a bachelor's degree. That my degree is in English (with a minor in education) was a bonus (not a requirement). Again, I was working for a good university, one I could proudly tell people "yeah, I work there." Nevermind my ventures into the tech markets (where I taught way too many people who fix and refurbish computers for a living what Gas dusters are), or security during the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit (where a guy who searched my bag and knew it was empty supervised a second search just twenty seconds later), or the school's store (which showed me -- more than once -- that I can survive eating a fried chicken and mayo sandwich that's been sitting on a room-temperature shelf for at least 48 hours). I'm not even going to go into how Chinese medical sources engage in sloppy systematic bias in favor of magical "traditional" cures for the sake of patriotism.

The education system in China is really bad (even ignoring that two-thirds of the country doesn't have a high-school education) and most people in China will readily admit it (there's a reason western universities have plenty of Chinese students to choose from). It has nothing to do with race: anyone trying to learn in the sort of educational environment found in China is going to do bad work, and Chinese students who adopt "foreign" learning methods end up doing as well as anyone else. Don't try turning your failure to find reliable sources into ad hominem accusations about other users. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see much point in continuing a discussion with someone who is refusing to show good faith and is making pretty disgusting allegations about my motives. China is a great country which has suffered from centuries of bad government. And saying that a free lancer isn't qualified to discuss Ellis is hardly an attack. I've got enough to keep me busy without subjecting myself to this. Doug Weller talk 18:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I am willing to stipulate that this is a nationalist issue rather than racist. Thank you for clarifying that. And I'm sorry that this is being taken as evidence of bad faith on my behalf. People often propose arguments that appear to be on racist grounds, without being racists. And Ian Thompson's point is well taken. China is still a developing country, and the average quality of the university experience there might be below a Western standard. But are you seriously saying that we should judge the quality of a journal's peer review on a nationalistic average basis? Elsevier's reputation means nothing?

This is all judging Ellis on an ad hominem basis. No one has said anything about the quality of Ellis's analysis, either in the climate realm or the Egyptology realm. That is, aside from noting that he doesn't agree with the mainstream. JerryRussell (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"No one has said anything about the quality of Ellis's analysis, either in the climate realm or the Egyptology realm. That is, aside from noting that he doesn't agree with the mainstream." Perhaps because, as Wikipedia editors, weighing an author's relationship with the mainstream is very much a part of our job, but performing our own peer-review on the quality of their contributions is not so much? Alephb (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

But we don't have a policy that requires us to purge all reference to "fringe" views. Wikipedia contains a lot of discussion of "fringe" content. We put the outlying views in context of the mainstream.

My point is that Ellis is a noteworthy "fringe" author, a peer reviewed scientist, and published by a legitimate "fringe" publishing house. So I don't understand the grounds for omitting the citation to his work in this context.

A lot of Wikipedia editors seem to consider "fringe" an insult or pejorative. In the world outside Wikipedia jargon, it certainly is an insult. But In my opinion, when it comes to Ralph Ellis, "fringe" should be read as a compliment. JerryRussell (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Whether your Facebook friend Ralph Ellis is or is not "fringe" in a positive or negative sense is an interesting question, but not really one that Wikipedians are here to answer. At the end of the day, he's a self-described biblical historian whose works are not even discussed by regular historians in the regular historical venues.

It's also important to recognize, despite some of the semantic arguments, that Ellis does indeed self-publish. The title of his that I've seen discussed here, Jesus: Last of the Pharaohs carries the Edfu books imprint, as does Tempest and Exodus. Edfu books is nothing more than "books by Ralph Ellis." It's a one-man publishing shop -- the definition of self-publishing. Adventurer's Unlimited Press openly advertizes its role as a distributor for self-published work:

• Self-Published Books

We also sell a large number of books in our catalog that we did not publish. Books we didn't publish are only sold via our website, catalog and bookstores and are not distributed via SCB. Most of these are discontinued or remaindered books from other publishers. We do sell some self-published books, if they fit into our catalog and we think they would sell. We do not accept any fiction or channeled-type books. Normally, the author must submit a sample book to the Publisher, David Hatcher Childress. After awhile, often several months, he will decide whether we will sell it. Our terms for distribution are:

1. Books are essentially on consignment. If we can't sell them, we will return them, paying for the ones we sold.

2. We ask for a 55% discount on the retail price.

3. The author must get the books to us at his or her own expense. They can either be dropped off personally in Kempton, or sent via UPS.

4. We pay for 20 copies, or a box, and then order more.

That's from the "Writers Guidelines" section of their website. Again -- I'm sorry if any of this sounds unnecessarily pejorative. While there certainly are some noteworthy fringe authors, like Velikovsky, who recieved a lot of (negative) coverage in mainstream sources, Ellis doesn't strike me as comparable. I see a transparent self-publishing outfit selling things that the mainstream scholarly world hasn't even bothered to reply to. Nor does he make news, with the exception of a write-up in a tabloid unreliable enough that Wikipedia has virtually banned it from use as a source.

I'll grant, for the sake of argument, that Ellis might be the only person who really understands ancient history, and maybe the entire scholarly world is being negligent in not appreciating his brilliant deductions. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, we can't make that call. And as long as WP:FRINGE exists, unfortunately, we will have to use the word "fringe" when referencing the relevant policy.Alephb (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding to a request for additional feedback placed on WP:FTN. As noted above, the book by Ralph Ellis was published by Adventures Unlimited Press. While I cannot say that they haven't published anything that would be considered reliable, AUP clearly prints and/or publishes the works of fringe authors and fringe material. I am in favor of mentioning fringe authors, fringe books, and fringe material only to the extent to which those things have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. If Ellis or his book has not been discussed in that manner, then he and his book are not "noteworthy" and should not be mentioned in the article. -Location (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

True, this dispute looks increasingly like a dispute between editors who know WP:PAGs and are willing to follow them, and editors who either don't know WP:PAGs or are unwilling to follow them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

user:Alephb, I've been trying to say that I agree that WP:FRINGE is an applicable guideline. And, I stand (partially) corrected about AUP's business model. But, you selectively quoted from their web page. In addition to the self-publishing service, AUP also publishes some books and distributes them via SBC, and pays those authors according to a royalty model. Ellis says that this is the business relationship he has with AUP. I think the paperback editions of the books are published through AUP and distributed by SBC and carry the Edfu Books imprint as a courtesy, while Ellis may self-publish the e-book editions. I would agree that AUP is in the category of a "questionable" publisher.

Editors often refer to "RS" in a binary sense, claiming that some source either is a reliable source or it isn't. The guideline says that there is a spectrum of reliability, and that the usability of a source depends on the context, and the claim being made. WP:SELFSOURCE says:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim.

It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities).

It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.

There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.

The article is not based primarily on such sources.

It does not say "only" in articles about themselves, it says "especially". Ellis's claim that the Hyksos were the Israelites is not an exceptional claim; it is an ordinary historical claim whose source is Josephus, although it disagrees with modern scholarly opinion. It does not involve claims about third parties, or events unrelated to the subject. There is no doubt that Ellis made the claim. And the article is not based primarily on Ellis; on the contrary, it is to be explicitly stated in Wiki voice that Ellis is wrong.

So I don't see any policy violation if we choose to cite Ellis. There is also no policy mandate.

However, WP:NPOV does require us to mention all views that have been covered in RS, including significant minority views as well as mainstream views. All of the modern sources that support the claim have come under criticism here for one reason or another. Hengstenberg is a 19th century source who was writing before the archaeology of the Hyksos became known, and he claimed that the Hyksos were a mythical construct that was substituted for the Israelites in Manetho's work. Jacobovici is a sensationalist, possibly dishonest, and could be motivated by Nielsen ratings as much as the search for historical accuracy. Freund is a tenured professor at a good university, and his work is published by an reputable publisher with a reputation for fact-checking and quality control. So from a Wikipedia RS perspective, he seems to be the highest in the spectrum. But as a religious conservative (if not fundamentalist) I believe he is biased. Ellis seems to be the most secular and scientific source we can find, advocating for this particular point of view.

My argument is that from NPOV, we can't pick off all these sources one by one, and then delete all mention of the controversy from our article. And I am not admitting or stipulating that there are no other sources for this position. But if there are any more, they will automatically be in the "fringe" category, if for no other reason than that they advocate this fringe position. More or better sourcing would be nice, but it wouldn't fundamentally change the situation. NPOV requires that we mention the existence of this significant minority viewpoint, and give sources citing one or more advocates. JerryRussell (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My view is that in this context significant minority means Kitchen and Hoffmeier, who argued that the Exodus was not historically impossible. I don't think that Freund and Ellis even qualify as minority scholarly view. If you need a reason: for lack of traction or discussion of such views by academics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Kitchen and Hoffmeier represent another, different, possibly significant minority. The criteria, per Jimbo himself in WP:DUE, is that there are "prominent adherents". Jacobovici and his producer, James Cameron, are the prominent adherents for the view that the Hyksos were Israelites. They are not the most credible adherents, but the most prominent. Further guidelines at WP:FRINGELEVEL explain that Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia. JerryRussell (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, popular opinion or the opinion of non-scholars on scholarly topics is of no encyclopedic significance whatsoever. Second of all, WP is very much biased toward real qualified academic scholars from real universities writing in real academically reviewed journals and books. If you have a problem with that, you're in the wrong place. Third of all, we cover only significant views, not extreme minority or fringe views. Last of all, and most important, you have not explained why you failed to provide any reliable independent secondary SCHOLARLY sources when asked to do so to support your contention that other significant views exist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

— [15]

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to the FTN, Ellis is a fringe author. He doesn't appear to be an academic historian or someone that academic historians regard as an historian. His books could be used as sources in an article about him or his ideas (assuming there were independent sources too), or elsewhere if mainstream academic sources discuss his views, but otherwise not. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello SarahSV, thanks for stopping by. Could you clarify whether mainstream academic sources must discuss Ellis specifically by name, or whether it is sufficient that the academic sources are clearly discussing the same controversy? In this case, the proposal is to use Ellis as a secondary source concerning his analysis of Josephus. It is virtually a consensus that Josephus believed that the Hyksos were the Israelites, and his claims are widely acknowledged, and generally rejected (or at least, heavily qualified) by modern historians. But this is an issue that is very much under discussion in the mainstream. Several modern sources have been identified that argue Josephus's identification is basically correct, but editors have objected to all those sources on one grounds or another.

If I have been misunderstanding the policy, I will withdraw my proposal to use Ellis as a source here. There does seem to be a possible element of OR in identifying that Ellis is talking about the same thing as other academics. But if that argument were taken to its logical conclusion, we would never be able to use any two secondary sources together and conclude they are talking about the same thing, unless they explicitly mention each other.JerryRussell (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, we would need to see evidence that Ellis has a background as an academic historian, or is cited by academic historians, or in some other way acknowledged as an historian by historians. It's a concern that you called him a "peer-reviewed scientist" because of that one article, when he isn't a scientist st all. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, I would say that Ellis is an amateur scientist. But obviously I would have to agree that he is not a professional or credentialed one. Could you tell me the policy basis for your view that fringe sources must be specifically named by academic sources before they can be used in articles, as sources concerning their own views?

There are two other sources that have been identified as possible references for the claim that "a few modern sources agree with Josephus..." One is a full professor whose work is published by a reputable academic press, but he has a strong religious bias. Another is a documentary film by Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron, which has been severely criticized in WP:PARITY blogs by reputable academics. My argument has been that these three sources, collectively, meet the "significant minority" bar and so NPOV requires some mention. Furthermore, my opinion is that of the three sources, Ellis is actually the strongest because of his secular and scientific outlook, and his basic integrity. But if I am wrong about NPOV, then there's no mandate to use any of these three sources. And if I'm wrong about the limited authorized uses of questionable sources, then my personal respect for Ellis is again beside the point. JerryRussell (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, I think you've misunderstood the policies. The sourcing policy is WP:V. Ellis could be used in an article about himself and his ideas, within reason, but that article could exist only if independent sources discussed him too. There is no point in trying to work out how many academics would have to name him before this or that could happen. He's not an RS for this article, period. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

SarahSV, the wording in WP:V is not exactly as you say. The exact statement is that SPS and questionable may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities... Why does it say "usually" if it really means "only"? What exceptions are intended? If our article says "Ellis agrees with Josephus" would that meet the criteria of supplying information about Ellis? Or is it information about Josephus, or both?

When I see that policies seem deliberately vague, I suspect that such wording might be the result of a long and contentious consensus process. When I get some time, I might do some reading in the archives, or perhaps start a discussion at WP:V talk page. Meanwhile, I am letting go of the issue here, but with a note that I feel that the policies are not sufficiently clear to justify the interpretations that editors are making in this discussion. JerryRussell (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As I recall, I wrote or helped to write that part of the policy. Any "usually", "generally", or "for the most part"s in policy simply acknowledge that exceptions may exist. But this isn't one of them. This is a clear case. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to retract the claim that Ellis is self-published. Upon checking once again at Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk, I find that I can't retract it because his books there are published by one of Amazon's self-publishing arms, CreateSpace. This is at late as 2015 and seems to be true of most if not all his books on those sites (I didn't check them all but those I checked were all self-published.[16] [17]Sure, he isn't only self-published, but he clearly meets the definition of a self-published author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Climate Change Denial" and Chinese peer review

Gosh, what a disconcerting array of opinions. Perhaps someone could explain the term 'climate denier' and explain why such perjoritive terms are being used in regards to science. How can someone deny climate? And why should alternative opinions be discouraged? Are we to continue with the concensus that peptic ulcers are caused by stress - would that be good for modern medicine or science? And the rant against China is most disconcerting. Is the claim being made that other nations, peoples and races are inferior? In any other context, such a view would be rightly condemned by the MSM. I am surprised by the tone here. Tatelyle (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here is saying that climate change deniers are wrong. We're saying that they are fringe sources and should be treated that way on Wikipedia. Please read WP:FRINGE again, because we seem to be having a lot of difficulty getting you to understand this. Let's take your ulcer example. If it is the consensus of medical opinion that peptic ulcers are caused by stress, then Wikipedia reports that. If all the doctors change their mind and decide that it is caused by bacteria, Wikipedia reports that it is caused by bacteria. If we reach a point where virtually all doctors agree that peptic ulcers are caused by angry ancestor spirits, and the latest medical textbooks and journal articles agree on this, then Wikipedia will report that peptic ulcers are caused by angry ancestor spirits. Wikipedia is not here to find the truth (WP:NOTTRUTH), it's here to report on what reliable sources are saying.

We are not here to discourage alternate opinions. It's just that Wikipedia is not the place to right WP:GREATWRONGS. If there is something wrong with the modern consensus -- and on some issues I'm sure there is -- Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to try to convince people of that. This is not a forum. We are not a society seeking to find the truth. We are not a medical journal. We are here to summarize what reliable sources (in the WP:RS sense of the term) have to say about a topic.

The editors have already explained that they have no belief that Chinese people are in any way racially inferior. Please try to assume good faith here (WP:AGF). It is well known that Chinese academia has enormous problems with faulty peer-review. There's nothing racist about noticing this, especially when the editors involved have been very clear that they don't think Chinese people are inferior. And let's be serious -- even the great majority of the most open racists don't think Chinese people are less mentally capable than others. Interpreting the editors that way isn't even remotely plausible. Alephb (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle: Please point to where I said anything negative about Chinese ancestry. I pointed out that a country's education system has problems, something the MSM does note and that anyone who has taught in China will tell you. I spoke from two years of working to educate kids who I hope do well in life. For you to accuse me of racism (even indirectly through JAQ-ing off) grossly violates WP:AGF and WP:NPA. It is insanely dishonest to use some kind of twisted political correctness to ignore the problems faced by people in other countries just to get out of finding a higher-quality source. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of splitting off a new section for this discussion about 'Climate Denial' and Chinese peer review. I have some remarks I'd like to add, but I consider it largely irrelevant to whether Ralph Ellis is a suitable source for the claim that a significant minority of modern authors support Josephus's equation of the Hyksos and Israelites.

I agree that at this point, editors have clarified that their concerns are about the quality of the Chinese higher education system, and the quality of peer review. However, what cannot be ruled out on that basis, is that there could be isolated pockets of competence, or even excellence. Thus, I consider it an unjustified generalization to say that the peer review of Ellis's paper must have been poor, simply because the peer review was done in China. The paper should stand or fall on its own merits. As to its Wikipedia "RS" category, it is a peer reviewed scientific article from a possibly biased source, but I don't see where anyone is saying that this journal is a predatory source with no review process whatsoever.

The phrase 'climate change denial' is an oxymoron when it comes to Ralph Ellis, because his paper is all about climate change, and its causes. More generally, "climate denial" in my opinion is a pejorative based on analogy to "Holocaust denial" or psychological denial in general. I feel it is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy to use "Climate Change Denial" as an article title. I'm sure this title was hotly contested. However, a majority of editors (called a "consensus" around here) did emerge, and so there it is. We aren't going to change it by any discussion here in this talk forum. JerryRussell (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that, if climate change were really relevant to this discussion, we could use the expression "disagreement with the mainstream view about anthropogenically induced climate change," or some other really long phrase that Ellis's friends would feel happy with. But let's imagine, just for the sake of argument, that Ellis really is not just a reliable source on climate change, but in fact the world's leading climate change expert, and let's in fact imagine that every scientist in the world recognizes that his peer-reviewed paper is in every way correct. Let's stipulate all this. It is still the case that when it comes to ancient Near Eastern history, he is at the very edges of the fringe, crediting his books to his own self-publishing outfit (Edfu) and/or a publishing outfit (AUP) that specializes as a distributor of self-published fringe. If this sounds unnecessarily offensive to you, substitute whatever equivalent terms for "edge" and "fringe" and "self-published" that you feel better about. If the idea that the Hyksos were the Israelites was a significant minority view, it would have at least one living adherent whose isn't noticeably involved in other fringe endeavors that the entire scholarly world shuns. At least one. And yet here we are, over a month into this loooooong discussion about the Hyksos, and we've got a climate change denier / chronic self-publisher / fringe theorist on ancient history (or add your preferred expression here), two people who think they've discovered Atlantis (Freund and Jacobovici), and a person who thinks Jesus was king Tut (Osman). It would greatly help the case of those arguing that the Hyksos = Israelites view is a "significant minority view" if they could find a few otherwise mainstream scholars who happen to buy into it. If people like this exist in any significant numbers, that would be a game-changer for us here. It would really allow us to make progress, rather than arguing over whether "fringe" and "climate change denier" are unnecessarily pejorative, or repeatedly having to discuss whether the editors here are anti-Chinese racists, or whatever other interesting sideshow we might come up with. Alephb (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, the criteria for a significant minority view is not "at least one living adherent whose isn't noticeably involved in other fringe endeavors". The criteria, per Jimbo himself in WP:DUE, is that there are "prominent adherents". Jacobovici and his producer, James Cameron, are the prominent adherents. They are not the most credible adherents, but the most prominent. Further guidelines at WP:FRINGELEVEL explain that Just because an idea is not accepted by most experts does not mean it should be removed from Wikipedia.

While it's true that this discussion has been going on for a month, but a lot of progress has been made. When we started, the discussion was whether to mention Josephus and his views at all. Now we're debating what to say about modern secondary perspectives about Josephus's statements.

If you want to make more progress, it would help if you would stop raising red herrings such as whether Ellis is self-published. The work in question is "Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs", 1, see first result (pp. 12-14) and also continuing through p. 128. My copy says "Published in the UK by Edfu Books. Published in the USA by Adventures Unlimited Press." So yes, Ellis engages in self-publishry from time to time (to coin another Wikipedia crime) but this book was published in the US by AUP as a paperback edition, in a traditional publishing business relationship.

I also notice that you stipulate above that we describe Ellis using the expression "disagreement with the mainstream view about anthropogenically induced climate change," but then you are back to calling him a "climate change denier" later in the paragraph. So are we going to be polite, or not? JerryRussell (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is "coining" a "Wikipedia crime" here. Self-publishing is not a "red herring" that other pesky editors are coming up with, it's something that very much matters for reliability. This is not a matter of something we cooked up, it's a matter of basic Wikipedia policy. See WP:SPS. While you may consider AUP a "traditional publishing business relationship", here's a snippet from their home page:

"Our online bookstore carries many fascinating and unique books on a variety of subjects. Our wide selection of books are grouped into the following categories.

"Atlantis Studies, Alternative Health, Alternative Science, Ancient Aliens The Series, Ancient Science, Anti-Gravity, Conspiracy & History, Cryptozoology, Egypt & the Pyramids, Free Energy Systems, Geometry & Math, Holy Grail & Templar Studies, Lost Cities Series, Mysterious Phenomena, Mystic Travelers Series, Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religion, Strange Science, Tesla Technology, UFOs & Extraterrestrial and more. Request our Book Catalog today!"

Second, see their "Writers Guidelines" sections, which includes a guide for how they will act as a distribution channel for self-published books, and contains the following, "Also, we only consider books twice a year: once in the fall and then again in the spring. We do about 12-14 books a year, but some are reprints of public domain books, etc. So more like 9 to 10 new books a year. About half per spring and half per fall release. Also, occasionally, authors pay us to get a book out."

