Talk:The Exodus/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 → Archive 15

Proposed new first para for lead

Let's do something constructive. Does anyone have views on this version for a new first para for the lead? Source is Redmount, pages 59 for the first sentence, 64 for the second (see the bibliography). PiCo (talk) 04:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[1] The story is told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers and Deuteronomy; the consensus among modern scholars is that these books were intended not as history but as theology, an illustration of how the god of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people.
That is fine except for the last paragraph. I could easily find sources on this, but you will do what you always do: exclude them. Historiography changes over time and is different in different cultures. Your inference here is that modern western historiography is the only legitimate version of "history". We can certainly say that the narratives are a mix of (what we would differentiate as) theology and history, but not that it is "not history" or that the theology so distorts the history as to make it have little historical value. Most cultures over time have used historiographical methods that blend genres but are no less "history" than modern western historiography (which itself blends various genres). Again I could easily find sources on this, but I won't waste my time when you will just delete them.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia sides with the scientific consensus. This is, facts are described according to the consensus of the scholars, meaning scholars who live by publish and perish in mainstream scientific journals. So, Wikipedia does have a bias for mainstream Western historiography, since the scientific consensus is mostly achieved in Western mainstream historical journals. You cannot simply say that "Since flat Earth was accepted for most of the time, we should present flat Earth as fact and the heliocentric system as fiction or fringe." We live here and now, meaning science is defined by present-day historical scholarship from mainstream Western academic journals. We cannot ignore mainstream present-day scholarship because the Babylonians and the Romans had different ideas about historiography. So, you have to understand that presenting such ancient views on historiography as present-day mainstream science is hopelessly fringe and will be reverted by any good-faith editor. It's like quarreling about the scientific status of germ theory of disease, this issue has been settled for a century and those who question it are called crackpots. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean the last sentence. Ok, replace it with this (I'll include the first sentence just for completeness). Remember also that this is the Oxford History of the Biblical World, which is about as mainstream as sources come:

  • "The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[Redmount, p.59] Significant portions of the story told in the books of Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are not and were never intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant.(Redmount, p.63).
Souds good to me, with one minor quibble: Is there a reason the new version has the book of Genesis instead of Exodus? Huon (talk) 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure there's a reason: I made a boo-boo :) PiCo (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This paragraph is ok.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed second para for lead

Without closing discussion on the first para of the lead (see the thread above), let's move on to the second para. The first para defined the scope of the exodus and its meaning to the ancient authors; the second briefly traces its history (meaning the history of the story itself, from original traditions to final form). Sources are given in the brackets and can be looked up in the bibliography. Please check the sources and see that I've reflected them accurately. (The first sentence synthesises two sources, but I believe it does so in a responsible way):

  • The first of the four books making up the story of the Exodus was Deuteronomy, which scholars agree was composed in its first edition (largely the law-code making up chapters 12-26) in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE.[Rofe, p.4-5][Knight, p.66] The three books which precede it in the modern bible - Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers - were probably written during the late 7th/early 6th centuries BCE and expanded into their present forms in the late 6th century, soon after the end of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews.[Davies 2001, p.37] At the same time Deuteronomy was expanded to form a bridge between these and the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, the whole series making a comprehensive history of Israel.[Rogerson, p.153-154] Despite the comparatively late date of the Exodus narrative as told in these books, the traditions behind them are older, and can be traced back to the writings of the 8th century prophets.[Lemche, p.327] How far beyond these written traces the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[Redmount, p.63]
Change "which scholars agree" in the first sentence to "which many scholars believe" and it is probably ok.
I do also think (though won't make a big deal of it if you make the "which many scholars believe" change) that the next two sentences shouldn't be included (or at least should be condensed) because this article is not about the books themselves but about the event itself, and those two sentences are a little too specific for an article on the event itself.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
While the article is about the event, the only knowledge we have of the event is from the books, and therefore they have to be discussed. It's also useful to draw to readers' attention the fact that the books Exodus to Deuteronomy aren't the only place in the bible that mentions the event - then from that we can move into the question of what might lie behind the books, i.e. the question of historicity. Staying with the same sources, I suggest the following re-write (and I ask you to check what I write against the sources): PiCo (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Deuteronomy was probably composed in its first edition (a relatively short version of the present book) in Jerusalem in the 7th century BCE.[Rofe, p.4-5] Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were probably written during the late 7th/early 6th centuries BCE and expanded in the late 6th century, soon after the end of the Babylonian captivity.[Davies 2001, p.37] At the same time Deuteronomy was expanded to form a bridge between these and the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, the whole series making a comprehensive history of Israel.[Rogerson, p.153-154] The traditions behind the exodus are older than anyn of these books, and can be traced back to the 8th century prophets.[Lemche, p.327] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[Redmount, p.63]
You mean this as a replacement second paragraph? If so, this is fine.
Though I won't push this point, I really think that given the scope and length of this article, the textual history of the narratives should get, at most, a few sentences in the lede, and not until the last or second to last paragraph in the lede. There is so much more to the exodus than this. There is the story itself, the cultural, historical, political and social consequences, from how it shaped Jewish history to its impact on western history generally, as well as the various cultural practices (such as passover) that continue until the present.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Taking to heart what you say about the need to be brief, I've found a new source and shortened this para. The source is Barry Bandstra's Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, which is a recent (2008) entry-level university/seminary text - scholarly, but not unreadable, and representative of generally-held positions. We avoid all talk about the separate histories of the various books. Please let me know what you think. PiCo (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The Torah, which contains the story of the exodus, was formed in the period of the Babylonian exile (5th century BCE) or shortly after.[Bandstra, p.30] The traditions behind the exodus narrative are older, and can be traced in the writings of the 8th century prophets.[Lemche, p.327] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[Redmount, p.63]
Sounds good to me. In particular I agree that we need not discuss in the lead when which book of the Torah was written; this seems a good summary to me. Huon (talk) 10:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this is good.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed third para for lead