I fail to see how the business model described by AUP is meaningfully more reliable in nature than self-publishing, even if one could make an argument that in some "technical" sense an Edfu/AUP book is, uh, "partially not self-published" (if that's the wording one might use).

I also don't think WP:DUE says what you think it says. It doesn't just say that if there's a prominent adherent, regardless of reliability, then go right ahead. It places a great deal of weight on the question of reliable sourcing, not just prominence. Here's from the very beginning of WP:DUE -- "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." Alephb (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

-- This is Ralph Ellis, author of the paleoclimatology paper concerned. I was notified of the parallel discussion on the 'Wiki Fringe Pages', by Jerry Russell, but I see the same arguments are being discussed here. So let's clear one thing up - Bejing University paid for the paper to be published, allowing the paper to be free to all readers. (Check it out, on Science Direct: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305 .) Many western institutions do the opposite, with Chryosphere Today charging thousands of dollars to publish an article.

-- Secondly, the term 'denier' here is deliberately perjorative. As Jerry said 'who denies climate?'. This is science, not politics, and the objective of science is to test a range of theories, to advance towards wisdom and enlightenment. More often than not, science is hindered by consensus, not advanced by it.

-- Thirdly, there is more politics in western science, than in China. The Royal Society reviewers marked my paper down simply because it went against the consensus, not on its content. Jerry has advised me that Wiki articles are determined by content, and yet nobody is discussing content here. If you want to discuss and criticise my theory, please go ahead, but discussing the Bejing University is a diversion.

-- Fourthly, there were two American reviewers on the Geoscience review panel, to give a western balance. So if you do not like the Bejing review process, well, it was 50% American.

-- Fifthly, the western peer review by the Royal Society was laughably incompetent. If you think western peer review is good, you are sadly mistaken. One reviewer marked my paper down for having an incorrect description of the precession of the equinox. This esteemed physicist said the earth's rotational axis actually precesses around the geographic north pole. I kid you not. Another reviewer said that plants could not be starved at altitude, as the concentration of CO2 was the same at altitude as at sea level. And so my entire thesis was incorrect. I kid you not. I did ask in reply, whether he-she would be starved of oxygen at the top of Mt Everest. Another reviewer said that Ganopolski had already proved that Arctic dust was Canadian glaciogenic, and so my paper was wrong. (Quote: 'for some reason Ellis does not like glaceogenic dust.). But isotopic analysis has demonstrated that Arctic ice sheet dust was from the Gobi desert. Not only is the Gobi not in Canada, but there were no glaciers in the Gobi during the ice age (too much dust - glaciers cannot live in a dusty environment). So again the criticism was baseless. Another reviewer said the (log) dust reponse to CO2 would not be linear, and so the paper is wrong, without realising that mountain areas are not linear - the area exposed is again logerithmic as the treeline descends down the mountain.

-- And so it went on. The bottom line with western peer review, was that the process seemed determined to weed out a paper that went against the political consensus (because they mentioned this). And the arguments used to achieve that goal were baseless and puerile. If you think that western peer reviw is a reliable process, not subjected to personal bias and political or academic peer-pressure, you are very much mistaken.

-- Sixthly, my books are fully paid for by Adventures Unlimited, despite what has been said here. Adventures publish all the books they like, and only take 'vanity editions' from lesser authors. Their reprints of Victorian books are a useful source of information.

-- Seventhly, my books are also published in Brazil, Italy, Korea and China (fully translated into Korean and Manderin). How do my Chinese editions make me 'self published'? I will try to link an image, if I can find out how to do so. I self publish to Kindle and iPad, because traditional publishers do not wish to publish there, because there is lttle or no money in it for them. And publishers do a terrible job, relying on incompetent agencies to translate the books into epub format. Conversely, I like to think that my personal epub translations are the best on the market, and include foreign fonts, in-line hieroglyphs, excellent pagination, hyperlinks, and dozens of full colour images. (the iPad display is better than Kindle).

-- Finally, someone said in these discussions that Wiki pages should be based upon the evidence, not on personalities. So might I request that these discussion debate the evidence? And that evidence must surely include the history and views recorded by Josephus.

Ralfellis (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"Finally, someone said in these discussions that Wiki pages should be based upon the evidence, not on personalities. So might I request that these discussion debate the evidence?" That's not quite how Wikipedia works, and if someone told you it is there has been a mistake somewhere along the line. Discussing the evidence is very important, and I hope people do it, but it's not what Wikipedia is here for. We are not here to weigh the evidence for and against your views (or anyone else's) and to find the truth. A good introduction to some of what Wikipedia is here for, policy-wise, is WP:FRINGE. WP:RS is also an important guideline for us. Alephb (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Gosh, it's too bad there's only Chinese universities and the Royal Society. One of the problems with Chinese academia is that the government regards it as a political tool. For example, "Traditional" "Chinese" "medicine"] is a white-washed hodge-podge that was created by the Maoist government to lure Western doctors into the country, the intention being (1 2). Also, white people are viewed as status symbols there (I turned down offers for "jobs" that would've been little more than posing in staff photos intended to present an "international" image). Between that and you writing on a topic that doesn't get much research there, it's not necessarily your work's own merits that made them publish your paper. Also, when they get westerners to help judge stuff, that doesn't necessarily influence the final decision unless it reinforces it. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, most of this is completely off topic now. No one here mentioned the Royal Society, why are we discussing it here? Maybe at RSN where it would be slightly relevant. And we don't debate the evidence here, as has been said, we discuss wording, sources, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note for the benefit of those who say 'denier' is pejorative that the term is commonly used as a descriptor for those who reject, "doubt or deny, the scientific community’s consensus on the answers to the central questions of climate change" and according to the National Center for Science Education is "intended descriptively, not in any pejorative sense, and are used for the sake of brevity and consistency with a well-established usage in the scholarly and journalistic literature."[18] I also note that the phrase "climate denier" is in the Oxford Dictionary defined as "A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring."[19] Doug Weller talk 15:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Dougweller. It is nice to know that Galileo was a denier, as was Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Lavoisier, Darwin, Holmes, Rutherford, Bohr, Marshall and many others. I presume the designation 'denier' is therefore a badge of honour worn by great intellects, including in this sphere by the likes of Judith Curry, Fred Singer and Roy Spencer. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks for the clarification, Ralfellis. I presume that with many publishers, including in China, that Ellis is no longer considered 'self published' - it looks like Jerry can use his references after all. Nice observations on the mechanics of the peer review process too. How did anyone get quite so muddled about orbital mechanics?

And I think the information on the Royal Society is pertinent here. Dougweller and others were calling into question the reason for this paper being published in Beijing, and therefore impugning the quality of this paper. Well now we see the reason, and an indication of a political (rather than scientific) RS peer review system. I would love to see a reply by the RS. All very interesting stuff that has great parallels to the debate here about modern historical research. How much of what Finkelstein and Silberman say is political, rather than historical? (Religious bias has already been discussed here, so why not political bias too...?) Tatelyle (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"It is nice to know that Galileo was a denier, as was Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Lavoisier, Darwin, Holmes, Rutherford, Bohr, Marshall and many others." I'm sorry to have to say it, but this is tendentious nonsense. Please avoid misrepresenting other people's comments. —PaleoNeonate – 18:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue of self-publishing that matters for this article has nothing to do with who published Ellis's climatology paper. It has to do with the publication of Ellis's books on biblical history, and on whether they are considered reliable sources in terms of the Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, WP:IRS) or not. Whether or not Ellis is a genius on par with Galileo is simply irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I will grant, for the sake of argument, that his views are misunderstood and ingenious, and that the scholarly consensus is totally wrong in ignoring him. Nevertheless, even if he is right about literally every thing that his Adventurer's Unlimited Press / Edfu books claim, the books don't meet the WP:IRS standard. There is no plausible interpretation of WP:IRS that allows these books to be used on Wikipedia as reliable sources. In particular, pay careful attention to the paragraph of WP:IRS entitled "Definition of published":

quote. The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet. end quote An important phrase here is "reliable third party." A "publisher" that deliberately solicits all manner of fringe sources, that mixes self-publishing with its publishing model, and that takes payments from fringe authors to "get their books out" in no way meets Wikipedia's notion of "publishing." Whether we want to call Adventurer's Unlimited "self-publishing" or something else, it does not clear the WP:IRS standard. The way that AUP mixes "publishing" and "self-publishing" and takes payment from authors removes any possibility of seeing it as truly "third-party," not to mention the reliability problems. IRS is not optional; it's a content guideline. Ralph Ellis's work may be featured on all manner of internet (non-Wikipedia) articles, and I wish him good luck in convincing people. But until a reliable third-party picks up his work, his books simply cannot be used here.

If you're not interested in following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you need to find some website other than Wikipedia as an outlet for your beliefs about the Hyksos. We have been more than patient in explaining how Wikipedia works, and you really do need to decide whether you are willing to work within Wikipedia's WP:PAGs, or whether your particular sort of contributions might be better suited to some other part of the internet. Wordpress, for example, would happily host a blog for you for free, and you wouldn't have to work under the constraints of Wikipedia policy there. Alephb (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle, it's not necessarily true that Jerry can use his references after all. At best, AUP falls into the category of a WP:QUESTIONABLE publisher, which is not much more usable at Wikipedia than WP:SPS. My guess is that the Chinese and other international publishers will fall into the same "questionable" category. I think Alephb is wrong that Ellis is self-published, but it's largely beside the point. The arguments being applied against using Ellis would mostly be relevant even if AUP is found to be a third-party publisher.

My argument here will succeed or fail based on whether I can find any other editors who agree that NPOV requires us to include the proposed information ("A few modern authors agree with Josephus..."). Also, even if that argument carries the day, it's likely that the editors will prefer Freund and/or Jacobovici.

Tatelyle, please study the policies listed at WP:CONDUCT, including especially WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CLEANSTART. Also consider WP:DISRUPT. I fear that considering there is no support for our views about using Ralph Ellis here, we are at risk of being found disruptive and/or tendentious at some point. See WP:DEADHORSE which is not a policy or guideline, but often good advice around here.

One last word -- we really need to go read the UCSD Exodus Conference. I wouldn't be surprised to find more authors agreeing to the Hyksos = Israelite identification. JerryRussell (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

"I think Alephb is wrong that Ellis is self-published, but it's largely beside the point. The arguments being applied against using Ellis would mostly be relevant even if AUP is found to be a third-party publisher." I can live with that. Whether or not we want to use the exact term "self-publishing," WP:IRS section 1.2 applies either way, and I'm perfectly happy to let other editors take their pick as to whether we should place the AUP/Edfu books in the WP:SPS or WP:QUESTIONABLE bin. Alephb (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I asked about the Royal Society as Ellis seems to be responding to something someone had said or something that should be widely known. It sounds as though he submitted it to some Royal Society Journal and it was refused, but he hasn't been specific about that and there's little chance that the RS will discuss it. But again, that's not for here nor is discussion about his article. His article starts getting cited favorably in other peer reviewed papers would be needed to use it as a source (and yes, Tatelyle, I know you tried). The book that came out of the 2013 Exodus Converence is this one. Preview here Doug Weller talk 17:57, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The book Doug linked to doesn't contain any author who claims that the Hyksos were the Israelites.. It does contain a number of authors who discuss whether folk memories about the Hyksos were later used as a basis for constructing an Israelite origin story, but that's another question. Certainly no one who contributed to the book thought the two were the same group simply under two different names. Alephb (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Exodus Decoded

Imho, WP:ONEWAY applies to The Exodus Decoded, since it is not notable as scholarship (it could be popular, but that's another matter). Also verifying claims to Hengstenberg and Freund is a bit fishy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, the notability guideline says that On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. We aren't debating here whether Exodus Decoded is sufficiently notable to have its own Wikipedia article; that has already been determined. WP:NNC says that "notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." It continues: "The criteria for content coverage within an article is governed by due weight and other content policies." As to Hengstenberg and Freund, the only claim we are making is that they are two authors who have written in support of the Israelite=Hyksos equation, and in support of Josephus' advocacy of this viewpoint. In fact, the article states in Wiki voice that Hengstenberg, Freund and Josephus are factually wrong. And this is the way it should be, considering the weight of scholarly opinion.

WP:DUE makes a distinction between views held by significant minorities, vs. views held by tiny minorities. A famous quote from Jimbo says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." In this case, James Cameron (producer) and Simcha Jacobovici (author/director), would be prominent adherents; and therefore I argue that this is a viewpoint held by a significant minority rather than a tiny minority.

The view that the Exodus tale represents a cultural memory of the Hyksos expulsion, may even be a dominant view at this point. I haven't seen any sources at all arguing to the contrary. This dominant view cannot be understood without reference to Manetho and Josephus. Within the paragraph, the view that the Hyksos were the Israelites, or that the Hyksos Expulsion actually was the Exodus, is represented by only two sentences. This cannot be regarded as undue weight within such a long article. JerryRussell (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The Exodus Decoded may be notable as popular opinion, but it isn't scholarship, besides it is quite WP:FRINGE/PS. Also, presenting Josephus' view could be done without violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, Tgeorgescu, how exactly does the sentence about Josephus' view violate any policies you listed? We've just been through an RfC in which it was universally agreed that Josephus may be used as a source to represent his own opinion. JerryRussell (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The article quoted above by Tgeorgescu, Argument from authority, is completely apropos to our situation. Here's another relevant quote:

It is also a fallacious ad hominem argument to argue that a person presenting statements lacks authority and thus their arguments do not need to be considered. As appeals to a perceived lack of authority, these types of argument are fallacious for much the same reasons as an appeal to authority.

This is why Wikipedia does not rely exclusively on arguments from authority. We leave it to the readers to decide whether the arguments presented by the mainstream scholars are completely persuasive, or whether minority views also have some validity.

Regarding Exodus Decoded, Tgeorgescu is on shaky ground if he is claiming that it is pure pseudoscience. There is lots of scholarly opinion attempting to relate the Ipuwer Papyrus, Tempest Stele, and Santorini (Thera) volcanic event, to the Exodus. Generally the conclusion is that none of these items is an exact fit, but all of them could be related as cultural memories that coalesced into the Exodus story. Exodus Decoded presents this scholarship in a sensationalized way, while downplaying contrary evidence. Would it be undue weight to discuss all of the specific arguments, evidence, and scholarly opinion right here in this article? Maybe, maybe not. But a link to the Wikipedia page on the film is the least we can do IMHO. Of course, this is a matter of editorial discretion, and I would yield to whatever consensus emerges about this content. JerryRussell (talk) 19:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

References

The problem with it is not that it is biased, but that it sells outright lies and fabrications. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Tgeorgescu, you know better than that. Quotes?? Examples?? Tatelyle (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tatelyle and Tgeorgescu, I've been thinking about what I wrote above, and maybe I'm wrong that citing this film is the best we can do. There's a difference between bias & sensationalism, vs. outright lies and fabrications. But I'm not really that comfortable defending sensationalism, either. We should go straight to the academic sources, if there's any merit to the claims made by this documentary. What do you think, Tatelyle? I'm feeling that maybe Tgeorgescu is right that we should delete this reference. JerryRussell (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

See The Exodus Decoded#Credibility, e.g. "There is no archeological evidence, or any supporting evidence presented by Jacobovici, to support the claim that Egyptian first-born slept in beds, while all others slept on roofs. Moreover, Jacobovici's explanation of the 10th plague as being caused by carbon dioxide does not account for the Biblical description of deaths of firstborn cattle." and many other fabrications like it. There is a difference between defending, say, Socialism with cherry-picked, but real evidence and defending it with outright lies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is correct, Exodus Decoded is lies and fabrication. JerryRussell appears to be ignorant of scholarship in this area. PiCo (talk) 07:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not certain whether our article on The Exodus Decoded is accurate, but I noticed two rather strange claims by this film concerning Mycenaean history.

• The film theorizes that an unnamed charioteer depicted in the Grave Circle A, Mycenae (16th century BC) is Ahmose I. A depiction of an Egyptian Pharaoh in Mycenae would in itself be unique, but why would only a specific individual be depicted in what seems to be a generic scene?
• The film theorizes that the Danaoi/Danaans of Homer's works were descendants of the Tribe of Dan. While there are several theories connecting the two similarly-named groups, this seems to disregard theories that identify the tribe of Dan with the Denyen of Egyptian sources. The Denyen are attested from the 14th to the 11th century BC. Their material culture (their pottery) suggests close connections with Mycenaean Greece, and there are at least some theories that they originated there. Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I am feeling motivated to go watch that film again. The Wikipedia article text hardly seems to be describing a "generic scene".

Wikipedia's article gives the last word to Dr. Ronald Hendel. Following the link to Hendel's review, I found that it was still alive (moved to archive.org) and actually featured a response by Jacobovici himself, another round of debate, and reader comments. I stand by my view that the film is speculative and sensationalist, but I don't see evidence of intentional deception ("lying and fabrication".) 1

Dimadick, considering the connections between the Homeric Danaans, the Egyptian Denyen, and the Hebrew tribe of Dan, why not consider the possibility that all three tribes might originate from the same place? JerryRussell (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times review of the film is pretty funny. Jacobovici thought it was a favorable review, I'm not so sure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/19/arts/television/19exod.html

"Mr. Jacobovici presents theories of ancient religious history that in a less stentorian voice might sound like baloney. You might even feel sorry for him, as if he were one of those guys whose tender intellect has been sandbagged by notions about Atlantis or Area 51. But because he’s sometimes right, and because he’s charismatic and never daunted, you don’t feel pity at even the most mad hypotheses. You feel rapt. ..."

"The voice-over — Mr. Jacobovici’s — strives for the ring of lucidity, and he certainly sounds positive, but sentence by sentence he busies himself so adamantly, connecting one dot to the next, that you often forget where you are in the master plan. (This, to me, is one hallmark of a conspiracy theory.) He also does not entertain competing arguments. He has his story, and it explains the ways of God to man, and he’s sticking to it."

"If “The Exodus Decoded” is a little bullying, it’s nonetheless haunting and powerful polemical television...."

JerryRussell (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Freund and Hengstenberg

Tgeorgescu has complained above about stated an objection about these items, saying Also verifying claims to Hengstenberg and Freund is a bit fishy. My reply was: As to Hengstenberg and Freund, the only claim we are making is that they are two authors who have written in support of the Israelite=Hyksos equation, and in support of Josephus' advocacy of this viewpoint. In fact, the article states in Wiki voice that Hengstenberg, Freund and Josephus are factually wrong. And this is the way it should be, considering the weight of scholarly opinion.

If there is any further discussion about the appropriate use and reliability of Freund and Hengstenberg, I would appreciate it if editors put their views in this section so that we can keep track of the consensus. JerryRussell (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

There's been no further discussion in this section, but some action at the article and in the edit summaries. There has also been discussion about Hengstenberg below in Mark Miller's section about references. @Doug Weller: deleted references to Freund and Ellis, saying Freund is unreliable, Ellis is even more fringe and self-published... Freund is a full professor in the Dept. of Judaic Studies at Hartford University. His book was published by Rowman & Littlefield which is a reputable academic publisher. The only reason for considering Freund unreliable is that his views diverge from the mainstream. Apparently he also committed fringery (if I may coin a crime) by speculating about Atlantis. What difference does any of this make? The proposed text for this article does not make any claims that his views are correct, we only briefly noted that he has stated the view that he agrees with Josephus.

Having deleted Freund and Ellis, Doug Weller then re-phrased the text to indicate that 19th-century author Hengstenberg agreed with Josephus. I believe this creates a false impression, that Josephus's view has no modern academic support whatsoever. Furthermore, editor @Mark Miller: complained said that Weller's text treated Hengstenberg as a primary source, thus requiring secondary verification of the interpretation. I don't believe that experienced administrator editor Doug Weller is guilty of creating a WP:OR violation here. On the contrary, I believe that Hengstenberg is a secondary source with respect to Josephus, and that his statement that he agrees with Josephus is an expression of his secondary-source opinion about Josephus. Thus I do not believe we should be caught in a pseudo-infinite loop of requiring secondary verification of Hengstenberg's secondary evaluation of Josephus. JerryRussell (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell I do not appreciate your constant description of other peoples opinion as "complaining". It's a discussion, not a fight and not a personal attack on anyone. Also, discussing the contributor and not the contribution is uncivil and makes it likely that others will have to defend themselves in a similar manner. Doug Weller being an administrator has nothing to do with content creation. His experience as an editor and researching history does.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mark, I apologize and I have corrected the three instances where I have used the word "complain" on this talk page, and the inappropriate use of the title 'administrator'. JerryRussell (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed that Mark Miller had called it a primary source. I don't understand that. Doug Weller talk 15:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC

"The 19th century author Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg identified the Hyksos with the Israelites of the Exodus" - The source used for this claim, as written, was the actual book by Hengstenberg where he "identifies" Hyksos with the Israelites of the Exodus. The subject is Hengstenberg's identification. Per WP:WPNOTRS; " secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere" however, WP:ANALYSIS states; "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source" The author and source is not close to the situation of the Hyksos or the Israelites of the Exodus however, the way that was written was to make the subject about authors analysis. Technically it is a primary source only because of the mention of the author or the book. It becomes primary because it uses the Hengstenberg source to make a claim about Hengstenberg's interpretations. That requires secondary, theird party sourcing. WP:PRIMARY states; "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." So, it is not a violation of OR to use a source in this manner. The wording was the issue, not the source. This is my opinion and is based on what I understand of Wikipedia policy and Guidelines and is not a complaint or attack on any contributor. As always, if the consensus of editors disagrees, then the content simply returns as originally presented.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the source didn't have a page number to verify the information.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This source seems to go into the detail being discussed here. It is also a Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

And here is a secondary source that discusses Hengstenberg's theories on the Hyksos and the original book source being mentioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I have added page ref for Hengstenberg. He says: The narratiuon of Manetho concerning the Hyksos presents so many points of agreement with the accounts in the Pentatueuch concerning the Israelites ... that we cannot doubt their identity with the Hyksos." - He then goes on to relate some of those points of agreement. Tatelyle (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle, I found your Hengstenberg quote on pages 270-271 of the edition at Google Books, which is the same as the one at archive.org. Could you check the page number and see if you agree? If I'm understanding correctly, what Hengstenberg was saying is that he considered the Hyksos as a complete fable. And he thought that Manetho / Josephus's tale of the Hyksos conquest and expulsion was nothing other than the story of the Israelite exodus, but with the people given an incorrect name. That reading is the only way I can make sense of Mark's secondary source discussion of Hengstenberg's views. If this is correct, the wording in the article needs a little more smithing yet to get it right. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There have been no further comments about Freund. Have I made an unanswerable argument? Or, an argument that does not deserve a reply? JerryRussell (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jerry... I have a paperback repro copy of Hengstenberg's original 1845 edition (MDCCCXLV) - as translated and commented upon by W Cooke-Taylor of Trinity College. The quote I gave is in the appendix called 'The Hyksos of Manetho', on page 254. Perhaps that edition should be appended to the reference.

My understanding of Hengstenberg is he thought that the 'legend' of the Hyksos was invented by the Egyptians, and it was based upon the real events of the Israelite Exodus. That is why the two stories are so alike. But of course now we know the Hyksos existed, and their 'Theban war of liberation' during the Seventeenth Dynasty was a real historical event. Conversely, there is little or no historical evidence for the 13th century Israelite Exodus. And so it is likely that Josephus was the more correct - that the Israelites were the Hyksos.

Not that it counts, but in my view all the modern historians have been unduly guided by their beliefs. Freund and Hengstenberg were too influenced by their religious beliefs to be objective, while Silberman and Finkelstein were too influenced by their secularism to believe anything biblical. Surprisingly, the only independent rationalist here, who was able to think the unthinkable and say the unsayable, appears to have been Josephus. Of course Josephus was answerable to nobody at that time, apart from the Flavians. As long as he did not upset Rome with anything anti-Roman, he could do or say pretty much what he pleased. Tatelyle (talk) 10:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tatelyle: Do you realise that Silberman and Finkelstein are critical of the minimalist view? And that they accept David as the founder of the Kudahite dynasty? I'm under the impression that you have their book yet you make them appear as something other than what they are. And please, can we not have forum style discussions here about whether the Hyksos were the Israelites? That's very inappropriate. And have I missed something or has no one pointed out that Josephus was wrong in translating Hyksos as "shepherd kings". Doug Weller talk 13:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell:Too much to do. I see someone else has commented on Freund. What mainstream historians have taken this idea of his seriously (I mean discuss him, not just the Hyksos)? Doug Weller talk 13:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the authors we've been discussing, Ralph Ellis, disagrees that "shepherd kings" is a mistranslation. According to Ellis, the Egyptian hieroglyph for 'hyksos' contains the glyph of a shepherd's crook. The glyph means, generically, 'ruler'; but also carries an obvious symbolic representation of the shepherd concept. So this is another area where there is a disagreement between the mainstream, and the minority view.

I haven't looked for references to Freund's book by mainstream historians. I would like to find time to read the UCSD exodus conference proceedings, and find out where the mainstream is going. I'm not necessarily accepting that there's been no recent commentary on Freund or on the Hyksos=Israelite equation, but we are using Freund here as a secondary source evaluation of Josephus, so further secondary sourcing on Freund seems irrelevant.

At the moment, we have two editors (myself and Tatelyle) who support using Fruend, and the rest of you opposed. So clearly there's no consensus. But what I'm saying is, nobody has addressed my argument that regardless of whether Freund is correct or not, or how far out on the fringe he might be, he has sufficient academic standing to be used as a reliable source to represent his own opinion about Josephus and Manetho. JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we need to really take a closer look here at all the Hyksos claims being made in the sources and how they are being presented in the article. I am not sure the section reflects an accurate summarization of the sources. Tgeorgescu and Doug Weller have brought up legitimate issues that I am not sure have all been entirely addressed, well...at least properly. Also Tatelyle there has been a good deal of work done to clean up this article. If you are unaware of how to format the citation and add the reference, could you perhaps, when there is an active discussion ongoing and no consensus has formed, not edit in you version? You are using a paperback source but for others to verify the information it might be good for you to learn how to use google books to help you add convenience links to pages of public domain works. There are several different versions of some of these publications, but if everyone is forced to look for them just because you have the book source in front of you, it is more likely one of us is going to end up reading the wrong one.

JerryRussell I wouldn't say there is no consensus, I believe even you have begun to see that there is some difference of opinion as to how to interpret Hengstenberg. We do have a basic consensus that doubt exist to the use of the Hengstenberg portion at all. Is that too far?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Millier.... As far as I know the English translation of Hengstenberg is not on Google Books, it does not come up when I type in 'Egypt and the Books of Moses'. All I get is the original German edition at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=y5YCAAAAQAAJ& . Besides, editions can change on Google Books, just as they change in print editions, so the page numbers quoted on Wiki can always change in a later Google Books edition.

@Dougweller.... Finkelstein and Silberman are very much minimalist regards the Exodus, as far as I can see. Both in their book, and in private correspondence to myself, they believe that Israelite Exodus to be fictional and based upon a folk history of the Hyksos. If you can point out differently from their book, I would be grateful for a quote. And they don't mention Josephus once, which is quite an omission.

@Dougweller.... I am new to Wiki protocols, so please excuse my ignorance. But when you asked for no forum discussions on the Hyksos-Israelite issue, did you not go on and propose a forum discussion on whether the term Shepherd King is correct? Perhaps you could point out the difference, as I am not sure what is acceptable and what is not. Many thanks. 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Tatelyle (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Finkelstein and Silberman are not "very much minimalist" on the Exodus. The best-known of the (non-fringe) "maximalist" archeologists, William Dever, agrees with them about the Exodus -- that it didn't happen. And Dever and Finkelstein have had a long and often heated debate in which Dever thinks the Bible is a lot more historical than the minimalists do. The debate between minimalists and maximalists, for the most part, isn't about the Exodus. It's about later events, like the existence of the United Kingdom of Israel and the historicity of the monarchy stories in the Bible, that the minimalist/maximalist debate is concerned. They don't mention Josephus in Bible Unearthed because Josephus adds nothing to the account except for passing on what Manetho says and what the Bible says. And they do discuss the Bible and Manetho (and since Manetho survives by being quoted in Josephus, they're really discussing the same material you're talking about). They are in fact interested in the Manetho material preserved in Josephus, they just aren't interested in discussing Josephus's evaluation of Manetho. Your private correspondence with Finkelstein (and Silberman?) is completely irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. We go by what they've published, not by whatever conversations you might have had with them. Alephb (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I was pointing out that sources say that Josephus mistranslated the word "Hyksos". We can discuss which sources we should use, whether we should use sources that disagree (Ellis again isn't an RS for this), etc. We can do that without arguing who was right and must focus on the article. There's a difference between doing that and just arguing about whether the Exodus took place. Doug Weller talk 12:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller wrote: I wouldn't say there is no consensus, I believe even you have begun to see that there is some difference of opinion as to how to interpret Hengstenberg. We do have a basic consensus that doubt exist to the use of the Hengstenberg portion at all. Is that too far? About the lack of a consensus, I was referring to whether Freund is adequately RS to use in this context. About Hengstenberg, what I'm seeing is an evolving consensus that it's OK to refer to him in the article, but that his views might be viewed as primary source, and thus require secondary-source verification. Since you provided secondary sources covering Hengstenberg's views, it seems that we can meet that requirement. Also, there's a concern that the existing text in our article doesn't accurately represent Henstenberg's views. Our article says that Hengstenberg identified the Hyksos with the Israelites of the Exodus, as did Flavius Josephus... More precisely, Hengstenberg believed that the Hyksos were a mythical construct and that Manetho was talking about the Israelites. Whereas, Josephus did believe the Hyksos existed, as well as that they were the same people as the Israelites. I think the existing syntax in the article isn't exactly wrong, but could benefit from clarification. JerryRussell (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dougweller says we should not 'argue about whether the Exodus took place'. But that was the whole tenor of the The Exodus Wiki article, which played the 'myth and fiction' card rather too freely and confidently in my opinion. The whole point of this revision was to allow and include alternate views from history and academia, that the Exodus may have been historical. Which meant that some discussion about the validity of the biblical account was bound to occur. But I don't think that discussion has been overplayed, as it was always with reference to what others have claimed, and which of those claims should be included. Tatelyle (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how familiar was Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg with Egyptian history? His article mentions him as a professor of theology, with some training in philology. He published works and translations on ancient Greek philosophy and pre-Islamic Arabic poetry. He does not appear to have been a historian or an archaeologist. Other that the usual fragments of Manetho, preserved in the works of Sextus Julius Africanus and Eusebius, did he have access to other sources on the topic? Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right that he was not an Egyptologist. All I'm using Hengstenberg for at this point, is a secondary source verification of what Josephus said. But if this is still problematic, I'm sure I could come up with more sources. There isn't much if any dispute about what Josephus said. JerryRussell (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Josephus

Tgeorgescu has complained above about our expressed a concern about our treatment of Josephus, saying "Also, presenting Josephus' view could be done without violating WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:FRINGE." He has also place an ugly a maintenance tag, and replaced it over my revert.

My reply: The phrase in question states: ...as did Flavius Josephus in Against Apion, who claimed that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was a reliable Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus. A citation is given to the section in Against Apion where this claim is made, so any reader can verify that this is what Josephus said. And we give two modern sources who verify that this is what Josephus said. No claims as to the truth of the statement itself are being made here. So there is certainly no WP:OR, and we've just had an RfC in which there was an overwhelming consensus (including Tgeorgescu himself) that Josephus is a reliable source concerning his own views. WP:FRINGE does not support the view that all fringe must be exterminated from Wikipedia on sight.

If there is any further discussion about the appropriate use of Josephus, would editors please comment in this section. Thank you. JerryRussell (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, Against Apion is a reliable source for Josephus' views pretty much as Das Kapital is a reliable source for Karl Marx' views. Their analysis should be left to WP:SECONDARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the Wiki page on Das Kapital starts out by stating what Marx said, and only then goes into a modern analysis of his views and arguments. The section on Joseohus should do the same - state what Josephus says, and then overview any modern analysis of what he claimed. I note you have again removed the quote from Josephus that the Hyksos were 'Our People'. You continual removal of this quote appears to be ideologically motivated, rather that being dictated by Wiki policy. I am making a complaint about your continued refusal to allow reference to Josephus, despite the consensus here that Josephus is quotable. Tatelyle (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

May I remind Tgeorgescu that his major complaint about my first update, was the removal of a quote by Finkelstein (because it was only relevant to the 13th century). This was a grave editorial transgression, apparently. However, Tgeorgescu has deleted quotes by Josephus on numerous occasions, especially the one where Josephus says the Hyksos were 'our people', and has still not given any reason for those deletions. Why is this quote being continually deleted, Tgeorgescu? Tatelyle (talk) 12:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

You're for real? Please provide diffs showing that I had really done that! Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The article Das Kapital (not a "wiki page", an article in this encyclopedia), is by Karl Marx, right? So we'd do the same probably in an article about a book by Josephus. But he didn't write The Exodus, so how we treat Marx in an article about one of his books is irrelevant here. Doug Weller talk 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Tatelyle:, I'm not sure we need to have a direct quotation of Josephus to make the point of what he's saying. WP:IMPARTIAL says "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. ... The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." It might be appropriate to put the quote of Josephus into the footnote citing Against Apion, since there seems to be some controversy among the editors here about what he really said.

In general, I've found one makes a lot more progress at editing Wikipedia by learning the policies and cooperating with them and with other editors. Most disputes really wind up being settled one way or another right on the article talk page.

@Tgeorgescu:, our existing text cites both Josephus himself, and secondary sources that verify we're interpreting his words correctly. I don't understand what more you're asking for. JerryRussell (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jerry... I would be happy with a quote in the reference. Although I don't see that making that quote is 'partial'. It is simply a clarification that Josephus thought the Israelites were Hyksos ('our people'), as there appeared to be some contention on that issue here. And if Wiki editors can be confused, then readers can also be confused. Tatelyle (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dougweller... But Josephus did write about the Exodus, and make commentary upon it, just as Marx wrote about economics, and made commentary upon it. And Marx is quoted, before further commentary is made. Tatelyle (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Now you are changing your argument. This new one is comparing apples and ball bearings. Marx was writing about what he observed and recent history, Josephus was not. Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I just checked the article on Josephus, and it doesn't say a word about Josephus' interesting view that the Israelites are the same as the Hyksos. There's a very brief section about Against Apion. This might be a good place to put the full quote into the encyclopedia. JerryRussell (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I've done some looking into this and while reformatting references to Wikipedia standards so that short citations actually work to link to the reference material listed, I noticed that the source added for this claim is primary and the claim is an analysis of the primary work. First, don't add the content in the middle of the claim being referenced by another source unless that original source backs up your added content. If it does not, add it as a direct quote, attributed as it already is in text. If it does, please, always re-add the original citation behind your new content and source. Don't cut of the verifiable information. So yes to JerryRussell's suggestion but, it should be moved to be behind the referenced claim. I hope this helps.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I took out the reference to '1st volume', '2nd volume'. The account of the Hyksos in Against Apion is all in Book 1, so I think these references were incorrect.

I made the quotations by Josephus 'three' instead of 'two'. Although I am not entirely sure what is meant by this. The reference to the Hyksos by Josephus takes several paragraphs, not two quotes. If this refers to the the two separate sections (Hyksos Exodus and Leper Exodus), then perhaps this should be worded as "two sections", not "two quotes". But the two 'quotes' that follow in the Wiki paragraph do not come from the two sections (the Hyksos Exodus 1:14-16, and Leper Exodus 1:26-28). Perhaps some more editing is required here, to clarify.

Anyway, the three pertinent quotes by Josephus that link the Hyksos with the Israelites are:

... "Manetho, in another book of his, says, "This (Hyksos) nation were called Shepherds ... in their sacred books. And this account is the truth; for feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers ... (and) they were called Shepherds." Against Apion 1:14

... "And it is evident ... that these shepherds, as they are here called, who were no other than our forefathers, were delivered out of Egypt, and came thence, and inhabited this country" Against Apion 1:16

... "Manetho promised to interpret the Egyptian history out of their sacred writings, and premised that "our people had come into Egypt, many ten thousands in number, and subdued its inhabitants;" and that "we went out of that country afterward, and settled in that country which is now called Judea, and there built Jerusalem and its temple." Now thus far he followed his ancient records..." Against Apion 1:26

I think his opinion that the Israelites were the Hyksos is apparent in these quotes. Tatelyle (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the edit we are discussing?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to check into this a bit later.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The idea among scholars isn't that the Hyksos were the Israelites, but that a memory of the Hyksos event, mixed up with a memory of Akhenaten, formed the basis of an oral tradition that underlay the Exodus story when it was written circa 450-400 BC. PiCo (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Miller... Yes. This mention of 'volumes' was in the The Exodus article from way back, and I have no idea what it means. As I say, all of the exoduses that Josephus-Manetho mentions are in Book 1 of Against Apion, so I have no idea what 'first volume' refers to. Likewise, the 'two quotations' statement is also a mystery. I think 'several paragraphs' would be a better explanation. Tatelyle (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pico... You are not reading the quotes I just gave (above). Flavius Josephus clearly thought that the Israelites were the Hyksos. But this clear statement and association between the Israelites and the Hyksos has been reinterpreted by modern scholars, to suit their various beliefs, biases and agendas.

As a Christian, Hengstenberg interpreted the Hyksos story as an Egyptian fabrication, based upon the 'real' biblical exodus account. As a later Christian(?) who knows more of the Hyksos era and could not deny it, Freund interpreted the biblical story as the biblical authors borrowing details about the real Hyksos. As secularists who shy away from biblical texts, Silberman and Finkelstein evaded the issue altogether, and simply don't mention Josephus' assertion at all (which is not the best of scholarship). In my humble opinion, this is why modern scholars are not always the best sources, because there are often more socio-political pressures to 'conform' laid upon modern scholars and scientists, than in the past. (Having said that, Josephus had his own pressures and biases - he could not, for instance, say anything against his 'wonderful' Roman patrons, whatever he might have thought in private.)

Tatelyle (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle wrote: This mention of 'volumes' was in the 'The Exodus' article from way back, and I have no idea what it means. The original reference was to some scholarly edition of Manetho. I think there is a notion that although the works of Manetho have not survived, they can be reconstructed by looking at quotes not only from Josephus, but other ancient sources as well. As far as I know, the pertinent sections of Manetho have survived only in Josephus's Against Apion. JerryRussell (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

'"@Miller... Yes. This mention of 'volumes' was in the The Exodus article from way back, and I have no idea what it means." Huh? Don't think that was me, was it?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Miller. You said: "Is this the edit being discussued.". Yes, that was the edit, where I took out a mention of 'volumes', because there are no 'volumes' as far as I can see. Josephus is quoting Manetho, and all the references are in Book 1 of Against Apion, so the long-standing mention of 'volumes' here was incorrect as far as I can see. In addition, my amendment to 'three quotes' may also be misleading - I think 'several paragraphs' would be a better explanation of what Josephus writes. Tatelyle (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I conjectured above that the discussion of "volumes" might relate to some scholarly edition of Manetho. According to our (rather poorly sourced) Wikipedia article on Manetho, his book is now represented as consisting of three books or volumes. But, both of the Exodus-related stories discussed by Josephus occur in the 2nd of the three volumes. So, I can only conclude that the reference to 'volumes' in our article here was both misleading and incorrect, and Tatelyle was justified to remove it. JerryRussell (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"this is why modern scholars are not always the best sources, because there are often more socio-political pressures to 'conform' laid upon modern scholars and scientists, than in the past."

While I have my own doubts about the supposed accuracy or unbiased nature of modern scholarship, socio-political factors have always been at work where history is concerned. From antiquity onwards, historians have tended to use their works to support various political, religious, philosophical, and economic agendas. And if the facts do not really fit their narrative, they resort to ignoring or fabricating them. Eusebius has been described as a particularly dishonest historian, but he at least admitted what he was doing: "That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment." This is the the so-called father of church history. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• Is the Carol A. Redmount source from 1998 and the revised version from 2001 the same source or is there a big difference being referenced from the 2001 version. Can the citations all be the 1998 publication?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• The full reference for the short citation, (Collins 2004, p. 181.) appears to be missing.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• The full reference for the short citation, (Practico 1985, pp. 1–32.) appears to be missing.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, both Redmount references are to the same exact book, letter for letter. "Copyright 1998 by Oxford University Press. Issued as an Oxford University Press paperback in 2001." the reference that says "(2001) [1998]" appears to be the correct one, while the reference that says "(1998) [1998]" seems to me not to make any sense. I think the 1998-1998 entry in the bibliography is a simple mistake. I believe that if the "(2001) [1998]" version is left as it stands, the sfn references to 1998 will link to it fine, if I'm remembering an earlier version of the bibliography correctly.

No, that wasn't a mistake. The book source linked is the 1998 version. It is not the 2001 version. If you add the correct dates to the fields it would show up correctly but to do that you have to "fudge" the dates or just lose the link. I can fix that though. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"Practico 1985 is a typo, and that the full reference is to Pratico, Gary D. "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 259 (Summer, 1985), pp. 1-32.