Thank you for your great cooperation to date. This next para deals with the importance of the exodus in modern Judaism. So far as I can tell it has no particular importance in Christianity. Now I want your help. It cites Tigay's entry in the Jewish Study Bible as source, but it's not strictly true: I'm sure every word in the para is true, but none is taken from the JSB. But the JSB is a source that nobody can question, so, please, read the two pages of Tigay's article for me (it's actually the introduction to the chapter on the Book of Exodus), and make sure that the para really does reflect the source.

  • The Exodus is central to much of modern Judaism. The festival of Passover is a notable example: the Hebrew name for this, "Pesaḥ", refers to God's instruction to the Israelites to prepare unleavened bread as they would be leaving in haste, and to mark their doors with the blood of slaughtered sheep so that the "Angel" or "the destroyer" tasked with killing the first-born of Egypt would "pass over" them. Jewish tradition has preserved national and personal reminders of this pivotal narrative in daily life. Examples include the wearing of tefilin (Jewish phylacteries) on the hand and forehead, the wearing of tzitzit (knotted ritual fringes attached to the four corners of the prayer shawl), the eating of matzot (unleavened bread) during the Pesach, the fasting of the firstborn a day before Pesach, and the redemption of firstborn children and animals.J. Tigay, Jewish Study Bible, p.106-107
I will try to get this done tonight or tomorrow. It would be good if Huon could do the same so we have his two cents also.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I have some doubts about this paragraph. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, yet this paragraph is more or less the entirety of what the article says about the Exodus' cultural influence and its role in modern Judaism. That said, the Jewish Study Bible doesn't mention the etymology of either "passover" or "Pesah"; the entire first half of that paragraph is effectively unreferenced. If we want to base our coverage of the cultural influences of the Exodus on the JSB, I'd suggest something along the following lines:
  • The Exodus is central to much of Judaism. It is recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in the festival of Pesah. Other rituals commemorating the exodus include the wearing of tefillin and the redemption of firstborn sons. The Exodus served to orient Jewish festivals towards celebrations of God's actions in history, compared to polytheistic celebrations of the gods' actions in nature.
I just looked at the Passover article in hopes of finding a source on the etymology, but while that article discusses the etymology at length it doesn't provide any sources. Huon (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't look like the JSB is the source for most of the details of that paragraph, though PiCo is right that the details are probably true (and probably easy to find references for). The article is more about the pivotal role of the exodus generally, not as much on the specifics of practice. This cite can be used for the first sentence, and the one about Jewish tradition preserving the memory of the exodus. I do think it is a good paragraph, and though probably needs to be fixed, does cover a topic that the lede (and article) should cover.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Lead: combining the three paras

Ok, let's put it all together. These are the three paragraphs, the last one edited to shorten it. A longer version can be included as a new section in the body of the article. Comments? PiCo (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