The full reference for Collins is John J. Collins (2004). "Israel". In Sarah Iles Johnston. Religions of the Ancient World: A Guide. Harvard University Press. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-674-01517-3. Alephb (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb OK, well they were not showing up as you described so, make whatever changes you wish on the references I placed. Also, feel free to revert anything I did. I made no changes to content just references and some alterations to the header levels but I'm not married to anything but the references working correctly. I will still be moving all references not currently being used to the talk page in a collapsed section so they can be looked at for use/value.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Mark Miller. All right. The "References" section had two copies of the exact same Redmount citation, so I took one out. I'm not sure about the "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 . . ." citation. Pratico published a 32-page paper by that title in 1985 and a 223-page book by the same title in 1993, so I believe the reference to "pp. 1-32" in the notes was originally intended for the 1985 version. The 1985 version can be found here: [20]. Alephb (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• The 19th century author Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg identified the Hyksos with the Israelites of the Exodus This cannot be referenced with the primary source. That sort of analysis requires secondary sourcing.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest we just use Hengstenberg as another secondary reference verifying that Josephus identified the Hyksos with the Israelites. I would've thought that there was no original research involved in reading Hengstenberg and determining that he not only understood what Josephus said, but also agreed with it. But he doesn't add much to the original point we were trying to make. All our modern authors endorsing Josephus' viewpoint have been rejected one by one, leaving Hengstenberg as the last one standing. I think from an NPOV and Due Weight point of view, this end result is regrettable. A significant minority viewpoint in the modern day has been edited into oblivion. But at least we all can agree and verify without OR, that Josephus said what he obviously did. JerryRussell (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Hengstenberg source is only a primary source as it is merely the work itself being discussed or in which a claim is being made. Editors are limited to describing only what is directly in a primary source such as a quote or a list of names or other descriptor involving only content. Stating that; "Hengstenberg identified..." is analysis. It could simply be re-written to simply quote what Hengstenberg states to identify such. That way the content can stay and we can lose the tag. However.....if the source; Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians by Author Drodge is the secondary source for this, then just move the Hengstenberg source behind the Drodge source. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion above in the section about Freund & Hengstenberg. I agree that Hengstenberg is a secondary source and could be moved behind Droge, but I disagree that the rules about WP:OR require such treatment. I don't see how a statement that Hengstenberg agreed with Josephus requires any analysis. JerryRussell (talk) 15:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can only say this, the wording makes the source primary because it is a claim about the author that interprets their work in the source. The wording makes the authors' claims the subject and that does make them too close to the source for a claim of fact. It is all about the way the source is used and the wording presented. A simple secondary source does not require in-text attribution. An opinion does. Per WP:RSOPINION; "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.". If it is being used as a straight secondary source then all that is needed is to summarize the facts with the source as an inline citation. If it is opinion then it needs clarification along with the in-text attribution.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• The documentary film The Exodus Decoded by Simcha Jacobovici goes further, claiming that the Exodus tale more or less accurately represents the actual events of the Hyksos expulsion. These claims have been vigorously challenged by scholars. Unfortunately, the bare url reference goes nowhere as the url address is no for sale.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

As per discussion above, this is just as well. It's easy to find another reference, but the content is probably unwise. The target article about that documentary could use some cleanup. Some of the claims in the documentary are actually readily verifiable from academic sources, but you would never know it from the article. The criticisms are sourced from blogs, most of which have disappeared and become broken links. I had thought I found one that still worked. Bygones. JerryRussell (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Simcha Jacobovici theory is controversial. I would not call it fringe but it would require better balance of criticism from main stream academia as well as an actual reliable source, which probably isn't that difficult. It has enough notability for mention but only as far as what it is or how it is viewed by overall academia. The same is true of some of Dr. Zahi Hawass' theories in this area which may tie in.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, it was late at night and I was tired when I said "bygones". I don't see any quick and easy way to fix this, but it does deserve attention. I wonder if there should be a separate article on "Hyksos and Israelites" where these issues can be more fully discussed. The article on The Exodus Decoded is seriously in need of an update, but is also perhaps at risk of becoming a WP:COATRACK? Or would it be just as clearly Not a Coatrack? I'm not sure how to handle this. JerryRussell (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It would be a coatrack of Hyksos. Doug Weller talk 10:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Simcha Jacobovici theory isn't controversial, it's rejected. It has no standing at all in scholarly circles. Don't use it. PiCo (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, yeah. No arguing there but isn't that what the entire article is basically about? The subject of the Exodus as an "event" has many theories but in the long run consensus is that it there is no evidence that it did happen...as editors. But we all have to remember that we are discussing theories going back a pretty long way and maybe so far..... that coverage is questionable but there is a subject here. I just think the problem is, that there are some on the side that it never happened and some on the side that it did happen. The article is about the fact that there is a event tradition that has no evidence to support that it happened. Properly discussing why theories don't work is were we are sort of failing here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the article The Exodus Decoded is already a coatrack? That is, at least some of the theories in the film come from academics whose opinions are outside the mainstream. The article provides a framework for blog articles to be used to attack those respected academics' theories, without citing or naming the original sources of the theories. JerryRussell (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Jacobovici notoriously edited the experts he used in the film to make them seem to say things they never said at all. Don't even mention him. PiCo (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

A few things

• I believe that the narrative section relies too much on the single Redmount source. This can easily be fixed by adding additional reliable sources. The reference could be the overarching source with additional references to strengthen the section.
• I believe the Cultural significance section should be a subsection of the Narrative section.
• There seem to be a number of references added to the bibliography section that are generating error messages because they are not linked to a short citation. I'll look at what is in the article and move all unused references here to the talk page to keep from losing anything that could be used in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. In at least a few cases, content has been deleted, leaving the references hanging. JerryRussell (talk) 04:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll finish that over the next week.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Martin Bernal

I have found another source on the Hyksos-Israelite connection: Martin Bernal, Black Athena, vol. 2 pp. 357-358. 1 Comments? JerryRussell (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Highly controversial book, see e.g. Jacques Berlinerblau (1999). Heresy in the University: The Black Athena Controversy and the Responsibilities of American Intellectuals. Rutgers University Press. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8135-2588-4. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I think I predicted that any author who would stand up for the Hyksos=Israelite equation would be WP:FRINGE in one way or another. But at least his work got a lot of academic attention. JerryRussell (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Martin Bernal is primarily known for a theory that both the Greek civilization and the Greek language were Egyptian in origin, and that Egypt maintained colonies in Greece and the Aegean Sea during the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BCE. He also found Egyptian and other African elements in the civilizations of the Ancient Near East. He argued that any number of historical perspectives which denied Egypt's primacy in the history of human civilization were based on Anti-African racism.

While he did raise a few good points concerning potential biases in past and present historical perspectives, his theory is contradicted by available linguistic, archaeological, and historical data. He still has something of a fanbase, but mostly as a famous voice in the field of Afrocentrism. Dimadick (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, white European scholars agree that Martin Bernal's theories are erroneous. Thus, his "fanbase" consists of mostly voices in the field of Afrocentrism. Funny that, kidding? But for whatever it's worth, he suspects a Hurrian (that is, Indo-European) component to the Hyksos rulers. JerryRussell (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Saying that all Western scholars, Afrocentrists excepted, subscribe to some white-ist ideology is a cock and bull story. If anything, the force of the West lies in pluralism, not in enforced ideology. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

the force of the West lies in pluralism, not in enforced ideology. Unlike Wikipedia, where strength lies in consensus, and fringe is eradicated on sight. (Kidding!) JerryRussell (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

How does one create a major internet encyclopedia through the contributions of editors of quite diverse beliefs and backgrounds? Through deciding that they should kowtow to the academic mainstream. (No, this is not a joke.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Identify, acknowledge and respect the mainstream view, yes. Kowtow to it, to the exclusion of all other views? Where is that policy, Tgeorgescu? Please quote the policy, don't quote another user. JerryRussell (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not say "to the exclusion of all other views". For Justin Bieber we quote mainstream press instead of scholars, since the article is concerned with quite mundane matters. Views that may be included are the views of significant minorities (which have to be scholars if the subject is scholarly), see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. And of course flat Earth has its own article, but we don't say that the Earth would be flat, it is just a notable fringe belief. But, yes, WP:VER and WP:SOURCES boil down to kowtowing to the academic mainstream. If you don't like the word kowtow, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. "Kowtow" might be a funny way of describing what we do inside Wikipedia, but it is accurate. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

'Kowtow' is a pejorative meaning to show fawning, obsequious deference; to kneel and touch the forehead to the ground in token of homage, worship, or deep respect. If that's what the editors do here, then this place needs to change.

'Flat Earth' is something of a red herring in this context. The view that the Hyksos people were (or should we say became, or were ancestral to?) the Israelites, is hardly comparable to Flat Earth.

But, now that you mention it, there is an interesting quirk in Wikipedia policies about web publishing. The most famous Flat Earth advocate today is Eric Dubay, to judge from YouTube view counts. He's also a Young Earth Creationist. His videos get millions of views. But you would never know he exists, by looking at Wikipedia. I think this is a disservice to our readers, just like failing to link to Exodus Decoded because of the OneWay policy is a disservice to the public. JerryRussell (talk) 02:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. And, like Britannica, it exists to help give people a summary about what reliable sources are saying on any given topic, and it's policies repeatedly and in many different places indicate that there is a certain kind of curating we do here. The end result, when Wikipedians do their jobs well, is an accurate reflection of the world's institutionally produced knowledge, specifically of the kinds of information produced by mainstream universities, newspapers, and so on. To put it in another way, Wikipedia is a free summary-writing service for the journalistic-academic complex. There are, no doubt, interesting and worthwhile conversations that occur out there, that generate a fair bit of public interest, but which fail to attract the attention of the journalistic-academic complex (what Wikipedia calls reliable sources, roughly). The good news is that people like Eric Dubay, if they are being ignored by the establishment, have alternate outlets, like YouTube. Just not Wikipedia. Wikipedia has already bitten off an enormous bite -- trying to summarize all the significant WP:RS material out there, and has about 30,000 highly engaged editors trying to keep 5-6 million articles in some kind of decent shape. If you would like to try and get the community/leadership of Wikipedia to change its overall approach to what is notable, I would be happy to point you in the direction of where you would need to discuss a change like that. But it's not going to happen on this particular talk page. We don't have enough people here to change Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. On individual articles, our job is just to follow them. Alephb (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

While the Hurrians were conquered and partially assimilated by the Hittites (who were Indo-European), the Hurrian language is either considered a language isolate or grouped into an extinct language family: Hurro-Urartian languages. Samples of the language do not seem to match with the Indo-European and Semitic languages of the neighboring populations. Interestingly the Hurrians had a wider cultural impact: several myths of the Hurrians apparently had an influence of Greek mythology, with Anu replaced by Uranus, Kumarbi replaced by Cronus, and the storm god Teshub replaced by Zeus. The dragon-like enemy of Teshub, Illuyanka, re-appears in Greek myth as Typhon.

Several scholars have proposed that the Hyksos (who were apparently of mixed Asiatic origin) included a a Hurrian component, though this seems to be a minority view. A number of Hyksos personal names found in sources do appear to have Hurrian etymologies. The book "Civilization Before Greece and Rome" (1989) by H W F Saggs describes the Hyksos as "an ethnically mixed group with Hurrian element". Dimadick (talk) 18:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

More precisely, Bernal saw a possible Mitanni-Hittite-Hurrian hybrid influence on the Hyksos. "Despite considerable ideological reluctance, I find this a very plausible picture" he said. (p.348). JerryRussell (talk) 19:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Bernal is not academically respectable. PiCo (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's amazing what some people will do to get tenure at Cornell. JerryRussell (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Faust's article is a bit more nuanced

He says that most scholars agree that "some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt. "While there is a consensus among scholars that the Exodus did not take place in the manner described in the Bible, surprisingly most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt...In this, I am not referring to the various traditions of Israel’s interaction with Egypt resulting from the era of Egyptian control in Canaan or from some relations with the Hyksos, which found their way into the Bible (Russell 2009; see also Hendel 2001; Knohl 2008; Na’aman 2011; more below), but to the possibility that there was a group which fled Egypt, and brought this story of Exodus with it. Though the size of this group is debated, most of the above scholars agree that it was in the range of a few thousands, or even hundreds (some give it more weight, e.g., Hoffmeier 1997). Still, despite the limited size of this group, it appears that during the process of Israel’s ethnogenesis its story became part of the common history of all the Israelites. Clearly, if there was an Exodus in the thirteenth century this group of people could have been part of Merneptah’s Israel. However, despite the assumed significance of this group (the Exodus as a "national" epic, more below), it is likely that this group was incorporated at a later stage, only after Merneptah’s time, or at least that it was distinct from Merneptah’s Israel. After all, although this group clearly brought with it some of what became the history of Israel, it wasn’t Merneptah’s Israel, or any "Israel" for that matter. While many scholars agree that the Exodus group brought with it YHWH as a new deity (Cross 1988; Knohl 2008; cf., Ro¨mer, Chap. 22), the name Israel has the component "El," rather than "Ya" or "Yahu."12 Thus, Israel could preceded the arrival of the Exodus group, and it is likely that the latter was not Israel’s "core" group.[21]

The way it is put at the moment could lead readers to think that the first Israelites came from Egypt. I know it doesn't say that, but I think that any such statement should be attributed an expandeded. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller, do you think it would be OK to just substitute "highland settlers" for "Israelites"? I agree that my equation "Highland Settlers = Israelites" leaves out some nuance. JerryRussell (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. I'm cooking dinner and waiting for onions to soften. But I think it should be attributed as well. I'm also uncertain about "There is a current scholarly consensus that if the Israelites did emerge from Egypt, it must have occurred sometime during the 13th century" - as this is a source I can't read, can you quote some of it? I'm not saying the author doesn't say that, but how he puts it is important. I'd like to know more about the context. Doug Weller talk 16:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

There were no Israelites in the 14th century BC - the Amara letters, which are from Canaan and date from that time, never mention them, nor is there any archaeological evidence. The first mention of them is from the end of the 13th century, and even then there's still no distinctive archarological evidence, which indicates that they were Canaanites. The idea that some Israelites came from Egypt has two sources, the first being that it could explain why a handful of Levite names might be of Egyptian origin, the second that it helps explain the origin of the Exodus tradition. That's pretty thin, but but yes, there's a strand of respectable scholarship that advances this argument. It comes from Anne Killebrew, and is called the "mixed multitude hypothesis". PiCo (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Just to expand on that: The exodus story doesn't exist before the 5th century BC. There's no sign of it in the older literature, and Moses is never mentioned before then. This is why the "mixed multitude" hypothesis is not widely accepted - it fails to explain what these Egyptian Israelites were doing for close on a thousand years. The alternative hypothesis is that when the exodus story was written, during the earlier part of the Persian period, Egypt was an independent kingdom and held a large Jewish population (they'd fled there in the 6th century after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians). So the Jews of Jerusalem were appealing in a covert way to the Jews of Egypt to leave Egypt and join them. PiCo (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Pico, we aren't here to discuss the truth. We're here to discuss what the sources say. Where is this source that says the Exodus story doesn't exist before the 5th century BC?

I've been reading this interesting article by William Dever that talks about "proto-Israelites". This seems to be his solution to the problem you're discussing, regarding what to call the Canaanites from Egypt before they developed a distinguishable material culture. 1 [Unsigned comment by JerryRussell]

Doug Weller, sorry for the delay. I was hoping to buy the PDF without DRM directly from Springer. But their commerce website is hopelessly buggy, and I gave up and got the Google Books edition. Here's some context information about the Geraty article, "Exodus Dates and Theories".

Abstract:

This chapter surveys in a brief and introductory manner the scholarly views regarding the dating of the Exodus described in the Hebrew Bible, including especially the “traditional” 18th dynasty date (ca. 1450 BCE) and the current “consensus” 19th dynasty date (ca. 1250 BCE), but touching also on other Exodus dates advocated from ca. 2100 BCE through ca. 650 BCE. These are summarized in table form with the relevant bibliography. Theories of the date are usually accompanied by identifications of the pharaohs involved, and these are briefly surveyed as well.

Some context:

I begin with the traditional date in the 18th dynasty, move to the current consensus date in the 19th dynasty, and then even more briefly touch on several other Exodus theories. Views that it never happened do not give us a date since it is a nonevent. Views that it did not happen in much like the way described in the Bible are not very datable either. In other words, this overview of dates necessarily pertains more to “centrist” rather than “minimalist” positions, as well, of course, the face value, somewhat literalist understanding of the Exodus traditions—namely, that there was a datable event, that we find the round numbers helpful, that Moses had a genuine relationship to the Exodus narrative, and the like.

This also seems to exclude authors like Assmann, who see the Exodus as a "cultural memory" or a conflation of two or more historical events or episodes.

The 'consensus' quote with more context:

Consensus Date in the Late Thirteenth Century BCE, in the 19th Dynasty

Pharaoh Merneptah’s “Israel” Stele (ca. 1220 or 1208 BCE depending on the Egyptian chronology used) fixes the latest date before which the Exodus must have occurred since it mentions Israel as a people among names that otherwise refer to places in Palestine. We have already referred to the reinterpretation of the chronological datum in 1 Kings 6:1 as a symbolic, idealized interval. But it is primarily the archaeological evidence from excavated Palestinian sites that has been used to bolster the current scholarly consensus that if there was an Israelite Exodus from Egypt, it must have occurred sometime in the thirteenth century BCE, in other words, sometime during the 19th dynasty. Does evidence from Egypt in the thirteenth century support such a theory?

Geraty then goes on to argue at great length against this consensus theory, concluding:

Beyond the generalized nature of the preceding suggestions, some problems with dating the Exodus in the thirteenth century arise when the history of this period is examined from the biblical point of view. These problems have to do with the pharaohs involved: the pharaoh of the oppression, who died while Moses was in exile (Exod 1:23), and the pharaoh who died during the Exodus (Psalm 136:15; cf. Exod 14:4, 17–18, 26–28). It must be said that neither Seti I nor Ramses II works well for the pharaoh of the oppression, nor do Ramses II or Merneptah work that well for the pharaoh of the Exodus.

I see two interesting academic phenomenon in Geraty's statements. One: by conjuring a "consensus" and then offering to defeat it, Geraty makes himself appear more important. Two: Geraty is using the word 'consensus' as technical jargon. According to Merriam-Webster, the first meaning of 'consensus' is "general agreement; unanimity". The second meaning is "the judgment arrived at by most concerned." Considering all the various dissidents from the alleged consensus named in Geraty's own paper, it appears that what he means by 'consensus' is more like Wikipedia jargon. That is, where dozens of editors argue for weeks about something, and then the raw vote count is something like 20 to 17. A panel of three consensus-readers determines that the team of 17 is correct because their arguments are better, and finally several editors from the losing side are banned for bad behavior. Calling this a 'consensus' is pretty much like saying that words like "denier" or "fringe" are not pejorative. It's speaking in some language that is not English.

And by the way, I am not on a soapbox (at least not by the Wikipedia definition.) I am addressing the question of whether Geraty is RS for consensus claims, and how such claims should be reported. JerryRussell (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bit of housekeeping -- the quotes are from Geraty 2015, and appear on pages 55, 57, 58, and 59, respectively, of the "Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective" book. It is worth noting that Geraty does not name a single living scholar who thinks the Hyksos were the Israelites or that the Hyksos Exodus can be equated with the Israelite Exodus. Alephb (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Meaning he forget to mention Freund. Seriously, this is because saying that "the Hyksos were the Israelites" is an oversimplification. It isn't exactly true, but some would argue it isn't exactly false either. Even Ellis says the biblical Exodus is a conflation of the Hyksos and Amarna episodes -- but significantly fictionalized from that starting point. Dever uses exactly my Pilgrim analogy to describe the general situation, although not necessarily the Hyksos in particular. JerryRussell (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can assume that not mentioning Freund is a matter of forgetting. The entire academic world -- and I really do mean the entire academic world, has "forgetten" Freund's Digging through the Bible -- they don't discuss it. Perhaps Garety really was the one academic in the world who thought Freund's work was worth mentioning and just forgot to cite him. But maybe not. In a perfect world, academics might have time to discuss every single person who mentions a theory. In a world where we all have limited time and will die one day, however, academics have no choice but to restrict themselves to trying to cover only the significant voices on any particular topic.Alephb (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

But consider that the Hyksos Exodus theory was the topic of a major documentary by James Cameron, which was written up in the New York Times. Did anybody make a movie about the Mixed Multitude theory?

While we are *not* soapboxing: consider that in a world with limited time, many people don't waste any time reading academics at all. They only know what they see on TV. Or maybe they read a Wikipedia article. That's why at Wikipedia, part of the notability criteria involves coverage in sources like the New York Times. JerryRussell (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, as an alternate approach that might (I think) get less pushback from other editors, perhaps -- if there's enough coverage to justify it -- you might try writing an article titled something like Hyksos Exodus theory or Relationship of Hyksos and Ancient Israelites. Perhaps you could go into somewhat greater depth on this interesting topic there without other editors expressing nearly as much concern about WP:DUE and such. Then, perhaps, this article, in its section on the Hyksos, could contain a link out to that more in-depth article. Of course, there's still probably things people could disagree with, but it might be a more fruitful approach. Alephb (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Other articles (I'm just brainstorming here): Pop Culture and the Exodus, History of Exodus scholarship, Historicity of the Exodus, Origins of Israelites. Alephb (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this. As for Cameron, yes, he was making a documentary - for the History Channel. The History Channel loves sensationalist stuff, and it's not surprising they commissioned something highlighting Jacobovici. So? Doug Weller talk 11:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

About the idea of a sub-article, I like it a lot. This was my first suggestion when I saw this controversy. I would give it the same title as the section in this article, "The Exodus: Sources and Parallels". But would WP:ONEWAY be used to argue that we can't link this article to that one? And, how does creating a sub-article help to decide what should be provided in this article? JerryRussell (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that would depend on how the article was written. If the article The Exodus: Sources and Parallels gave significant and prominent coverage to the sources and parallels of the Exodus as found in reliable sources, I don't think there'd be any problem. If the article was simply a repetition of various fringe theories, then I can imagine some people wanting to impose ONEWAY restrictions. Alephb (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Moses and Akhenaten

I shamelessly copied a block of text from Akhenaten about Freud's book "Moses and Monotheism", and scholarly reactions to it. This content has existed for a long time at the other article, and it's obviously highly relevant here. I'm hoping that somebody will revert Pico's deletion, since I've done one revert today already. Or perhaps that Pico will explain why he considers not only Freud but the other eight sources cited, are all just "pop science". JerryRussell (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

To avoid edit-warring, I'm deliberately holding back a little from doing clean-up of some things a recent IP editor has done here. User:Edaham has shown up and started doing some work simultaneously to the disruptive editing, so just for reference when I or whoever gets to cleaning up the remaining damage, here's what the IP has done that has not been reverted yet.

The IP has added "but new evidence from the [[Amarna Letters]] point to the conquest of [[Egyptian]] lands by the [[Hebrews]] (Habiru). Its cities were believed to have been unwalled and do not show destruction layers consistent with the Bible's account of the occupation of the landand" to the "Date" section.

From the same section, the IP has removed, "The lack of evidence has led scholars to conclude that the Exodus story does not represent a specific historical moment.{{sfn|Killebrew|2005|p=152}}"

To the same section, the IP has added "There is, however, new evidence from the 1950's excavation by [[Dame Kathleen Kenyon]] that could point to a [[Jericho]] being a walled city until about 1400 BCE.".

All three of these will be fixed, and can be seen in this diff: [22]. Alephb (talk) 04:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah crap - I did revert one (blanking) edit, but didn't check the history for other weirdness. I'm largely tackling one sentence which is a bit lonely without any corresponding citations in the body (added tag) and trying to make the text slightly plainer. I'm going to check the article history now for similar recent removals of cited material. Edaham (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. You're obviously here for constructive reasons, so I just posted this to make sure the IP hijinks don't get lost behind your constructive edits. It's been quite a blitz of edits in the last couple hours. Alephb (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If it helps, the last version of this page before the IP arrived is this one: [23]. Alephb (talk) 05:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

All right. Thanks to your cleaning-up, all that's left to clean up is the unsourced addition of "There is, however, new evidence from the 1950's excavation by [[Dame Kathleen Kenyon]] that could point to a [[Jericho]] being a walled city until about 1400 BCE." to the Date section. Thanks for the help. Alephb (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - I think please check my work! update - used ctrl+f to check for any more uncited dames, article appears to have been reverted correctly. Edaham (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Everything looks right again. Alephb (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Dates

@Anthroponlogy: Please see MOS:ERA: Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

To restate the reason, the article did not follow a convention in dating, using both BC and BCE. So I edited it to follow the more suitable convention for its content. Anthroponlogy (talk)

The entire article used BCE before you got to it, with the exception of a small minority of cases, all found in the newly written section on the Hyksos. Those should be changed to match the previous convention. The previous convention was BCE and the article should stay that way unless a consensus emerges on the talk page to change it. Alephb (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

And its content is clearly an argument for using BCE, not BC. Doug Weller talk 07:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reversion Opportunity

We've had a raft of problematic edits in a fairly short time frame, so I'm deliberately holding back from reverting at the moment so as not to step into edit-warring. However, for anyone else interested, this edit is worth reviewing. Alephb (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

This is all moving much too quickly to keep up with, but on sources I made a comment about "pop science", implying that some sources are not reliable. At the time I was reverting this:

The idea of Akhenaten as the pioneer of a monotheistic religion that later became Judaism has been considered by various scholars. One of the first to mention this was Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, in his book Moses and Monotheism. Basing his arguments on a belief that the Exodus story was historical, Freud argued that Moses had been an Atenist priest forced to leave Egypt with his followers after Akhenaten's death. Freud argued that Akhenaten was striving to promote monotheism, something that the biblical Moses was able to achieve. Following his book, the concept entered popular consciousness and serious research. However, Donald B. Redford said that there is little evidence that Akhenaten was a progenitor of Biblical monotheism. To the contrary, he said, the religion of the Hebrew Bible had its own separate development, beginning 500 years later. ("Aspects of Monotheism", Donald B. Redford, Biblical Archeology Review, 1996.)

First some basics: This is an article about a Biblical narrative, with some treatment of how that narrative informs contemporary Jewish culture. Reliable sources for such an article are: 1. Biblical scholars. This means scholars who study the origins of the Bible. They read Hebrew and Greek and other relevant languages and are familiar with relevant literature. As the Exodus story dates from the late Persian empire this means the range of Hellenistic literature relating to the Jews. 2. Egyptologists. 3. Archaeolgists specialising in Syr-Palestinian archaeology.

They also have to be contemporary. This means that works cited have to be recent. This, in turn, is because archaeology and biblical studies, like any academic subject, advance over time. Old theories are abandoned, new evidence comes to light. This happens rather rapidly, and contemporary means, approximately, the last 25 years.

The sources used here are:

• Sigmund Freud, "Moses and Monotheism"
• Gunther Siegmund Stent, Paradoxes of Free Will (published in the American Philosophical Society journal?)
• Jan Assmann, "Moses the Egyptian"
• N. Shupak, The Monotheism of Moses and the Monotheism of Akhenaten
• William Albright, "From the Patriarchs to Moses II. Moses out of Egypt" (journal article)
• Edward Chaney, article in the London Magazine
• Donald Redford, "Aspects of Monotheism" (journal article).

Of these, only Assman and Redford are specialists in the relevant area. Albright, of course, was an archaeologist in the right area, but is out of date. And of course, as the paragraph itself says at one point, the entire idea that Akhenaten's monotheism was the spark for Hebrew monotheism is one for popular writing - no serious scholar thinks this. There's a consensus that Israelite monotheism arose only in ther 6th century, and didn't exist prior to that.

Oddly enough, there is room in the article to mention Akhnaten, but not this way - it's not a matter of Akhenaten influencing monotheism among the Jews. What Assmann is saying is that a distant memory of Akhenaten's reforms seems to have entered into the stories current in Egypt about a thousand years later, and formed the anti-Jewish element of the parallel exodus narratives found in later Greek writers. Please read Assmann carefully, and please avoid popular writers. PiCo (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This happens rather rapidly, and contemporary means, approximately, the last 25 years. If there were ever a training course for people who want to edit Bible-related articles, something like that line would be one of the basic things people need to learn. Alephb (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Treatment of the Hyksos

The way the article treats the Hyksos is quite misleading, largely because of the way sources are used and the way it's structured.

The following timeline is a good starting point (dates are BCE): 1500s - Hyksos expelled from Egypt, Canaan comes under Egyptian rule; 1400s - Canaan continues under EGyptian rule; Armarna letters (letters from Canaanite rulers to the Egyptian court); no mention of Israelites 1300s - Canaan still under Egyptian rule; Akhenaten pharaoh in Egypt 1200s - Egyptians withdraw from Canaan; first mention of Israel, c.1213-1203, but no distinctive archaeology; 1100-1000s - signs of state-formation in the Israel (northern kingdom) region, nothing in the Jerusalem region; 900-early 500s - kingdoms of Israel and later of Judah, until fall of Judah to Babylon 586; 500s - first signs of monotheism in Israel late 500s-300s - formation of a rigid Jewish state in Jerusalem, writing of the Exodus narrative, first mention of Moses. 300s-100s - anti-Jewish riots in Egypt; anti-Semitic Greek "histories" written in Greek.

This is the existing section of the article (I've closed up the paragraphing to make it more compact):

Canaanite populations first appeared in Egypt towards the end of the 12th Dynasty c. 1800 BC, and either around that time, or c. 1720 BC, established an independent realm in the eastern Nile Delta. In about 1650 BC, this realm was assumed by the rulers known as the Hyksos, who formed the Fifteenth Dynasty.[19][20] It has been claimed that new revolutionary methods of warfare ensured the Hyksos the ascendancy in their influx into the new emporia being established in Egypt's delta and at Thebes in support of the Red Sea trade.[21][22] However, in recent years the idea of a simple Hyksos migration, with little or no war, has gained support.[23][24] In any case, the 16th Dynasty and the 17th Dynasty continued to rule in the South in coexistence with the Hyksos kings, perhaps as their vassals. Eventually, Seqenenre Tao, Kamose and Ahmose waged war against the Hyksos and expelled Khamudi, their last king, from Egypt c. 1550 BC.[19][page needed] The saga of the Hyksos was recorded by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), chief priest at the Temple of Ra in Heliopolis, which is preserved in three quotations by the 1st century CE Jewish historian Josephus.[25] In Manetho's History of Egypt, as retold by Josephus, Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their invasion and dominion over Egypt, their eventual expulsion, and their subsequent exile to Judaea and their establishing the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Manetho defined the Hyksos as being the Hyksos or "Shepherd Kings" or "Captive Shepherds" who invaded Egypt, destroying its cities and temples and making war with the Egyptian people to "gradually destroy them to the very roots". Following a war with the Egyptians a treaty was negotiated stipulating that these Hyksos Shepherds were to exit Egypt.[26] Most modern historians reject any identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites, largely because it is generally believed that the early Israelites evolved within the land and culture of Canaan, rather than emerging from Egypt.[27] There is a current scholarly consensus that if the Israelites did emerge from Egypt, it must have occurred sometime during the 13th century, because there is no archaeological evidence of any distinctive Israelite material culture before that time.[28]

This mis-states scholarship. Not entirely, because some of it's accurate enough, but the overall impression is mistaken. As you can see from the time-line, the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt several centuries before the Israelites existed - they can't have been the Israelites. A discussion of Hyksos history is therefore irrelevant. What's needed is a discussion of how the story of the Hyksos became distorted over the centuries and apparently ended up forming the basis (a distorted, non-historical basis) for the anti-Jewish narratives circulating in Greek-speaking Egypt just before the time of Christ. The line near the end that says that "most modern historians reject any identification of the Hyksos with the Israelites" is absolutely correct, although it doesn't go far enough (it's all, not most) and it gives the wrong reason ("because it is generally believed that the early Israelites evolved within the land and culture of Canaan" - yes, true, but the chronology simply doesn't fit).

The section needs to begin with Assmann's reconstruction of the late Egyptian-Greek narratives, not with the Hyksos. It also needs to use reliable sources, as I've described above. The Hyksos and Akhenaten will be mentioned, but the sources need to be reliable and the treatment needs to be in line wit current scholarship.PiCo (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Some basics

I think we need to set out some of the basics of the current state of scholarship on the exodus. Notably:

• There is a consensus that there was no exodus. (See Merrill, Rooker and Grisanti, p.194) As a result, there is currently no serious discussion about a date for the exodus, and those who do discuss it, a tiny handful, are ignored by the mainstream. (See Moore and Kelle, pp.88-89)
• There is a consensus that the exodus narrative as we have it was composed about 400-450 BCE, with a margin of error of a century either side. (See Romer, p.2).
• There is a consensus that the exodus narrative spring from older traditions; but these can be traced only to the 8th century BCE and lack significant parts of the Torah narrative - Moses, most strikingly, is never mentioned before the Exile.
• The Hyksos were not the Israelites, and Josephus was wrong to think they were. Josephus is valuable only for preserving Manetho, not for his own ideas.
• Akhenaten's monotheism had no influence on later Jewish monotheism, which didn't exist before the 6th century.

All these are consensus positions. The article has to be written around them, or else it lacks balance. PiCo (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Just for anyone following along, you can find the Merrill, Rooker, and Grisanti page here: [24] (Google Books link). Moore and Kelle are here: [25] (Google Books). You can find Romer here: [26] (PDF file). Alephb (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

.

Regarding assertion 1, the so-called "consensus" is that the Bible does not accurately describe the Exodus. And even that "consensus" would hardly be shared by religious fundamentalists, including academics employed by religious institutions.

Regarding assertion 2, the source is misquoted. Romer says that the Pentateuch was "published" at the time of Ezra. The concept of "publication" is hard to comprehend before the printing press. But leaving that perplexity aside, the Pentateuch was clearly assembled from earlier sources.

I dispute that item 3, 4, and 5 are consensus positions. Regarding the Hyksos and Israelites, I see on the contrary, virtually a consensus that the people ruled by the Hyksos were Canaanites, as were the Israelites. In the sense of genetic ancestry, there is no reason to doubt that Hyksos were among the proto-Israelites. Show me a source that disagrees with this proposition. I can easily support it. JerryRussell (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

In order to help sort out what we should state as fact I have advanced the WP:CHOPSY test. If you want another version of this test, if it is consensual taught as fact in Ivy Plus and US state universities, then it is a fact for Wikipedia. Some people will never agree to anything less than full-blown biblical inerrancy, they are obviously not part of such consensus. See e.g. [27]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

While I respect JerryRussell's right to his own interpretation of the state of scholarship, a few corrections are needed. The modern consensus is indeed that there was no Exodus, and that Israel developed inside Canaan, and from Canaanites. It's also a consensus that the Exodus narrative as we have it today is a product of the Persian period. JerryRussell seems to be on a personal mission to prove that the Hyksos were the Israelites, but to do so he really needs to produce a source saying this. PiCo (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed a curious error in JerryRussell's final point, where he says that Hyksos and the "proto-Israelites" shared "genetic ancestry." The idea of proto-Israelites is based on material culture, and means that Canaanite physical culture (pottery, house-styles) evolvedinto recognisably Israelite styles. Dever is merely saying that the Israelites were Canaanites, which is the consensus (that word again) position these days - one that Dever was instrumental in setting. Genes have nothing to do with it, and although the Hyksos retreated into Canaan it was centuries before these proto-Israelite remains emerged, and those intervening centuries were taken up by a period during which Canaan was part of the Egyptian empire.PiCo (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It is amazing that this conversation is even still going on given the lack of even one otherwise ordinary scholar, specializing in the relevant fields, who thinks the Hyksos were the Israelites. Not one. Of course point 3 is a consensus position. We have now witnessed JerryRussell play the religion card for two opposite purposes: Ralph Ellis isn't religious, so that gives him extra credibility, but now the consensus position doesn't include religious fundamentalists, so that detracts from its credibility. Meanwhile, this editor has offered defenses of two sources who think they discovered Atlantis, one who thinks Jesus was king Tut, and one who thinks Jesus was king Arthur and Josephus was Paul (that last one being a facebook friend of Jerry Russell himself). This is classic WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior, and I think at this point it's worth looking at the clear pattern here rather than trying to take each of the individual sub-arguments as serious discussions worth having. Alephb (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My position is being egregiously mis-characterized. I never said that the position that the Hyksos Exodus should be equated to the Hebrew Exodus, is any more than a fringe position. I have never claimed that any of these authors or sources are any more than fringe sources. I have offered Wikipedia RS for this position (Freund and Bernal, both highly qualified though eccentric academics with excellent publishers.) I have offered a documentary produced by James Cameron supporting this position, with a review in the New York Times. All this is swept aside with ridicule, when all I am asking for is a few words discussing this significant minority viewpoint. Take me to AN/I, go right ahead. I could use a vacation from this, anyhow. JerryRussell (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bernal was highly qualified . . . to teach modern Chinese history, and on the pages you've cited (Black Athena, Volume 2, p. 357-8) doesn't quite say that the Hyksos are the Israelites. He says the Israelite Exodus story reflects folk stories of the Hyksos Exodus, and that maybe it reflects it more strongly than some scholars think. So he's an eccentric scholar, writing well outside of his field, but not eccentric enough to come straight out and endorse the Hyksos = Israelite equation. Freund, of course, we've already discussed. It's been over eight years since his Digging through the Bible came out and literally not one scholar any of us has found has had any substantial interaction with the book, just like they ignore his Atlantis claims.

Nor does Freund, as far as I can see, equate the Hyksos and the Israelites. Digging through the Bible, p. 103 "… I hold that there were three literary versions of Exoduses that can be documented. It is hard to know if they are truly distinct Exoduses, three different versions of the Exodus, or a combination of many different Exoduses that were collapsed together. … Unlike the other Exoduses that make the Exodus a purely Israelite event, J/E makes the event an Exodus with other peoples … it is possible that J was preserving a tradition of an Exodus in the early Bronze Age with the Hyksos." I added the bolding — Freund gives every appearance, in the parts of the book I've seen, of distinguishing between the Israelites and the Hyksos, while talking like the Israelite Exodus stories may have been influenced by Hyksos accounts. Maybe there is somewhere that Freund says something like "The Hyksos were the Israelites", in which case a page number would be nice. Otherwise, I see two cherry-picked fringey authors who still don't go so far as to equate the Israelites and the Hyksos.

The Hyksos = Israelite view is so marginal that I am having trouble understanding why it is so important to give it some space in the article. I keep thinking of WP:NPOV's counsel: "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."Alephb (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, I don't necessarily understand everyone's motives in this debate. But I'm here for the encyclopedia, and according to WP:AGF I need to assume everyone else is too, until proven otherwise. There was a longstanding conflict at this talk page, and I arrived in the midst of the DRN process. There was an RFC with ambiguous results, with most replies in the "No, but" or "comment" category.

I proposed a compromise solution on Sept. 6, and since then we've been having this extended debate about sourcing. But the compromise text held in the article with minor tweaks until edit warring re-started a couple days ago. I thought it was a compromise that didn't really make anybody happy, but that everyone could live with.

I believe that my text held that long because most editors who reviewed it must have agreed that my policy analysis is correct. The core of my argument is not based on academic consensus RS, it's based on the historical interest and in the current popular interest in these Hyksos Exodus + Thera theories. The difference between a "tiny minority" and a "significant minority" is not based on a head count of university professors, it's based on "prominent adherents" according to the policy. JerryRussell (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand all the motives at play either. There are a lot of moving parts, and while in general we might say there are two "sides" in very rough terms, there are also differences of approach. For example, you and Tatelyle definitely have some differences in how you approach this article. And neither of you are operating quite the way the recent IP [and?] new user did immediately proceding the page protection. If you watch edit histories, there our differences on what you might roughly call "our side" as well.

When you say, "my text," are you talking about these two sentences? "The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was an Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'.[27][28][29] Donald Redford said that the Exodus narrative is a Canaanite memory of the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt.[30]" Because if you are, I really don't have any strong feelings about whether that first sentence sentence is in there. I'm pretty sure I didn't remove it, although I do think some of the surrounding sentences could use more work. I also see the rationale for removing it, and I honestly don't think there was ever much of a really firm consensus on how exactly the wording about Josephus should look in this article, beyond just about everyone agreeing that some mention of Josephus would be okay. That's not me trying to be "obtuse" -- that's just me trying to parse what's happened in a very large, very complex discussion so far.

The second one definitely belongs, the first one I could live with or without. My suggestion about possible other articles that could be written was in earnest -- I really do think the various theories about the Exodus that have gotten scholarly attention over the years are worth mentioning somewhere on Wikipedia -- either here or else in other articles. So under the "Cultural Significance" section, there's a link out to Passover, and "Route" links out to Stations of the Exodus. I could imagine that other subsections could use something like that too. Narrative summary could link to Book of Exodus, Composition could link to Documentary hypothesis, "Behind the Exodus traditions" could link to Origins of the Exodus Narrative or maybe Parallels to the Exodus, "Expulsion of the Hyksos" to Expulsion of the Hyksos, "Akehnaten and the end of the Amarna period" to Osarseph and the Lepers, "Archaeology" to Archaeology and the Exodus, "Anarchronisms" to Anachronisms of the Book of Exodus, Chronology to Chronology of the Exodus, Date to Dating the Exodus. I honestly do think most of these sub-topics would meet the threshhold for having their own articles, and having these separate articles might help alleviate some of the argumentative pressure on this single Exodus article.

I really wish we had an article that was something like Exodus Theories, which could cover better the non-academic and/or outdated academic set of theories on the Exodus. I don't object to Wikipedia covering such things -- I'm mostly concerned about keeping the academic vs. pop-history types of things visibly distinct for the readers. One of the things that makes Wikipedia so useful is how it allows a reader to quickly find a pretty comprehensive mainstream account of any given topic. That, in my mind, is the big thing that Wikipedia does that no other website does in quite the same way. Regardless of whether the Exodus article is very short or very long, regardless of whether Wikipedia finds some place to discuss the very many non-mainstream views of the Exodus out there, I would really like the "overview of the mainstream" function to be preserved in a clear and readable way.