  • The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan.[Redmount, p.59] Significant portions of the story told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are not and were never intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant.(Redmount, p.63).
  • The Torah, which contains the story of the exodus, was formed in the period of the Babylonian exile (5th century BCE) or shortly after.[Bandstra, p.30] The traditions behind the exodus narrative are older, and can be traced in the writings of the 8th century prophets.[Lemche, p.327] How far beyond that the tradition might stretch cannot be told: "Presumably an original Exodus story lies hidden somewhere inside all the later revisions and alterations, but centuries of transmission have long obscured its presence, and its substance, accuracy and date are now difficult to determine."[Redmount, p.63]
  • The Exodus has been central to Judaism: it served to orient Jews towards the celebration of God's actions in history, in contrast to polytheistic celebrations of the gods' actions in nature, and even today it is recounted daily in Jewish prayers and celebrated in the festival of Pesah. In secular history the exodus has served as inspiration and model for many groups, from early Protestant settlers fleeing persecution in Europe to 19th and 20th century African-Americans striving for freedom and civil rights. (Tigay pp.106-107)
That sounds good, but I wonder how much it summarizes the article. For example, this lead does not mention the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof), and it's very short on the plot summary. Unfortunately I currently don't have any suggestions on improvement, but I would be open to adjustments when we fix the rest of the article. Huon (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
The archaeology thing is a sub-set of the historicity thing, which in turn is a sub-set of the question of the genre of the exodus, history or salvation-myth. The first para covers that to an extent. Maybe we could work the quote from Dever in, but is it necessary? PiCo (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
No, lets just stick with the track we are on. We are making good progress. This is a good lede, so we should go ahead and use it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's just put this into the article then, and go on to the body of the article. We can always come back to it later. Quark, would you like to cut/paste it into the article? (And make sure the books it references are in the bibliography). Then the next stage will be to decide on section headers for the body of the article. PiCo (talk) 03:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. How do you think we should structure the body of the article? I think it should say a lot more on the story itself, the cultural significance, less on matters of historicity (though it would probably be good to start a new article on the historicity issue and have a more elaborate discussion there) and have a new section on its importance in non-Jewish culture, such as its acting as an inspiration for the American Civil Rights movement.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed outline

Answering Quark's request for my ideas on what the structure of the article should look like, here's what Huon suggested some time ago:

  1. Summary
  2. Cultural significance
  3. Historicity (Whether the Exodus happened, and in what form)
  4. Textual history (How and when the Exodus story came to be written and edited)
  5. Extra-Biblical accounts (could possibly be merged into the textual history)

It would at least give us a framework to go on with. PiCo (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That still seems a good structure to me. We might have to re-order the sections a little to correspond with the order of our new lead, but that's a minor issue. Huon (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
People who come here are going to be interested in the story itself and the cultural/historical significance mainly, not the historicity/textual history/extra-biblical accounts part. There is too much here on historicity/textual history/extra-biblical accounts (which are really three sides of the same topic). Combined, those should be no more than a third of the body of the article (I would actually say less, but I am fine with a third). I think we should make a new article for those topics, where they can be discussed in more depth than we have even here (the cultural significance and to a degree story itself already have their own articles). I could go ahead and get that new article started if we can agree on that approach. I would just copy and paste what is in this article on that topic into the new one. The section on it in this article should be a summary of what is in that article. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "the story itself" - a summary of the story? That would be a bit boring, surely? It should be there, but just 2 or 3 paras, and a very "straight" section without comment etc. I actually agree with you that the historicity part should be short - it's enough to say, for example, that scholars place any possible historical even anywhere within a range of several centuries, without going into details as to which century is "right". Yet from experience I know that readers (or some readers anyway) are extremely interested in historicity. So I'm unsure how to treat it. Maybe by reviewing some major scholars? But anyway, let's take this outline and work with it - I'll try to get a summary of the biblical story up shortly (I mean here, on Talk). PiCo (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
By "the story itself" I do mean the narrative contained within the Pentateuch, which is quite long. We definitely don't need the whole thing, or anywhere near it, but we could go into more depth on it than what is currently in article. I think that the vast majority of people who come here will be coming mainly for a summary of the narrative itself. On historicity, I think we need to consider a new article with more of the details there, for those more interested in that part. Some (like us) are quite interested in historicity, but from my experience we are a distinct minority, both on and off Wikipedia. Most think this topic to be boring and unnecessarily technical, in my experience anyway. I agree with your statement on saying that scholars place any possible historical event anywhere within a range of several centuries without saying which century is right.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed section "Summary"

This is a first draft of a section to be titled "Summary". It provides a summary of the Exodus story in the books Exodus-Deuteronomy, plus a brief introduction. The first para is a short general introduction to alert non-Jewish readers to the fact that the Exodus story makes up most of what, for Jews, is the most sacred part of the bible, the Torah.

  • The story of the Exodus takes up four of the five books of the Torah (meaning "law" or "instruction"), which is, for Jews, the holiest part of the bible. The fact that the story is spread over separate books in our bibles is probably an accidental result of being too long to fit comfortably on a single scroll in ancient times.
  • Exodus, the first part of the story, begins with a review of the story of Joseph, which explains how the Israelites came to Egypt. Joseph and his kin had been welcomed in the land, but now a new king of Egypt comes to the throne, and determines to enslave their descendants. The Israelites find a champion in Moses, the first and greatest of the prophets, who defies Pharaoh and leads the Israelites to the Mountain of God (Sinai). There they agree to become the God's people, and keep his laws, in return for his protection and strength. Exodus ends when the "glory of YHWH" (God's name, revealed to Moses for the first time) fills the "Tent of Meeting". From this moment YHWH lives in the midst of his people, guiding them to the land he has promised to their ancestor Abraham.
  • Leviticus contains the "statutes and ordinances and laws" which YHWH gives to Moses and the Israelites. The Book of Numbers begins with laws on ritual purity, then describes how the Israelites, led now by God, proceed from Sinai through the wilderness to the border of Canaan, the promised land. There, however, they fail: their fear of the Canaanites makes them turn back from the conquest. God tells Moses that the promise of land will not be for this generation, who must die in the wilderness, but for the next. The Israelites therefore spend the next forty years in the wilderness before proceeding.
  • Deuteronomy finds the Israelites gathered on the plains of Moab within sight of the promised land. Moses gathers them and recalls their wanderings and the promise of their God. He gives them new laws, entrusts them to the care and leadership of Joshua, and dies.