This has already become a very long comment, but one more thing. I'm the one who requested page protection the other day, and I only requested semi-protection to deal with the recent arrival who was doing strange things and refusing to engage with other editors. My request for semi-protection was not intended to affect the broader conversation going on here, but whoever looked at the IP/new user issue saw the broader debate and decided to lock things down. That's likely for the best, but not what I was asking for, and my request did not mention the broader debate, but only the IP/new user issue that had suddenly sprung up. Notice that the page protection wound up locking in "your" sentence about Josephus. That really doesn't bother me.Alephb (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Josephus' assertions revisited

I see that the pivotal assertions by Flavius Josephus - that the Israelites were the Hyksos ("our people") - have been reverted and errased once again. I thought a consensus had been reached on this forum, that the opinions of Josephus were quotable, especially when discussed and reinforced by more recent scholarship. So how and why was that very reasonable and hardly controversial sentence reverted? I cannot see any discussion here, as to why that sentence was deleted.

Can I point out that this sentence, quoting Josephus, was the whole foundation of this long, 60-page discussion. This is the sentence I placed in the The Exodus article, to give it greater depth and improved balance. And now, after all the agreements and consensus reached here, the sentence has gone again. I cannot find this sentence in the archives at present, while using my iPad, but I shall place it back into the article as soon as I can find it. It merely stated that Josephus claimed that the Israelites were the Hyksos ("our people"), and that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus.Tatelyle (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The article still contains a fairly large quantity of material on the Hyksos, and mentions Josephus. And this is fine -- Josephus is relevant because he preserves Manetho. I don't think anyone agreed that the exact wording of a particular sentence you wrote must be preserved permanently on the Wikipedia page. A number of people did agree, however, that Josephus was worth mentioning. And he is still mentioned. Alephb (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The particular sentence in question, stated Josephus's opinion that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Please don't be obtuse, Alephb. You know what we're talking about. JerryRussell (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Josephus is relevant for just one reason: he preserved Manetho's history. His assertion that the the Hyksos were the ISraelites is today held by nobody. There's really no need to mention Josephus except, just possibly, with regard to the first; the second shouldn't be mentioned at all.PiCo (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pico and @Alephb. It appears that you are editing this article based upon personal bias, instead of the dispasionate facts. And the fact is that Judaism's greatest historian, Flavius Josephus, made a diect correlation and equivalence between the Israelites and the Hyksos, based upon the historical evidence he had at his disposal - evidence that is in a large part no longer extant. And you do not think it is worth reporting those facts, so that Wiki readers can get a full and balanced view of the Exodus account? This is a bit like leaving out the views of Gildas and Bede from British history. The accounts and views of Gildas and Bede are widely reported in Wiki, because they are an important record of British history, just as Josephus is an important and integral component of Israelite history. Tatelyle (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Gildas and Bede must have made some statements which are now considered ridiculous by academics, and we usually don't quote ridiculous ideas in articles about a scholarly subject. They are quoted for insights which did stick (present-day scholars are the judges of that). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You are continuing to confuse yourself into thinking Josephus's primary way of talking about events over a millennia old was some kind of evidence-based historian-like process. And no, History of the British Isles does not mention Gildas or Bede at all. Historical articles on Wikipedia just don't lean very heavily on pre-modern sources. Gildas, Bede, and Josephus all merit their own articles, but they also aren't used in Wikipedia as an equally reliable alternative to actually modern historical scholarship. Alephb (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That's probably because the history of Britain article doesn't focus very long on the time period in question. Bede and Gildas get paragraphs and paragraphs of coverage in Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain#Historical evidence. Woscafrench (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit protected. What next?

The page has been edit protected for two days. I'll be surprised if that's enough time. The disagreements seem to run very deep. Our discussions above have reached a stalemate. I'm not sure whether the best way forward would be to try another, more clearly worded RfC; or whether we should go back to DRN and hope to get some mediation this time. Thoughts? JerryRussell (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to undo WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE: you won't succeed, there are better ways to spend your time. If you suggest edits which comply with WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we're all ears. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could just be a decent person Tgeorgescu? Or is that more than you're capable of? Woscafrench (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Woscafrench, I agree that Tgeorgescu's suggestion was unhelpful, as he is placing all the blame for the situation on me. But it doesn't help to answer one personal attack with another. While I much prefer to resolve disputes through RfC, DRN, or other content dispute noticeboards, there's always a chance that a conduct dispute will be declared. In that case, it's best if our opponents fear the boomerang. JerryRussell (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand such criticism: at [28] you have stated yourself that you have defended including a fringe position in article, and, indeed it got rejected per WP:ONEWAY. There is a difference between significant scholarly minority and outright fringe position. The significant minority are Kitchen and Hoffmeier (dissenters, nevertheless reputable scholars). The fringe are Freund and Bernal. So my impression was that your complaints are aimed against WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which are denying you the right of including that fringe position in our article (e.g. [29]: I think this is a disservice to our readers, just like failing to link to Exodus Decoded because of the OneWay policy is a disservice to the public.). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, in my opinion the definition of a "significant minority" does not include the requirement for any scholarly support whatsoever. If it's an opinion that is discussed in the New York Times, it's a significant minority.

Your essay at WP:ABIAS carries the warning This page may contain opinions that are shared by few or no other editors. I see you've been working on it since 2013 and gotten no traction.

I see no objective basis at all for you to consider Kitchen and Hoffmeier as 'dissenters, but reputable' and Freund and Bernal as 'fringe'.

To quote WP:ONEWAY in full:

Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way. However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. If mentioning a fringe theory in another article gives undue weight to the fringe theory, discussion of the fringe theory may be limited, or even omitted altogether. If no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, there should not even be a link through a see also section, lest the article serve as a coatrack.

The idea that the Hyksos are the Israelites, has certainly been connected to the topic of the Exodus in a serious and prominent way in many independent reliable sources. So,the condition that allows it to be mentioned is met. So, how much attention is merited by the fringe idea? Here, I believe NPOV comes into play, and requires some mention of this. Oneway linking is only mandatory if no independent reliable sources connect a particular fringe theory to a mainstream subject, which is absolutely not the case. "Connecting to" is not the same standard as "supporting". JerryRussell (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You have also misconstrued my earlier argument about Eric Dubay and Flat Earth. The reason why Dubay can't be mentioned at Wikipedia is because he doesn't meet notability and noteworthiness. It's what the policy says. I think it's unfortunate but I don't dispute that the policy exists and is enforceable. Whereas WP:ONEWAY isn't mandatory even for Exodus Decoded; and I still feel that omitting the link from this article is not a good thing. JerryRussell (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think a major problem here is that some new editors are unfamiliar with the subject. For example: "The idea that the Hyksos are the Israelites, has certainly been connected to the topic of the Exodus in a serious and prominent way in many independent reliable sources." No it hasn't. Please cite a single current reliable source that advances this view. PiCo (talk) 02:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have to "advance" the view, it just has to "connect" it. Geraty, for example, lists the hypothesis in his table. He furthermore says: Manetho, the third century BCE priestly historian who divided the Egyptian pharaohs into dynasties, believed that the Exodus could be equated with the Hyksos expulsion from Egypt which dates to ca. 1550 BCE if rendered in our modern dating system. Josephus essentially endorsed Manetho’s theory though with a chronology we would now reckon at about 1700 BCE or some 150 years earlier than modern reconstructions of Manetho’s dates. In 1927 , H. R. Hall supported Manetho’s view (p. 5), and many others have followed since. Manetho also may have offered another theory that the Exodus was the expulsion of lepers from Egypt ca. 1350 BCE (though Erich Gruen has argued that this is a later scribal interpolation: 1998 : 57–72). The leper correlation with the Exodus was hotly disputed by Josephus as anti-Semitism. That's what I would call a 'connection', though stopping short of an 'endorsement'. JerryRussell (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no objective basis at all for you to consider Kitchen and Hoffmeier as 'dissenters, but reputable' and Freund and Bernal as 'fringe'. This sentence also indicates unfamiliarity with the field. Academics writing on early Israelites voice disagreements with Kitchen and Hoffmeier (mostly), but they don't even bother mentioning Freund or (for the most part) Bernal. You would know this if you read enough on ancient Israel, but I won't try to assign homework or anything. No editor can require another editor to do any research. But this is easy to verify through Google scholar. Just type "Kenneth Kitchen" into Google scholar, and you get about 805 results -- his Third Intermediate Period with 488 citations, Ramesside Inscriptions with 379, On the Reliability of the Old Testament 308, etc. Next try James Hoffmeier and get about 315 results: his Israel in Egypt gets 163 citations, Ancient Israel in Sinai gets 108, etc.

Now turn to Richard Freund. His book "Digging Through the Bible" gets 2 or 3 citations. None are mainstream scholars interacting with him in any meaningful way. That one's easy to see. Bernal is slightly more complicated because his book caused an academic firestorm and got cited all over the place -- but the book wasn't about the Exodus per se -- it just briefly mentions the Exodus a couple times. So if we want to get an idea of how Bernal was received on a biblical topic like the Exodus, the thing to do is to search for "Black Athena" in the Journal of Biblical Literature. There's all of one mention of Black Athena, and it doesn't at all mention anything Bernal had to say about the Bible. This is because, in the scholarly world, nobody cares what Freund or Bernal has to say about the Bible.

There is a world of difference between how people like Hoffmeier/Kitchen are treated and how people like Freund/Bernal are treated in biblical studies. PiCo, generally speaking, knows what he's talking about when he makes claims. Alephb (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's an objective standard. I've seen that sort of criteria applied under WP:MEDRS in medical articles. I don't think it should be applied to other fields, but I see where you're coming from. JerryRussell (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait a minute, now. You're the one who objected to the lack of "objective standard" in PiCo's statement in the first place. We could have just stuck with the fact -- obvious to anyone who's read enough of the literature -- that Hoffmeier and Kitchen are considered worth responding to and Freund and Bernal are ignored, but you weren't happy with that approach either. I didn't come to this opinion by adding up stats -- I came to it by actually having read a decent amount in the relevant kinds of publications. I only hunted for numbers after when you raised objections about objectivity. If I'd have known that was just a rhetorical flourish and not something you were actually interested in, I could have saved myself some time. Alephb (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, please don't be offended. It honestly didn't occur to me that PiCo would call someone "fringe" because of a low citation index. But if that's what he means by "fringe" then yes, it's an objective criterion. JerryRussell (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

First, WP:ABIAS was never meant as policy, so it isn't policy and does not need support as policy. It's mostly an explanation for newbies and for people who still did not figure out what Wikipedia is about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm Weiner, "Dating the Theran Eruption"

This is Chapter 10 in the UCSD conference proceedings, pp. 121-133. Seems highly relevant. Not a lot of citations, if that's the criteria for a usable RS.

Question for experienced editors: Is it appropriate to post such extensive quotes, when the source is not available on the Internet unless one pays the expensive tariff? Or is this 'comment spam' and/or copyvio?

From abstract:

Various attempts have been made to ascribe the story of the Exodus to a particular time and place. .... A less common but still noteworthy attempt has placed the Exodus at the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1525 BC, occasionally accompanied by the suggestion that the parting of the Red Sea described in the biblical accounts is a reflection of the tsunami (giant waves) which followed the massive eruption of the volcano on the island of Thera (Santorini) at that time. This interpretation has been buttressed by an Egyptian inscription known as the Ahmose Tempest Stele of this date....

The intro is a nice bibliography of authors discussing the relationship between the Thera eruption, Hyksos expulsion, Ahmose stele, and Exodus narrative. The sources listed are Goedicke 1992 , 2004; Stanley and Sheng 1986; Bietak, Chap. 2; Davis 1990 ; Foster and Ritner 1996; Wiener and Allen ( 1998 ); McCoy and Heiken 2000; Douglas Keenan (pers. comm. of 15 August 2013; Franke 1988; and Bourriau 2000.

Conclusion:

...it is relevant to state that however doubtful the proposed connections may appear on other grounds (see, e.g., papers by M. Harris, S. Ward, and A. Salamon in this volume; Wiener and Allen 1998 ), the assertion that the Theran eruption must be separated in time from these events by virtue of radiocarbon measurements is without scientific or statistical validity.

JerryRussell (talk) 04:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@JerryRussell: It needs to be cut to 249 words. Doug Weller talk 05:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. JerryRussell (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I was always wondering if I would stumble across some bright-line rule for copyright. Alephb (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm dreadfully sorry Jerry but none of this is relevant because none of it is from a reliable source.PiCo (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd better explain that. It's not relevant because the consensus is that there was no exodus. No exodus means no date. No reputable biblical scholar is currently trying to date the exodus, and your source here is not a biblical scholar. Nor an Egyptologist, nor an archaeologist working in the relevant period of Syro-Palestinian archaeology. If you can find a relevant and reliable source for this you might get somewhere, but I'd be amazed if you can.PiCo (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell, you keep going off on wild goose chases for people who talk about the Hyksos and a connection between them and the exodus. The idea itself is fringe, therefore every source you find is fringe. You need to get a grasp of the basics of where current consensus lies. I suggest you begin with a standard text, Moore and Kelles' "Biblical History and Israel's Past," which is an overview of the subject aimed at undergraduates beginning in the field. On page 88 they begin a section called Current Ideas About the Egyptian Period, Exodus, and Wanderings. In the first paragraph there they say that most histories of Israel omit these altogether, because the evidence is not just scant, it's non-existent. Those that do mention them do so only to dismiss them. In other words, the overwhelming consensus is that Israel was never in Egypt, there was no Exodus, and the Israelites never wandered in the wilderness. At the bottom of that page and the top of the next they mention the very few scholars who do take these episodes seriously, notably Kitchen and Hoffmeier. Kitchen and Hoffmeir represent the fringe view - or if you like, a minority view. But it's not a view that's of any significance, as indeed our article points out. Even Kitchen and Hoffmeier do not think that the Hyksos were the Israelites. That's beyond minority, it's not even academically respectable. PiCo (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

As for this latest red herring of the Thera eruption, I suggest, since you seem so impressed by him, that you read William Dever's "Who Were the Early Israelites?" He discusses this briefly on page 21, and tells why it's dismissed - and please not the most important reason for dismissing all naturalistic "explanations" of the exodus story, which is that they remove God from the story. The exodus is a story about God and how he saved Israel, it's not a history. PiCo (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pico, quote: "The exodus is a story about God and how he saved Israel, it's not a history.". Do you have any evidence and a reference for that, Pico, or are you making this up as you go along? In the real world, The Exodus Story is a story about the exodus of a large number of people from Egypt to Judaea - no more than that. The bible has spun this as a story about a god, as it would have to do. But Flavius Josephus has stated that this was actually a real history about a large number of people who went on an exodus - the Hyksos Exodus. And modern scholarship has demonstrated that the Hyksos Exodus was a real event. So why would you seek to exclude the report by Josephus, when it has already been confirmed that the works of Josephus are quotable within Wiki articles? It would appear that you are bringing your personal bias into the discussion, because you do not want the equivalence between the Israelites and the Hyksos to be discussed. Tatelyle (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The idea itself is fringe, therefore every source you find is fringe. I already said as much, PiCo. Yes, we're talking about an idea that is known in Wikipedia jargon as "fringe".

But you are misconstruing the difference between a "significant minority" and a "tiny minority". Kitchen and Hoffmeier are two, count-em two, professors. They are not especially prominent in any world beyond academia. They are not prominent in academia because of their views about the Exodus. Kitchen is prominent as an Egyptologist, Hoffmeier as an archaeologist of Luxor and Tell el-Borg.

Josephus is far more prominent and well-known, even though long-deceased. James Cameron, now he's someone that everybody has heard of. If there's a tiny minority here, it's Kitchen and Hoffmeier. The really sad thing is, they're even rejected by their natural constituency of Biblical fundamentalists, who tend to favor the Thera theories. JerryRussell (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Tatelyle wrote: It would appear that you are bringing your personal bias into the discussion, because you do not want the equivalence between the Israelites and the Hyksos to be discussed. Tatelyle, please be cautious about speculating regarding personal motivations of editors. See WP:AGF. If allegations of conduct issues become rampant in a discussion, it tends to get thrown to AN/I for dispute resolution. See User:DrChrissy for a humorous view of the proceedings at AN/I. JerryRussell (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

OMG. When I saw DrChrissy's user page, I thought that the headline "This Wikipedian is Deceased" was gallows humor. DrChrissy was always in trouble at AN/I, and I thought he had been banned, or quit. But on his talk page, it's clear that he really did pass away, and at a tragically young age. So sorry. Puts it all in perspective. My wife told me this morning that she thinks life is too short for discussions like this at Wikipedia. JerryRussell (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

DRN, RfC or AN/I?

As far as I can tell, we're still deadlocked. Doug Weller, Mark Miller, do you have any thoughts about what dispute resolution procedure would be appropriate? Can we get extended edit protection? Or is it back to edit warring again tomorrow? JerryRussell (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

• DRN does not trump WP:PAG, so there is little use for DRN if the matter is opposed by WP:PAG;
• we had a RfC which wasn't closed, but editors agree that Josephus is notable, most deny that he wrote WP:RS (the last point is in itself more or less irrelevant, since RfCs do not trump WP:PAG, Ancient or Medieval historians never were and will never be WP:RS);
• ANI is concerned with behavioral problems, like tendentious editing, being unable to get the point and casting aspersions (without providing evidence when asked to do so, e.g. at [30]). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I guess it should probably be AN/I, then. I would be curious to see what the admins have to say. I don't accuse anyone of bad faith; on the contrary, I believe this endless wrangling is because the policies aren't clear.

If there is a "consensus" that all fringe needs to be purged from the site, then far be it from me to fight the consensus. I'm out of here.

Many editors seem to have a visceral distrust of anything outside the academic mainstream. In many respects I have similar views to my Facebook friend Ralph Ellis, although I know that he sometimes indulges in creative speculation that cannot be factually proven.

It's difficult for me to endure the hateful ad hominem attacks directed against fringe authors, and not take those attacks personally when I share their views.

If there is still significant support for covering a broad range of views, there needs to be some clarification that WP:ABIAS is not policy.

Tgeorgescu, are experienced at taking your "profringe" opponents to AN/I? Could you do the legwork? I assume that everybody in this long discussion will need to be named & notified. JerryRussell (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I did not say that I am willing to open an ANI thread. Whether this will remain true in the future, we'll have to see. A good advice is WP:WIN.

If WP:WIN is such good advice, why not consider taking it to heart, TGeorgescu? Why not let me & Tatelyle win this one? JerryRussell (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower, and collaborator of Marx. Any situation in which strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by the band's manager or a band member's spouse, and a biography should preferably not be written by the subject's spouse, parent, or offspring. However, an expert on a given subject is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

—WP:COI January 2012

References

And we don't call people "fringe" because we would want to publicly humiliate them, but because we are building an encyclopedia and have to judge the reliability of sources. Why we don't equivocate between Justin Bieber and The Exodus? Simply because one is an article about quite mundane matters and the other is concerned with scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

'The Exodus' is an academic topic, but it's not ONLY an academic topic. It's also a religious topic, a cultural topic, and deeply related to the eternal dialectic between slavery and freedom. To leave it entirely to academics, is to trivialize it.

If Wikipedia wanted to avoid publicly humiliating fringe authors, a good start would be to abandon this whole term "fringe". The word "Minority" would be sufficiently descriptive.

These talk pages are legally in the category of "publications" and are indexed by Google. I believe the encyclopedia is at risk for being sued for libel, with this behavior running rampant. WP:BLP rules really should apply IMHO.

The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. Indeed. Is it too close of a relationship, to be one of Ellis's 2,845 Facebook friends? Is it too close of a relationship, to have read "Jesus Last of the Pharaohs" and agree with Ralph's analysis of the relationship between Hyksos and Israelites? What do you think 'common sense' should say about that, Tgeorgescu? JerryRussell (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"Fringe" has a technical meaning inside Wikipedia. There is no law against using strictly defined terms. You take it all too personally, Wikipedia is not about our egos, it is not about our opinions, it is just about what WP:SOURCES have written. Not every publication is WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I see no need to go to RfC or anything else while discussion is still going on and relations are (mostly) civil. It's clear, however, that the two sub-sections "Expulsion of the Hyksos" and "Akhenaten and the End of the Armarna Period" have failed to gain the agreement of other editors and therefore need to be scrapped. We then need to look at what that section's about. The header says "Behind the Exodus Tradition: Possible Sources and Parallels". We need to write someting, preferably quite short, that covers that topic.PiCo (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be changing the topic, Pico. You know what the kerfuffle is about. Here's the passage as it stands now in the edit protected version of the article --

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was an Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'.[27][28][29] Donald Redford said that the Exodus narrative is a Canaanite memory of the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt.[30]

I'd be satisfied with that if you PiCo and Tgeorgescu would be. I think Tatelyle would be satisfied with that too. Truce? And I don't really care what's in the reference list for the Josephus quote. JerryRussell (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

About WP:WIN: I don't have a dog in this fight, I trust the process to deliver an adequate result. I oppose quoting fringe sources simply because the powers of WP:PAGs oppose it. (I am not neutral about whether or not WP:PAGs should be applied.)Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell No that's not acceptable. It equates Josephus and Donald Reford as if they were both scholars, but only Redford is a scholar. It treats Josephus's view as it it were current, when in fact it's not even a minority view. So, sorry, not acceptable. As I said, the only acceptable solution is to start again.PiCo (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

How does it treat Josephus's view as if it is current, when it specifically say he was an ancient historian? Why do you say Josephus was not a scholar? And in my view, Josephus and Redford are saying essentially the same thing. Any difference is academic hair-splitting, or a "dissertation" as Jacobovici says. But if you don't like this, please propose an alternative. If you really must start over on the entire section, you have the floor. Make a proposal. JerryRussell (talk) 04:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• If this is a content dispute then DRN is the best option. I am now involved and would take part in the discussion but would not be a mediator.

I am going to suggest that we now stick to the WP:BRD cycle. In this way we are now demanding that editors stick to Wikipedia policy and procedure as well as to the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle on very specific points. I am also going to remind editors that ANI is a two way street. Should you decide to begin an ANI discussion, your own behavior will be scrutinized and will be equally in danger of intervention as much as the one reported.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In addition to any concerns about intervention, I'd also like to call attention to how incredibly complex an attempt to summarize this whole mess would look at ANI -- the sheer number of contributors, the shifting sets of specific things being discussed, the enormous amount of discussion. I would participate if necessary, but at this point I definitely have no desire to file for ANI. Just imagine people being asked to substantiate claims with diffs and wading into the approximately 800ish edits that have been made on this talk page so far. Alephb (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So may I take it, then, that no one is accusing me of tendentious editing at this point? Wouldn't it be a personal attack, to say I am being tendentious without being willing to back up the point with diffs?

Alephb said my comment below about "Conclusive proof that the Hyksos were the Israelites" was cluttering "an already very cluttered conversation", but I hope that at least one of my points is now clear. Tgeorgescu said above "DRN does not trump WP:PAG, so there is little use for DRN if the matter is opposed by WP:PAG". I don't agree, but I see very little value participating in DRN with him if that's going to be his attitude. He also mentions "RfCs do not trump WP:PAG", which contradicts my understanding that RfC's are generally the mechanism for determining correct application of PAG in any specific dispute.

In my opinion, Tgeorgescu has made various oracular claims about PAG without being able to back them up with specific quotes; instead, when challenged, he quotes his own essay, or statements by other users. JerryRussell (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I do think going to ANI would be to a pain for everyone involved, but if you need them I would be happy to provide some diffs that show how your pattern of editing here has contained a very long and often distracting push to promote/defend a wide variety of fringe views and characters, from the guy who thinks Jesus was king Arthur and Paul was Josephus (who, as you've reminded us more than once, is your Facebook friend), to two guys who discovered Atlantis, to a guy who thinks Jesus was king Tut, to lamenting that Wikipedia is not polite enough to what we call "climate change deniers," to insisting that Wikipedia should have more coverage of non-notable flat earth YouTubers, to arguing that the Hyksos were gods. Now, you may not be serious about every one of those claims, but they do add up to one heck of a pattern. You could easily just try to think about the conversation you're in the middle of and you should be able to remember all the things I've mentioned in this paragraph. But if you really want them in diff form, I can do that. Here or in whatever forum you prefer. Although it would be a bit silly to ask me to go hunting for the diffs -- we're talking about an ongoing conversation, conducted very much in the open in front of plenty of people. It's not like I'm alleging anything about the rest of your editing history or obscure things that happened long ago.

I do think your instincts are generally correct in thinking a DRN won't do you any good. There's already been a DRN and an RfC, after all, and a lot of people have already had their eyes on this page. There's a number of people who have stopped by and expressed some form of disagreement about your and/or Tatelyle's work on this article and/or talk page, including names like MjolnirPants, Zero0000, Tgeorgescu, JudeccaXIII, PiCo, Doug Weller, TransporterMan, SMcCandlish, Borsoka, Dimadick, Location, SarahSV, and PaleoNeoNate. Obviously, not all these people will agree on every issue, but still. That's a lot of disagreement the two of you have faced over the 40+ days this conversation has dragged on. On a website that values consensus as a basis for decision-making, think through what an ANI would look like. You file a complaint alleging that someone is misbehaving (I'm curious about what exactly the charge would be), you try to substantiate the charge with diffs that clearly show whatever form of misbehavior you're alleging, and then all the involved editors from Zero000 to Borsoka get pinged and asked to explain what the issue looks like to them. Does that strike you as likely to be a very productive process for you? Alephb (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb, you don't need to provide diffs. I do recall all these incidents. But the other thing I noticed is that all these users stopped by the page, and reviewed my work that was actually present on the page. Much of it stood through all that review and discussion, until PiCo gave it the axe in the middle of some sort of confusing four-way edit war.

I believe many of those same folks you mention, have expressed some level of support for my work and Tatelyle's. Tgeorgescu and PiCo have not received unqualified support either. If that were not the case, this would have been over long ago.

About the DRN and the RfC that have already taken place: in reality, the DRN case was never opened, but referred back to the talk page. And as everyone has agreed, Tatelyle did not frame his RfC in a way that was likely to get a clear consensus result.

Tatelyle presumably hasn't spent much time studying the policies. I can quote them pretty well, but maybe (like so much that goes on around here) they're written in some language other than English.

At Wikipedia, you will find that I have a consistent editing pattern of advocating for fair and NPOV treatment of "fringe" positions. I do this whether I personally believe the claims have any merit or not, because the policies require it. And I try not to go beyond what the policies say. For the record, I believe:

(1) Flat earth claims are totally without merit, the planet is spherical.

(2) I don't exactly agree with what Ralph Ellis says about Paul and Josephus. My view, for whatever it's worth, is that biblical Paul is a fictional character. Much of his life story is indeed taken from Josephus's autobiography, but this is conflated with an early 1st century evangelist who was probably preaching about Julius Caesar in the temples of the Roman imperial cult.

(3) I am not sure whether Atlantis is historical, or whether any of the various theories have any merit. But I regard it as an interesting topic.

(4) In general, I don't think it's a good idea that the human race is pouring so much CO2 into the atmosphere. The entire industrial enterprise has not been well planned and scientifically vetted for possible consequences, to say the least.

I have solar panels on my house, and an electric car, and heat pumps. I recycle and conserve energy wherever I can, and a significant portion of the food I eat is grown on my own homestead. So I think my credentials as a conservationist are as good as anyone. But I also believe that there are legitimate scientists who have raised questions about the so-called "consensus" position about global warming. Dismissing these scientists as "deniers" does not serve the search for truth.

(5) It's an oversimplification to say that Ahmed Osman believes Jesus was King Tut. What Osman is saying is that the 1st century "historical" Jesus did not exist, but that Christianity evolved from an earlier Egyptian religion in which Tut was a central figure.

(6) I find that God is a very flexible concept.

So there it is, Alephb, my beliefs in a nutshell. Also: I edit under my own real name. MSEE Stanford 1981, PhD University of Oregon 1996. I have a blog at www.postflaviana.org.

Alephb, you might be doing me a favor if I get blocked or banned for tendentious editing: I'll have more energy for my blog, and for my garden.

But please don't make idle complaints and threats. Take me to AN/I and let's see what other editors have to say. Or lay off the ad hominems and non sequitors and insults, and deal with the actual discussion of the issues with this article. JerryRussell (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Although I have tried to avoid wasting too much time participating in this endless thread, I followed it and would like to say that I agree with PiCo. The conversation also has strayed off-topic a lot. I have the impression that it would be best to establish a plan/list or to directly edit; if the process is impossible maybe that formal mediation would help so a third party would direct the discussion? ANI would suit if the issue is that those who try to do this cannot, because some interfere in the process... —PaleoNeonate – 22:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell --

But please don't make idle complaints and threats. Take me to AN/I and let's see what other editors have to say.

I don't think I've made a single threat here. You keep talking about this going to ANI. I've just laid out why I'd rather not have this discussion go there. "I would participate if necessary, but at this point I definitely have no desire to file for ANI." Nothing I've seen here so far gives me any urge to take this to ANI or any other dispute-resolution forum. You're the one who has said,

I guess it should probably be AN/I, then.

And,

We tried DNR, we tried RfC, so I guess let's try AN/I after all. Eyes open, no fear.

And,

Take me to AN/I, go right ahead. I could use a vacation from this, anyhow.

And,

Tgeorgescu, are experienced at taking your "profringe" opponents to AN/I? Could you do the legwork?

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who keeps bringing up ANI, and you literally asked Tgeorgescu to file an ANI. I don't think it would be productive. I don't think anyone's "threatening" you with an ANI, however much you are (literally, not figuratively) asking for it. Of course, if you think I am threatening you, you are welcome to provide a diff of me doing it. In the meantime, if you really want to go to ANI, nobody is going to stop you from filing a complaint there. Me and Tgeorgescu, so far, are not interested in filing one, but you are perfectly allowed to file it on your own. Alephb (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, maybe I've been overreacting to the accusation of tendentious editing. If it's intended as friendly advice, I will try to take it that way.

I believe it's completely obvious under NPOV that the Hyksos / Thera theories are sufficiently prominently discussed in RS to meet the criteria for a "significant minority" and as such, should be mentioned in the article. It amazes me that this is met with such resistance. I am curious to see what the admins would say about that. But if you and TG are willing not to go there, I can skip it.

Looking back at the editing record you've reminded me above, I can see a few things I wouldn't do again. People don't necessarily want to read my random musings. I could save a lot of my own time, as well as other editors, by writing less. And in that spirit, 'nuff said. JerryRussell (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's even tried to make an edit mentioning Thera on the Exodus page, unless I missed it. I really do think there is potential on Wikipedia for there to be a Theories of the Exodus page or something with a similar name, which could cover a wide variety of contemporary RS, outdated, and fringe theories on the Exodus that have been discussed in reliable sources. The phenomenon endless Exodus theories, in general, does seem significant enough to me that it would be appropriate to list or summarize them somewhere on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia has a List of minor biblical figures which includes names mentioned in single verses, I imagine there could be a list of Exodus theories. The article could have some wording to the effect of, "This is an article about various Exodus theories, including both contemporary theories, outdated theories, and theories noteworthy in popular scholar which have failed to gain significant support in mainstream scholarship." It does strike me as useful for something like that to exist. If there is an article on Ancient astronauts which goes into depth on several different views, I don't see why there couldn't be a similar article on Exodus theories, many of which are far less fringey than some of the astronaut views. Just as a strictly practical matter, something like that might get less pushback.

This really could be useful in part because of space concerns. Currently the Exodus article is about 50kb, which is near the upper limit of what we can expect people to read (as it says in WP:AS). Adding in various fringe views about the Exodus -- if covered the various fringe views each in fairly similar lengths and in enough length to give readers a decent amount of context about each one -- would blow the article up to a very large size. Creating a separate article and linking out to it, which I think would be entirely appropriate, could allow a fuller look at all the various proposed alternatives without turning the main article into too much of a mess. Right now the "Historicity" section alone is 7kb, but there could easily be a 30-50kb Historicity of the Exodus article. There could probably be a 30-50kB well-sourced article on each of the sub-sections within the History section. Alephb (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Jacobovici movie is pretty much all about Thera theories, and I did try to introduce it at one point. There are much more academically reputable Thera sources that could be identified.

I do see some virtue in the idea that articles should be short, for best readability. But I believe you're mistaken that this page is getting too long according to WP:AS. The guideline is in readable prose size, as discussed at WP:RPS. It's not the same as the browser loading size as reported in the article history. There's a script to measure RPS at User:Dr_pda/prosesize which I've gone to some trouble to install. The RPS for this page stands at 16KB (2716 words) which is quite short compared to many Wikipedia articles. The article Jesus is 72KB, or more than 4 times as long. (As you might guess, I've encountered this argument before, that this-or-that fringe theory won't fit because the article is too long.)JerryRussell (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll concede that I was wrong about length. I've taken your suggestion and used a similar tool, and I'm getting something like 17k -- this article has room to expand. In case I may have given the wrong impression, let me be clear that there is not a single edit you have made so far that I personally object to because of article length. On the other hand, if there is a goal of having Wikipedia include the various not-currently-mainstream Exodus theories in the kind of depth that would let a reader understand their basic ideas and how they have been recieved, I think sooner or later length will become an issue (not necessarily for edits you've made so far, but for some of the things you'd generally like to see Wikipedia cover in more depth). I wasn't trying to introduce a new argument against any of the edits you've made so far. My goal was to listen to your concerns about whether Wikipedia mentions fringe views enough, and see if there might be some way to accomodate broader coverage of those views in a way that will lead to less push-back and is still consistent with PAGs. I would, for example, like to see a Wikipedia article that summarizes, somewhere, what scholars (and other writers) have said about any possible relationship between Thera and the Exodus, even if the majority here aren't for it being in the main Exodus article. The Exodus is a broad and well-covered enough topic, with enough interesting sub-topics, that it deserves more coverage than a single reasonably-sized article can give it.Alephb (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there could be more coverage in sub-articles. If we spent less time disputing every single sentence or reference in this article, we could get a lot more content written. But on the other hand, it's important to achieve fairness and balance as per NPOV in main articles also. And there's also push-back when creating new articles, and a risk that all that work will get thrown out at AfD. JerryRussell (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is a risk that work on an expanded sub-article could get thrown out, I suppose. But that risk is also very high for work on the main Exodus page. This page has now been unprotected for about two or three hours. I bet the current Josephus/Redford paragraph probably doesn't make it 24 hours without somebody touching it at this point. I'd be very surprised if it stays there a week. But time will tell. As for myself, I'm definitely not going to be the first person to interrupt the status quo now that protection has been lifted. But realistically, someone is probably going to want more Hyksos or less Hyksos in the article, and my impression is that the less Hyksos camp is much larger in numbers. Alephb (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to mentioning the Hyksos, but this should be done in a WP:PAG-compliant way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow...!! I do have to wonder why some people are SO opposed to a single sentence based upon the analysis and opinions of Judaism's GREATEST historian. Yes, just one short sentence. But I am sure that personal bias has not crept into this discussion at all. I don't understand the Wiki protocols, but this is not a complex issue at all. The question is - can this short sentence stand:

The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus said that Manetho's Hyksos narrative was an Egyptian account about the Israelite Exodus, and that the Hyksos were 'our people'.[27][28][29] Donald Redford said that the Exodus narrative is a Canaanite memory of the Hyksos descent and occupation of Egypt.[30]

I would have thought that any reader of Wiki would agree that it is a very sensible and succinct sentence that acccurately portrays what Judaism's greatest historian said about early Judaism. And if the view if the biblical editors can be summarised or quoted in this artticle, then so can the view of Judaism's greatest historian. Why would you not?

I still have a mind that this is a personal bias issue. We would not hesitate to include the views of Gildas and Bede in an article about British history, even though their chronicles are challenged in many areas by modern academia. Their chronicles still give us the only history we have of, for instance, the Dark Ages, and so they are quoted and analysed. So why not Josephus? Alephb waded in and said Gildas and Bede were NOT quoted in History of the British Isles, but Woscafrench rightly pointed out that Gildas and Bede are quoted ad-nausium if you bother to look at Wiki pages of Dark Age Britian. Now why would Alephb want to wade in with a completely false argument, if they had an open mind about the use of quotes and opinions from ancient chroniclers?? Can you answer that one for us, Alephb? -- If Gildas and Bede are so widely quoted in Wiki British history articles, why do you so strongly oppose one single short sentence from Judaism's greatest historian? A historian who is head and shoulders above Gildas and Bede, in the volume of his work and the accuracy of his historical claims. I would be grateful for your reply. Tatelyle (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It could possibly be mentioned in a historical views subsection. —PaleoNeonate – 13:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about representing majority positions (consensus if they exist) and any notable minority positions, giving due weight to each. Therefore we don't quote Josephus merely because he exists, we quote the view he put forward. That view, that the Hyksos were the Israelites and their expulsion was the Biblical Exodus, is universally rejected by modern scholars of both Egypt and Israel. On that basis he shouldn't be mentioned at all. However, given that there seems to be a popular interest in the idea, and that this is a popular encyclopedia and readers might come expecting to find it mentioned, I'd agree to a very brief note but only to point out that it's been rejected.

On another matter, I feel, and have always felt, that the section on historicity is way over-long. It unbalances the whole article. On the other hand, the section on the theological meaning of the exodus story is way too short - just a few notes about how it informs modern Judaism. I's like to re-do those two parts.PiCo (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

but only to point out that it's been rejected absolutely. I think that I also agree with you about the weight of the sections. —PaleoNeonate – 00:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Remarks from Simcha Jacobovici

From Biblical Archaeology Review, now at the Wayback Machine. I've been trying to figure out the difference between saying that the Hyksos people were the Israelites, vs. saying that the Israelites had a memory of the Hyksos expulsion. Jacobovici has an explanation, and it works for me. 371 words, but I bet Jacobovici won't sue for copyright infringement.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070502122212/http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodusbeware.html

In his review of my film, “The Exodus Decoded,” which aired on the History Channel on August 20th, Prof. Ronald Hendel resorts to four kinds of arguments:

1.	Personal attack
2.	Misquotes
3.	Sarcasm
4.	Historical argumentation

I’ll take them one by one.

[....]

In conclusion, if my evidence comprises of a bunch of “howlers” then they should be easy to dismiss. Especially for a heavyweight like Prof. Hendel. For example, the Book of Exodus describes the seventh Biblical plague as a kind of hail that consisted of ice on the outside and fire on the inside.... In the film, I point out that the Ipuwer papyrus, whose story is dated to the Hyksos period... describes the exact same phenomenon. Prof. Manfred Bietak found pumice i.e., volcanic hail, at Avaris at the layer corresponding to Pharaoh Ahmose.... Prof. Jean-Daniel Stanley of the Smithsonian Institute found volcanic ash from the Santorini volcano in the Delta at exactly the same archaeological layer. How does Prof. Hendel explain the synchronicity - with respect to a very specific volcanic phenomenon - between the Biblical text, an Egyptian text, and the physical evidence on the ground? Making fun of me isn’t going to help him.

The real howler in Prof. Hendel’s “review’ is his conclusion. After dismissing all my evidence as not worthy of consideration because it dates to the “wrong” time period, he says that there is “only one” of my claims “that is worth taking seriously.” When I got to this point in his article I became excited. Here I was, a director of infomercials who saw evidence in grilled cheese sandwiches, and finally the great professor was going to allow that I made one decent point. And what is that point? “…that the Egyptian expulsion of the west Semitic Hyksos had something to do with the Biblical memory of the Exodus and Joseph.” Now that sounds like a total contradiction of everything he said prior to that point. But here’s the key. Professor Hendel knows the difference between an event and the “memory” of an event. It’s a howler to place the Exodus in the Hyksos period. But if you can place the “memory” of the Exodus in the Hyksos period that’s not a howler - that’s a dissertation.

JerryRussell (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, Jacobovici is not a reliable source. No scholar takes him seriously. I think we've been through this.PiCo (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC) (Incidentally, the idea isn't quite that the authors of the exodus story, c.450 BCE, were remembering the Hyksos, c.1570 BC; that would be impossible; the idea is that legends and stories circulated down the centuries, just as we today have legends and stories of King Arthur and Robin Hood, and the Persian-era authors used these to give details and a basic plot-line when writing their fictional-theological exodus story. PiCo (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Would some of these legends and stories have been in writing? If the actual history of the Hyksos is recognizably the same as the "basic plot line" of the Exodus narrative (actually a narrative inversion as Assmann says), why do you say that the similarity could not possibly be called a "memory" and why do reputable scholars with high citation index like Assmann and Redford call it a memory? JerryRussell (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I mean it's not a memory of the same order as your memory of what you had for dinner last night. That memory is both pretty accurate, because so recent and so personal, and emotionally neutral, unless you're having an argument with your wife over whether the steak was porterhouse or horsemeat. Memories that enter history, however, are not like that. They're collective, meaning that vast numbers of people have a share in them, and they're highly charged, meaning that those people will change them to suit whatever agenda they might have.

For example, to cite a different area, modern Cambodians are universally convinced that the Vietnamese are trying to exterminate them as a people. They can, and will, tell you stories of the horrific thinbs the Vietnamese have doing to them over the centuries - roasting them alive, raping their daughters, etc etc. What they don't tell you, or each other, because they haven't "remembered", is that Cambodian kings have exactly the same thing to Vietnamese when they've had the chance. They haven't remembered because it doesn't serve their purposes. This is what Assmann is talking about when he talks of "mnemohistory" - the transmission, reception, and above all the uses, of group history in cultural identity. Or in other words, if history is lies (which in a sense it is - every historian is telling a story), memory-history is not exempt.

You ask whether some of the stories and legends would have been in writing. Scholars feel there are ways of telling what's oral and what's written. Oral stories tend to follow certain patterns, while written works follow others. The Song of the Sea, for example (at the point in Exodus where the Israelites have just crossed the sea), is considered to be a genuine very old song, one of the oldest things in the exodus story. The Book of Deuteronomy is considered the oldest of the five books, but it would have been available to the authors of 450 BC in a different and shorter version (it's core is the body of laws that make up most of it - these are perhaps 8th century, and then in the 7th they were given a narrative prologue). Some parts may be even later than 450-400 - the mention of "ships of Kittim" in the Baalam story in Numbers seems to refer to either Athenian naval operations off the Persian coast in the early 5th century, which would fit the 450-450 dates, or possibly later Roman operations in the Hellenistic period - in either case, Kittim is the Hebrew Bible's term for both Greeks and Romans, and is found in non-canonical books.