It's drawn from Jean-Louis Ska's "Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch". Ska is a scholar at the Pontifical Bible Institute in Rome - a catholic and highly respected in his field. Not everything, however, is from Ska - please note if you feel that anything needs extra support. You might think this is a bit short - it can be expanded. Everything is from Ska, pages 16-19. PiCo (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a good start, but I have a couple of comments. The first paragraph should probably go in the historicity/textual history section, as it is more a history of the biblical writings than of the exodus event. Also, I think the first 5 books of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible are more appropriately called the Pentateuch (which is what Ska calls it in his book on the topic), as "Torah" is a very broad term with a wide range of possible meanings, which can include not just the entire Hebrew Bible but much beyond that as well. Really anything we might call "Jewish law" can be referred to as "Torah". Overall though, I think this section needs to be expanded and made into more a narrative that tells the story of the exodus, rather than summarizing 4 of the 5 books of the Pentateuch. In this summary, the Pentateuch is telling the story of the exodus, which makes it choppy. The exodus should tell the story of the Pentateuch.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspicion

I think some things were accidentally deleted on this edition: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.200.41 (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the categories and interwiki links were apparently removed along with some unused books. I re-added them. Thanks! Huon (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Era

Current article uses mixed eras. Although I think the CE/BCE system would be the NPOV way to go, it does not look like that was the system introduced in the beginning of the article. Can someone clean up the dates in the article to the other system, or is there enough consensus to switch to BCE/CE? — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In the past discussion there seemed to be a pretty strong consensus for BCE/CE. Huon (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it appears there was consensus for BCE/CE in that discussion. I would also support the change, since the strong ties to Judaism and Judaic history are non–arbitrary reasons specific to the article content. I haven't looked through all the article history, but if, as Imeriki al-Shimoni says, BCE/CE was the initial era version used, it appears it shouldn't have been changed away from that era style. Mojoworker (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no strong reason to change them. As for the earliest version of the article, this first version from 2005 uses BC. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Given a reasonable consensus, I too would support the use of BCE/CE. The discussions here and previously seem to fully satisfy the current dictum at WP:ERA to make changes only with prior discussion and consensus, and based on content rather than personal preference—and to use one notation consistently within the same article. What was used in the earliest version has been removed from the policy and no longer governs. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
We achieved consensus on BCE during the last time this was discussed; it just wasn't implemented because the article was in the midst of some big lets-not-make-the-fixes-in-the-midst-of-discussion discussion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 Done. Article updated. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Riaan Booysen deletion

I've reverted this for several reasons. This isn't a reliable source by our criteria - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. The author is an electronic engineer,[2] the publisher specialises in "titles on general spirituality ",[3] not biblical studies, archaeology, etc. It also is not a significant view unless you can show that it is discussed in some depth in reliable sources. Finally, we don't say 'confirmed', 'provides proof'. etc. in Wikipedia's voice. Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Original research

Our text: "Thus it seems probable that the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but a gematria..." The source: "Some writers see...". The source does not see this theory as probable but merely as a theory proposed by some. Zerotalk 10:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite right (tho that doesn't make OR, just incorrect use of a source). For comething as obvious as that you should feel free to make an edit yourself, without coming to Talk. (From "this is seems probable..." to "Some writers (or whatever the word is in the source) see..." I notice that the source's own source is Encyclopedia Judaica, so it looks pretty solid as scholarship). PiCo (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Historic Proof of The Biblical Egyptian Exodus

Meshnaic related articles, need Editorial Oversite. Mishnaic Hebrew is not as old as Wikipedia authors, using corrupted author sources, are citing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259061/Hebrew-language#ref267076
Quote: "Mishnaic, or Rabbinic, Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written about AD 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language);"
Quoting Britannica, "Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Testament, a small number of inscriptions in Hebrew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century BC.
During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many nouns were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words."
^ Encyclopedia Britannica repeats, people since inventing the Masoretic Text (900-1100AD) have been purposely destroying traces of which language produced the Hebrew Language. I have repeatedly confirmed by finding the original source, that Aramaic is phonetic or script of the Source Language being falsely called Hebrew. Even Hebrew University confirm Biblical Hebrew Script IS Liturgical Aramaic http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html
The Biblical Torah began with King Ahmoses in Egypt, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I ) When Minoan Crete Volcano Erupted between 1650-1550BCE, but someone is claiming Ah-Moses only reigned for five years 1555-1550BCE??? Facts are Aramaic is the only Language that covers the span between Book of Genesis Chapter 19 with Abraham seeing a Volcano, and then Ah-Moses Where the Upper & Lower Kingdom became one so they could move away, "Exodus" from Lower Egypt(Nile Delta) to what people call Middle Egypt or Memphis, escaping the Clouds of Ash which Rained with Fire from the Volcano about 1650-1550BCE. Aramaic is the language of God. A "Hebrew Language" did not Exist, it was like Ge'ez priestly Aramaic so commoners could not read it. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
* Here is a University confirming Biblical Hebrew is Liturgical Aramaic. http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ 1300BCE Aramaic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4WhatMakesSense (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

This statement is WP:FRINGE/PS and the editor has been indeffed for pushing such viewpoint. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Article pushing a point of view, is flagrantly hostile to wisedpread and significant points of view

Let this serve as notice that a POV-pushing ssue has been identified with the wording of this article. There are few issues that are more contentious than this one, yet the article is firmly in somebody's fantasy land where a "consensus" exists, and wouldn;t you know it, the "consensus" happens to be that that person's POV is the only correct one (yawn). The tag should stay until neutrality is restored. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As shown above, you have agreed that the mainstream scientific view is that the Exodus is unhistorical. Have you changed your mind? The mainstream scientific view has to be rendered according to WP:RNPOV. According to what you have stated in the talk page, the tags are unwarranted. As somebody told you earlier, you have the right to disagree with the NPOV policy, but you have no right to try to mess with it article by article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I am most certainly doing no such thing and I would advise you to rescind that unjustified reproach. I'm getting a little tired of your go-for-the-jugular tactics to ensure articles pushing your persona POV on everything. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that we are all minimalists — at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, "Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel" Proceedings of the British Academy, 143, 57-67, 2007.

Once again, accounts claiming to be historical, like this one, are difficult to prove or disprove by means of the scientific method. You can only get as far as the hypothesis stage, that's about it.

— Til Eulenspiegel
Well, when even the reality of such event cannot get beyond hypothesis stage, it is unhistorical by default. One does not need to disprove the historicity of the Exodus, it is unhistorical until proven historical, which you have conceded that it cannot get beyond hypothesis stage. The mistake was to assume that there would be a symmetry between historical and unhistorical, i.e. that if there is no evidence, neither could be asserted. History works by asserting unhistorical character by default, it is historicity which demands proof. If historicity is proven, the event ceases to be unhistorical. So the burden of proof is upon those who assert that the Exodus would be historical, in lack of such proof the other side wins by default. It's a matter of elementary logic, no need to see it as a personal attack. I just discussed what you have asserted, not your person. Remember that we are speaking of science, i.e. of facts, evidence, falsifiability, scientific consensus and so on. Theology requires none of these, it is able to construct true belief out of thin air. Theology does not establish facts, it establishes what a certain church should believe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
"Well, when even the reality of such event cannot get beyond hypothesis stage, it is unhistorical by default." This is just more of your "logic by fiat", not a rational statement. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
If there's no historical evidence for it, it just ain't history. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The bottom line is, yes, there are multiple significant points of view on this, no, the matter has not been conclusively settled, it is pure disingenuous to pretend that now suddenly the matter has been conclusively settled, and now suddenly after thousands of years there is only one valid or permissible point of view left. The fact that some editors consider one or more very widespread points of view automatically invalid without any conclusive proof, is only a measure of the bias and intolerance of these editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Provide RELIABLE SECONDARY sources that such points of view are significant. And stop with the personal attacks. The burden is on YOU, so get to work and find sources if you want to be taken seriously. And no fringe sources or reliagious apologetics, of course. Peer-reviewed academic journals or books from academic presses only, per WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents. You will never see them as significant because you have an anti-religious bias. You see wikipedia's role as being there to join you in your attack on religions, not to impartially tell all sides of the story. I've seen this a million times before; you will eventually lose because of the fact that you are arguing vehemently for only one side of the story to be told, and I am arguing just as vehemently that NPOV is a worthless sham if it only allows one POV to be presented and if it does not allow all POVs to be given impartially. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Churches are not qualified experts on history, and their opinions on historical matters are irrlevant as far as WP is concerned. Neither does it matter how many members of the general public are adherents. For scholarly topics like history, we require scholarly sources from recognized academic historians and archeologists. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
"Churches are not qualified experts on history, and their opinions on historical matters are irrlevant" No, you are making up too many anti-religious rules here and I will never agree to them. This project is neutral ground between viewpoints and must remain so as long as everybody around the world can access it and not just a select few. You are attempting to tip the balance in ways that are unacceptable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
"Several Christian Churches and other religions teach that this is historical. These account for hundreds of millions of adherents." So if a group of people were to make up some historical event using their imagination, how many believers do they need to have until reality changes and their belief becomes historical fact? (Corby (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Part of the problem is the use of the phrase "biblical scholars", which has a checkered history. We should clearly state the modern scientific consensus and indicate it as such. However, we need to use good sources that summarize the consensus. We aren't allowed to decide for ourselves what the consensus is. This is actually pretty easy, since these days in the scientific community belief in the historicity of the exodus is very fringe. I don't have time for this, but I'll offer an example of a statement that is clear, correct and usable: "Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical." (Greenberg, Moshe, and S. David Sperling. "Exodus, Book of." Encyclopaedia Judaica. Ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik. 2nd ed. Vol. 6. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. 612–623.) We can also mention the teachings of churches, but we must not present them as scholarly viewpoints. Zerotalk 03:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Science has a role in things where the scientific method can be used to prove a hypothesis. Here we have multiple hypotheses, but no means has been shown of ever proving or disproving any of them. Claims that the controversy has now been settled by "consensus" are rather childishly ignorant of the complete spectrum of opinions, and an abuse of the scientific method, because that is NOT how the scientific method actually resolves things. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 04:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't know why you brought up the issue of the truth of the exodus. It is not our business to decide that. Our business is to describe what the scholarly consensus is, and also to give due mention to dissenters from the consensus. Incidentally, the two books of Hoffmeier listed in the bibliography might be the best pro-Exodus books of recent decades that are written by archaeologists. These books are little accepted, but they are worth mentioning. Zerotalk 05:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Our job is to describe what the consensus is if there is a consensus. If there is no consensus, but a controversy, our job then is to impartially describe all sides of the controversy, not POV-push by falsely pretending there is a consensus. There is no true consensus here. The "consensus" is obtained only by declaring that these religions' doctrines, theologies, and views of the Bible do not count for anything, and only the skeptics' views are correct (when after all no new evidence has suddenly come to light proving or disproving what has unquestionably been debated for centuries). Therefore "more opinions needed" is the appropriate tag. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes you are utterly correct on one point; when it comes to claims of history, only the scientists and historians are given weight as being correct. When it comes to any historical event, we look to the scientists (archaeologists) and historians when it comes to to statements about history. We mention religious traditions, but we don't state them to be true. That should be self evident to you. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm not asking that anyone's tradition - Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever - be stated as "true". I am asking that none of them be stated as "false". Your version of logic seems to be drastically different from mine. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It becomes hilarious. We may only affirm that the historicity of the Exodus is fringe, according to historians. We cannot affirm that "Christ is the Lord" or "Moses was anointed by God" would be false, since these standpoints are not amenable to scientific proof, they're unfalsifiable (as theology). Again, you are conflating two fields: science and theology. In science, evidence matters. In theology, evidence is not a prerequisite for true belief. The problem with theology is that it is only true for a given church/congregation/faith. I remember Rick Roderick saying in a course about Heidegger the following: Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#Tendentious editing at The Exodus --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Drastically revise Historicity section?