The story of the Hykosos is both like and unlike the exodus story, quite apart from the inversion between good guys and bad guys. There's a good summary in Russell Gmirkin's "Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch" - unfortunately I can't access it on google books, but perhaps you can. Anyway, on similarities:

• Both were Asiatics who infiltrated Egypt (not invaded, Manetho is known to be wrong about that) and settled in the eastern Delta;
• Both stayed in Egypt for many centuries (just how many is immaterial).

On the differences:

• The Hyksos were kings ("kings of foreign lands", the meaning of the name), but the Israelites were slaves;
• The Hyksos, when they left Egypt, were chased all the way into Canaan by an Egyptian army, took refuge in a fortress near Gaza, and were destroyed, following which Canaan entered the Egyptian empire; the Israelites escaped, the Egyptians were destroyed, and Moses led his people to Moab (on the far side of Canaan from where Gaza is), following which they conquered Canaan and there was no sign of the Egyptians in the land.
  

So to conclude, the exodus story is a "memory", but it's a highly unreliable one. It was built on traditions, written and oral, that were already centuries old, and its authors had an agenda, namely to bind the Jews of Jerusalem together as a people apart from their neighbours. That's a whole other story, but there are little echoes in the repeated refrain of Israel being a "nation of priests" - Jerusalem in the Persian period was a theocracy, ruled by priests who were obsesses with ritual cleanliness and with observing what they believed to be the laws of God, set out in great detail in various places in the the four books. Part of purity was holding themselves apart from all other peoples. They were not trying to record history, but to create a holy community. This is why modern scholars don't bother finding a date for the exodus, or explanations for the plagues, or the places where the Israelites camped in the wilderness - it misses the point of what the exodus story is meant to do. PiCo (talk) 05:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

PiCo, isn't it the case that the term Hyksos is used somewhat loosely? Technically the correct usage seems to be in reference to the Hyksos Pharaohs who ruled from Avaris. But on the other hand, the term is often used to refer to the people they ruled over, who were apparently very similar culturally and ethnically to the Canaanites. Isn't it considered at least possible that the arrival of the Hyksos rulers in the Nile delta region was an invasion of Hurrian charioteers?

How is it known that the Hyksos, and I mean both the rulers and the people, were entirely destroyed to the last man, woman and child? Is that an academic consensus, and on what basis does anyone make such a claim?

If a "cultural memory" is transmitted within a population, and if the Exodus includes some component of a cultural memory of the Hyksos expulsion, doesn't that imply that there was some population that continuously transmitted such a memory? By a "population", I am imagining a tribe, group or nationality with some shared culture, such that the members of this group tend to mostly intermarry with each other. "Cultural memories", both written and oral, must have largely been transmitted from generation to generation within such ethnic groups.

Josephus said that the Hyksos were "our people" (that is, the Jews.) In saying so, doesn't he mean that the Hyksos and Israelites were the same population as I have defined here? That is, as we might say today, that they were the same people in the sense that the genes of the group had been propagated through such ancestral relations and family lines? And similarly, isn't he indicating that the story of the Hyksos must have been transmitted, orally and in writing, within such a population?

The claim has been made, that such a relationship between Hyksos and Israelites is impossible because the Israelites did not develop a distinctive material culture until the 13th century. But isn't it possible for ethnic populations such as I describe above, to develop a new material culture without ceasing to be the same people? JerryRussell (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how plausible you, or I, or any other editor here feels that that a Hyksos-Israelite "continuity" of some kind is. What matters is what the reliable sources say. This isn't a forum for working out what views we personally think are plausible. This is an encyclopedia-building project built around what reliable sources think is plausible. Alephb (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

So we're back to discussing what the reliable sources say. Which, of course, requires us to say what sources are reliable. The actual language of the policies recognizes that there are degrees of reliability among various sources. It is not a binary quality. There are a diverse range of sources who argue for some sort of Hyksos-Israelite continuity, ranging from Josephus to Jacobovici. Bernal says it was virtually a 19th century consensus.

In order to keep this information out of the encyclopedia, you need to attack all these sources regardless of their academic qualifications, their prominence, or the simple and undeniable force of their reasoning. And all of this dispute turns out to be over a hair-splitting difference that Jacobovici ridicules as 'the difference between a howler, and a dissertation'. JerryRussell (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Jerry, when I say Ahmose destroyed the Hyksos I mean he destroyed them politically - after his campaigns they no longer existed as a distinct political entity, but Asiatic/Canaanite people certainly continued to exist, and do so up the present day. As an analogy, take the Assyrians, whose kingdom was utterly destroyed by Babylon in 610 BC and never re-arose, yet there are Assyrian people in northern Iraq to the present day. (Or at least they call themselves Assyrians - I guess they have some connection). Or Champa in Southeast Asia, once a great kingdom, slowly destroyed by Vietnam and now extinguished, yet there are more Cham living in Cambodia today than ever lived in Champa. (I like SOutheast Asia).

So yes, a genetic continuity between Hyksos and Jews and modern Palestinians is almost guaranteed. But bear in mind that the Hyksos seems to have been a rather fluid term. It means "kings" or "rulers" of foreign lands, so possibly the Egyptian kings were more concerned with the rulers than with the people they ruled. This would be the norm among pre-modern kingdoms - kings were essentially a parasitic elite, squeezing taxes out of the peasants, and they didn't care what the ethnicity of the peasantry was. They did care, a great deal. if other kings tried to take over. It was more like Al Capone and the mob than John F. Kennedy.

The Hyksos who fled from Avaris to Sharuhen/Gaza were the ruling class, the king, his courtiers, the army. The peasants stayed behind - consider the impossibility of even containing them all in Avaris or Sharuhen. This brings up the interesting question of ethnicity. Today we think of it as something fixed, but that wasn't the case in the ancient world. In the Hellenistic world - admittedly a millennium and half after this - one could change from Greek to Persian, from Jewish to Greek. Ethnos now is bound up with ideas of race, but that's a quite recent development. It's also a very Northwest European way of looking at the world - in the Arab world people with black skin, the descendants of black slaves, are accepted into tribal structures without question, while in South Africa there are not two races, black and white, but three, black, white, and coloured, all despising each other. In America, as I understand, the lightest tinge of African ancestry puts people into the category "black", which would be incomprehensible in either Basra or Cape Town.

So to sum that up, yes, you're correct, the term "Hyksos" is used sometimes to mean the pharaohs at Avaris, sometimes to mean the people they ruled. And the people they ruled, in the eastern Delta, were by the mid-1500s very much Canaanite - maybe not all, but a lot. When Ahmose chased the Hyksos out of Avaris he was chasing the elite. What happened to the bulk of the peasantry no one really knows, but it's logical to assume that some left and some stayed. Those who stayed would have become Egyptian, which meant simply adopting Egyptian speech, gods, and other customs. Those who left would have joined the other Canaanites in Canaan and gone on speaking Canaanite and worshiping Canaanite gods. Out of that population developed Israel, first mentioned c.1213-1203, which is 300 hundred years later.

The first mention of an exodus-like tradition is in the prophet Hosea, writing in the 700s. He says: "When Israel was a child I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." So there was something exodus-like around at that time, but just what the story was we don't know. Nor is Moses mentioned, although a little later Hosea says that "by a prophet the Lord brought Israel up from Egypt", so a prophet was involved. Hosea clearly expects his audience to know what he's talking about, so the story must have been a well-known one, but the details are unknown.

Could it have been a memory of the Hyksos event? Many scholars think so. But not an accurate memory. Too much time had passed, and too many people had retold and reinterpreted it. We don't even know how close Hosea's "out of Egypt" story was to the story in the Torah. This is why it's an oversimplification to say that Hyksos=Israelites=exodus.

As for Josephus, he had his own ideological agenda. The earliest Greeks to write about the Jews (c.300 BC) admired them, but as Jews began to settle in ALexandria in large numbers this changed, and by his time there was a lot of anti-Semitism. There was also a sort of intellectual competition going on among the educated as to who was the oldest civilisation, Greece or Mesopotamia or Egypt. So Josephus wanted to do two things, to counter the anti-Semitic propaganda of the Greeks, and to show that the Jews were the oldest of all peoples. This was why he was quoting Manetho - not because he thought the history was interesting, but because he wanted to use it to prove that the Egyptians had oppressed the Jews, rather than the opposite, and to demonstrate that the Jews were an ancient people.

In other words, Josephus has to be read critically. (So do all historians). He's not our main source for the Hyksos (or rather Manetho isn't - nobody suspects Josephus of having forged Manetho, but he may have added his own editorial comments, and it's difficult to distinguish these from Manetho's text). The main sources are some inscriptions left by the Egyptians (but again they have to be rad critically - ancient Pharaohs were propagandists no less than Josephus) and archaeology (which has to be interpreted - the stones do not speak all on their own).

So for all these reasons, it's essential to follow scholars like Assmann. PiCo (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

PiCo, thank you very much for these extensive and very reasonable comments. I really appreciate the opportunity to engage in a substantive discussion of the ideas contained in the sources. I agree with most everything you say above, especially where you say "it's an oversimplification to say that Hyksos=Israelites=exodus. But on the other hand, it's also an oversimplification to say that the Hyksos were Not the Israelites, or that the Hyksos Exodus was Not the Hebrew Exodus. Some of the less reputable sources are arguing for a closer relationship that Assmann or Redford would admit, and they produce quite a lot of evidence to that effect. I won't go into any more detail at the moment, as I've been admonished to say less. JerryRussell (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

JerryRussell, you might be interested in this long series of posts in the personal blog of Dr Chris Heard, a professor at Pepperdine University in California. It's his assessment of "Exodus Decoded." It's about five pages of links, and should be used backwards - start at the bottom link on the page that opens, and then work your way back to the first page. PiCo (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, thanks for the live link to Heard's blog. There's an earlier version of this material available at archive.org, which I find more interesting because it has comments from Jacobovici himself as well as other participants. 1

I'm looking forward to seeing your proposal for a re-write of the Hyksos materials. JerryRussell (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alepb says: "What matters is what the reliable sources say."

But that is not entirely true, is it? Gildas and Bede are quoted copiously in Wiki, despite the fact that they are known to be not entirely reliable. Alepb above jumped in (above) and said that Gildas and Bede are NOT quoted. But of course they ARE quoted, if you look at Wiki articles on Dark Age Britain - as Woscafrench rightly pointed out (above). Whether Alephb likes it or not, a Wiki precedent has been set - ancient chroniclers like Gildas, Bede and Josephus CAN be quoted and their views discussed. Tatelyle (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Have I ever said that Josephus is unquotable on Wikipedia? No, no I have not. I would imagine that, after over a month of this conversation, you would have figured out such a basic fact by now. Perhaps you would have a happier time on Wikipedia if you tried some simpler tasks, like proofreading or something for a while until you have a bit more understanding of how Wikipedia works. Alephb (talk) 13:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alephb..... So why do we have people STILL deleting a two-word quote from Josephus, as if it is a crime against scholarship to reproduce this short observation? And why do we have 80 pages of diatribe, discussing why this two-word quote is unacceptable, and should be deleted? .... So are you now saying that this quote from Josephus ('our people') is fully acceptable, and it will reamain on this article without being deleted again...? Is that now your considered and final position? Tatelyle (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Tatelyle. Is it just a coincidence that you and Ralfellis claim to have both authored a paleoclimatology paper in 2016, and that you've done an a bunch of edits to a bunch of pages adding references to Ralph Ellis's work, and that you have done a much larger number of edits to a very large number of pages where you repeat things that have been said in Ralph Ellis's books without directly mentioning him? What are the odds that two British polymaths who published a climateology paper in the same year have such eerily similar interests in the same parts of ancient history? Alephb (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's Ralph Ellis on Josephus, the Exodus, and the Hyksos.PiCo (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm working up something for WP:SPI. I'll send you both a link for any input you might have. Alephb (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

SPI investigation is here: [31].

Ralph is my brother, but since Dougweller banned him twice from Wiki, he cannot post anything. What does Doug expect might happen? Wiki should be based upon the facts, not upon censorship. Is anything I have said overly controversial or wrong? Have my posts been overtly promoting Ralph? Are you going to ban me too? Are you trying to win your case and assert your bias via censorship, once again? Tatelyle (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating. Two brothers who are both polymaths, who are interested in the same subjects, and who both published their first paleoclimatology paper in the same year! Twins, perhaps? Anyhow, it's not my call whether you'll get banned. That will be decided over at the SPI investigation, where you're welcome to say your piece: [32].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alephb (talk • contribs)

@Tatelyle: Banned you twice? Evidence for that? User:Ralphellis isn't blocked, let alone banned. What's the other account I allegedly banned? Doug Weller talk 10:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ralph Ellis explained this by mentioning an old account from 2010 that he'd had then. I reported the account at WP:ANI for sockpuppetry and an Admin with CU rights found others. So he's been socking for at least 8 years, although the earliest account of that lot might be his first so technically not a sock but the master. He also stated at the SPI investigation that he's been relying on friends and fans to edit for him. This can lead to blocks per WP:MEAT. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Digression

Conclusive proof that the Hyksos were the Israelites This is wonderful original research I've just come up with. As such I understand that it will never appear in our article. But WP:OR does say that original research is OK on talk pages. On his user page, Tgeorgescu states his belief that All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. I am a human being (and I heard the Scripture being preached in churches), therefore I am a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Now, where this gets interesting is when you realize that there has been a consensus of nearly all "civilized" human beings since the Axial Age (and obviously India is not a country we would want to include in our consensus process) -- if there are any gods at all, there is only one. A singular, all powerful one known as Yahweh, Allah, Aten, and so forth. Amen. (Amun?) WP:FRINGE author Ahmed Osman says that Tutankhamun is Jesus. Among many other facts adduced, Osman notes that the images of Mary, Madonna and Child look a lot like Isis and Horus, and Horus is King Tut. Everyone knew at the time that Horus was Osiris was Tut was God; or if they didn't know it, they wound up tread under his sandals. Similarly it is the consensus of European civilization that Jesus is God. It seems obvious to me that if there's only one God, and Jesus is God, and Tut is God, then Tut must be Jesus. I'm sure you see by now where I'm going with this. The Hyksos were all Gods, and so were the Israelites. But there's only one God, so they're all the same. Tgeorgescu and PiCo and Tatelyle, we're all Gods and all are One. All the disputation on this talk page will surely melt away under this secure knowledge. JerryRussell (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC) We are all trying to have a difficult and fairly complex discussion about how to write this Wikipedia page here. Please don't give us any more lectures about your personal religious beliefs here. It clutters an already very cluttered conversation. Even if you're joking. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC) If this is serious, words fail me. If not, it's not a useful contribution. PiCo (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC) To be sure, that is not my belief, it is drawing some logical conclusions in order to show the absurdity of some statements. Of course, some sense of humour is needed for getting that point. This, however, isn't an invitation to fill talk pages with jokes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC) Tgeorgescu, your logic seemed incontrovertible to me, considering the premises. And the source you cite, the Bible, is widely renowned as a spiritual authority. I was hoping you were right, because if you were God then we could rely on you to interpret that PAG and if I were also God, and we are One, then surely we could agree. Alas, you have dashed my syllogism to ruins. Your home page also states you believe in God. If you say God exists, on what authority do you say so? Or is that another false premise meant to show the absurdity of some statements? It would be nice if you are right that there is a God. If so, then he could interpret the PAG for us. Do you believe that God speaks to you, when it comes to the Law (er.. the PAG)? JerryRussell (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC) This is disruptive. close/collapse the thread - it absolutely defines the reasons for our policies on using talk pages as fourms for discussion Edaham (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits to "Torah" subsection of "Composition" section

I've made some edits to this section. Not, I think, contentious, but aimed at setting out clearly the commonest scholarly ideas on the composition of the written exodus story (first para) and the earliest traces of the traditions found elsewhere in the scriptures (second para). Please let me know here if you have problems and I'll either defend my edits of try to incorporate your concerns. If after that you still don't like it then feel free to edit directly, but this proposal is meant to limit clashes. PiCo (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi PiCo, I hope you won't mind I've taken the liberty to touch up one word. Feel free to revert if you feel my edit is an error. Other than that, I think you've made a major improvement to the section. JerryRussell (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine Jerry. :) PiCo (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period"

I do enjoy coming back to this page from time to time, when it appears on my watchlist, to see the latest directions the discussion is going in.

But a particular thing I do find (increasingly) grating in the article is the blunt opening statement at the top of the section on "Composition" / "The Torah" that

Scholars broadly agree that the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period, approximately 450-400 BCE ...

Whilst this may be true of the Torah in its final form, for this section what's much more relevant are the dates that particular parts of the content may have been composed.

For me, the blanket opening statement that "the Torah is a product of the mid-Persian period" immediately grates with the view (I believe still held quite widely) that the core of Deuteronomy was composed at the time of King Josiah (and already presented as an address by Moses, "found" in a wall in the Temple (?)). The portions devoted to laws in Exodus (and Leviticus) are presumably at least somewhat older than this, as the text of Deuteronomy very much seems to be a revised recapitulation. So, much of the Torah, arguably, is a product of the 7th century, and earlier. There's also a question of language. The language and vocabulary of the narrative sections in the desert and about Moses seems appreciably different from late books such as Esther or Ruth. Some of the concerns too -- eg the emphasis on the portable tabernacle -- appear curiously irrelevant for a late composition.

So, as an opening point of reference, the claim that the Torah in general is a product of the mid-Persian period seems off -- much of it is surely the "product" of earlier periods, and reflects them.

To be fair, the section then goes on to reflect something rather closer to the view that "Exodus [(the book)] is an anthology drawn from nearly all periods of Israel's history", as our "Dating the Bible" article puts it. But perhaps that would be a better starting point for laying out up front, than "product of the mid-Persian period".

Something that is also interesting, and may be worth a comment, is just how widely the phrase "who brought you out of the land of Egypt" is studded throughout the bible. Rabbi Google finds this useful page. (No warranty offered as to either accuracy or completeness). Of course, some/many/all of these might be later insertions. But if there is good textual analysis on this question, and eg the variation and variety of different textual forms of this formula, that might be interesting to have. Jheald (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If you had consensus, what would you change that sentence to? Woscafrench (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was really hoping first for the opinion of users like User:PiCo and the other regulars here, who I know are much better read on this than I am, and have access to extensive libraries of sources, to see to what nuances I may have missed in what I wrote above.

But I would have thought that a useful sequence of points to make might be (i) that the Torah is considered to have been put into its final form at the time of the exile; (ii) but much of the material is older; (iii) the book of Exodus in particular has been described as "an anthology drawn from nearly all periods of Israel's history". Then (iv) perhaps the existing paragraph "The history of the Exodus story stretches back some two hundred years..." (or perhaps better: "at least" some 200 years). And then perhaps (v) the two recent suggestions about re-shaping of the material at the end of the Persian period.

Might a sequence like that work, do we think? Would it be honest and accurate? Jheald (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would certainly be an improvement over the sentence as it currently is (which totally ignores the existence of the Samaritans). @PiCo: has not said anything, @Tgeorgescu: @Alephb: @JerryRussell: - do you have an opinion? Woscafrench (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Woscafrench, I would suggest "Scholars broadly agree that the Pentateuch was shaped, and reached its final form, in the mid-Persian period..."

At one point I had also introduced this sentence: "The Exodus narrative contains detailed references to specific places and events of the second half of the seventh and the first half of the sixth century BCE, including the reign of Josiah. This suggests that older legends could have been woven into a narrative during that era," referenced to Finkelstein & Silbermann pp. 68-69. The current replacement of that sentence says "The history of the Exodus story stretches back some two hundred years before the achievement of its current form..." which I believe is somewhat confusing inasmuch as the history could go much farther back than that, as the second half of that sentence acknowledges. JerryRussell (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I do think the quoted line, in green, above, overstates things. Of the two sources cited for the sentence, one says, that the "first publication" of the Pentateuch is supposed to have occurred in the Persian period. The other says, "More seriously, however, although the Persian period is now considered an even more decisive context forthe formation of the Pentateuch than in the past (even when one places the final form in the Hellenistic era), there is no growing consensus regarding the dates, formation, processes of composition or purposes of the Pentateuch." Getting from the two cited sources to the green sentence is a bit of a jump. Alephb (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Since the majority of scholars abandoned the traditional documentary hypothesis, no new consensus about the formation of the Bible s first five books has emerged." -- Romer. I don't think the green sentence does an accurate job of summarizing what either of the cited sources actually says -- both say that there's no consensus about the details of dating, while both do say that the Persian period was important for the (development/finalization/publication) of the Torah.Alephb (talk) 05:30, 8 October 2017 (UTC)