Can we get rid of the current Historicity section and replace it with a discussion of genre instead? This would let us discuss just what the exodus story meant for the people who first wrote and read it. It's only a modern evangelical Christian reading that needs to see it as history (because for evangelicals the truth of Jesus and the Resurrection depends on the truth of the rest of the bible - if you can't trust Exodus, you can't trust the gospels). For modern Jews, let alone ancient ones, Exodus is about cultural identity, not history. Can we try this? PiCo (talk) 10:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That would violate WP:NPOV and we'd probably end up with more edit wars. People write books on the subject, we can't just ignore it. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree, not covering an aspect of a topic just because it is controversial doesn't seem like a legitimate option. We can certainly add a genre section in addition to the historicity section though. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Claiming that Jews don't see the exodus as history is a very odd statement. It was the defining historical event of Jewish identify. It also isn't just evangelical Christians who see the exodus as an historical event. It is true that evangelical Christians are more likely to see things as historical events that other, like Catholics aren't (such as the creation narrative) but the exodus is not one of them. Likewise, not many historians doubt that the exodus, or something like it, happened. You are basing your claim on a very narrow band of liberal and minimalist biblical scholars. The claim that the exodus didn't happen is a minority viewpoint. The claim that only evangelicals view it as historical is outright wrong.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New subsection to make it easier to follow

User:Til Eulenspiegel decided to remove from this discussion a comment which states there is no evidence for the Exodus in Egyptian inscriptions and none from archeology. He insists that the claim is soapboxing. I invite him to list here all such evidence about the Exodus. I do not claim right now there is a consensus about this issue, but I want to see the evidence for the Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

What you need to realize is that this is not a page where we debate evidence or reach a decision on whether or not the Exodus happened. It also should not be a page where editors seek to get either one or the other view "disqualified"; to most of us such tactics are reprehensible. The ONLY legitimate purpose of this page is to discuss potential improvements to the article, not the topic itself. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That section is blatant sabotage. Remove it. *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.194.126 (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss the improvement of the article: sources which do not rely on evidence are unscientific and therefore they should be banned from the historicity section. This is a direct consequence of WP:HISTRS. It may be great theology to claim that the Exodus did happen, but I am inclined to think that it just isn't history and theological opinion should not be conflated with scientific (i.e. historical) fact. Therefore theological opinion is not scientific fact and the article should not present it as fact, but as mere opinion, in contrast with historical research which talks about facts. The historicity section has to render what can be taught in a respectable graduate school of history, i.e. at a university without religious commitments such as requiring professors to take an oath that the Bible is infallible or any other religious bias which places theology above evidence. This leaves out fundamentalist authors and Christian conservatives. Therefore a discussion of what evidence is taken into account by the sources is useful for judging the reliability of the sources and this in turn helps us improve the article. Any scientist which makes factual claims without relying on evidence disqualifies himself/herself and therefore this has nothing to do with "reprehensible tactics" but with basic scientific integrity. Sources which lack scientific integrity are not reliable and therefore they cannot be taken into account when discussing the historicity of the Exodus. This helps us draw the line on what can be mentioned in this section of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Once again, accounts claiming to be historical, like this one, are difficult to prove or disprove by means of the scientific method. You can only get as far as the hypothesis stage, that's about it. That's why there are so many conflicting hypotheses, and we will give room to all the notable ones. Your constant claims of some kind of priority or bias for one hypothesis over another are really tiresome. Science has really very little to offer one way or the other on a theological topic. The voice of theologians does not have to be silenced and banned from articles involving theology solely on account of your prejudices. There are Jewish views, Catholic views, Protestant views, Orthodox views, even Muslim views, and they are all just as relevant as skeptical views to any Bible article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
not in terms of Historicity, no. There is a place in this article for all those religious views, but historicity is where we deal with facts and how facts separate from legend; the arguments of those who do not specialize in the facts but specialize in the legend. If someone is not capable of being skeptical of the legend, they are not questing to anser the questions of historicity. -Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Til, I don't think anyone wants to remove from the article any treatment of the exodus as theology - in fact that's exactly where I've been trying to focus it, away from the simple question of "did it really happen" and towards "what does the story mean?" And the answer is that it means different things to Jews and Christians: for Jews it's the origin of their identity as a people, and still central to their religious life today; for evangelicals it's more a narrative that simply has to be true as history, because the focus of their faith is the resurrection, and the only guarantee of that promise is that the bible is true as history. PiCo (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dubious and too few opinions

Til has conceded above that the historicity of Exodus is difficult/impossible to prove, due to lack of evidence. Any event which cannot be proven to be historical is by definition unhistorical. The lack of evidence is not evidence that it did not happen, but it suffices to call it unhistorical, i.e. unproven. There are lots of events which really happened but are unhistorical due to lack of evidence that they ever happened. An event becomes historical, i.e. historically attested, if there is historical proof for it. Otherwise, it is unhistorical. E.g. in physics they talk about strings (as in string theory), but till now there is no evidence that strings would exist. That's why string theory belongs to applied mathematics and it does not belong to physics. Physics needs some sort of evidence in order to affirm that strings do exist. Therefore he already agreed that the sources which say that the Exodus is unhistorical are academically vanilla. It results that the sources which say that the Exodus would be historical are WP:FRINGE/PS and therefore the tags dubious and too few opinions are spurious, judging by what he has affirmed himself in the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Coming back to the above, showing that an event is unhistorical does not require evidence, it just requires lack of historical evidence. By default, all events are unhistorical, unless it is proven that they really happened. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

French language wiki link

I suggest that the following link should be placed into the 'See also' section.

fr:Données_archéologiques_sur_l'Exode_et_Moïse (French wikipedia: Archaeological evidence for Exodus and Moses.)

because no equivalent article exists in English Wikipedia. Or maybe it's time to make such an article in English Wikipedia? (hint) :)

My signature. Y-barton (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Visite_fortuitement_prolongée. This was the best Template for what I was thinking about... Y-barton (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It is a personal essay by some unknown person and would not survive in that form for one week on the English wiki. Zerotalk 04:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that the English Wikipedia doesn't have such an article. Y-barton (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
And for good reason. The thing is a huge mess of unreliably sourced OR and synth. A personal essay of low quality. like Zero0000 said, it wouldn't last long on English WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I mean an article focusing on archeology. Y-barton (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm am not opposed to the article, but it is just a complicated way of saying "there is no evidence for the Exodus". Historians agree and this matters very much in matters of historicity: if there is no evidence there can be no historicity. There is no historicity without evidence. This means that first there has be some evidence and only afterwards historians may say that the event was historically real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Still, an article on archeology should be useful, because it would provide the history of the debate among archeologists. Y-barton (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Why would be link to the french encyclopedia. Wikidata has made that obsolete, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree - this whole discussion is somewhat moot, even if the page Y-barton was citing was halfway decent, which it isn't. Ckruschke (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Wikidata is not linked to this article, so irrelevant. It's not the quality of the French article that is in question here. It's the (regrettable) fact that the English wiki still doesn't have an article on archeology of Exodus. Y-barton (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It's interesting that all those people here who have criticised the quality of the French article, and who presumably are all fluent in French - none of them have bothered to improve the French article in any way... Hmm... Y-barton (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The issue at hand is your request for the insertion of the French-language page onto this one, not on improving the French-language page. THAT issue would be brought up on THAT Talk page, not this one. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
We already have The_Exodus#Historicity, which covers things, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
My point was that maybe the French article isn't really so bad after all... Y-barton (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The Exodus as mnemo-narrative

See [4] Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today"

In The Exodus#How the story was written, the second paragraph starts with "A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today". My addition of a tag for weasel words got reverted, with the explanation "unnecessary tag - statement is sourced". I looked at the given source, I don't see how it supports that it is a common hypothesis. It is not even clear to me that the mentioned hypothesis is supported. "Among biblical scholars" is pretty unspecific, and "today" is time-sensitive (needs an "as of" or a rewrite). Overall, the paragraph has an OR feel to it (the whole rest of the paragraph, lists several theories states several theories that "can be grouped..."---more weasel---but is unsourced). What do other editors think? --Nczempin (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The source is from 2001, which is a bit old, though I'm not aware of any major shift since then. It actually says "quite a lot of scholars" are "coming to support more or less" this particular view. I think the best word to use in this context would be "many", though that also might be viewed as a weasel word. More concerning, though, is that the source is talking about "first major comprehensive Pentateuchal narrative" which is not at all the same as "first major comprehensive draft of the exodus story". So, yes - it's a totally misleading citation. StAnselm (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I deleted the unsourced material and also that sentence that doesn't seem to be supported by the source give. I didn't touch any of the rest of the existing material, but I reorganised it into a single narrative with a logical structure, first a note that the archaeological evidence points to no Exodus, second an overview of current views on the post-Exilic origin of the final (modern) Torah, finally a para on the pre-Persian-era traditions behind the final Torah. There's some new material taken from three books not previously used. Please check the new material for accuracy etc. PiCo (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Historicity and consensus

And to think I swore never to do this again. Weak, weak thing that I am.

Anyway, I tracked down the sentence that the OP (means "original poster") at the head of the thread above was talking about. It's this:

  • The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[1]

The OP misunderstood what the sentence was saying. It's not saying that no exodus at all ever took place, but that one involving about 2 to 3 million people, plus livestock, took place. That's a statement that I think almost everyone agrees with - certainly Kenneth Kitchen does. There is a consensus on this point, nor do the sources posted towards the end of the thread above say otherwise. PiCo (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

i'm willing to let the sentence stand if we can add another sentence similar to what you just said to clarify the issue. your explanation that "It's not saying that no exodus at all ever took place, but that one involving about 2 to 3 million people, plus livestock, took place." is much clearer to understand for ordinary people than what's currently written. if you could add such sentence to the article, i would much appreciate it. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I made some changes that use the Walton material in a more appropriate place and expand the intro from Moore and Kelle. Incidentally, I strongly recommend everyone to read Moore and Kelle - it's a very useful introduction to the subject of current scholarly views and debates on the entire bible. PiCo (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
it looks much better now. thank you very much! 199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Historicity

dear tgeorgescu, i am writing in regard to your recent undo of my edit on The_Exodus#Historicity.

your reason for the undo states: "fringe and non-academic sources." i disagree.

first, you say that the view is "fringe". however, you must consider the original text that was edited. the original text states, "The consensus among biblical scholars today is ..." the keyword here is "consensus". there is a big difference between consensus and majority decision. in order to reach a consensus, ALL participants must consent. if there is any minority or "fringe" group who disagrees with the decision, then by definition, it cannot be a consensus; it is a majority decision, not consensus.

therefore, those articles expressing the unpopular or "fringe" view justify the reason for removing the word, "consensus".

second, you say the sources are "non-academic". i have cited the source written by Bryant G. Wood, who is a principal archaeologist and director of ABR’s excavation at Khirbet el-Maqatir, and MA in Biblical History from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology from the University of Toronto. the other source quotes Egyptologist Manfred Bietak, head of the Institute of Egyptology at Vienna University. The other source cites W.F. Albright, an American archaeologist and biblical scholar who was also the dean of biblical archaeologists and the acknowledged founder of the Biblical archaeology movement. thus, these are very much academic sources.

therefore, their professional statements are quite academic qualified, and the public has a right to know.

i would like to reinstate my edit. please let me know what you think.

regards, justin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.16.36.203 (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

First see WP:NOTUNANIMITY. Then, the Albright school is very much a thing of the past. Nowadays the Bible in one hand and the spade in the other is an extreme position, ridiculed by most mainstream historians and archaeologists. See the quotes at Talk:Omri#More prominent Omride theory for a shorthand introduction into the mainstream view. Besides, Bietak thinks he recognized a Jewish home in Egypt, but the article stated doubt about it, besides there is nothing unusual with certain Canaanites (proto-Hebrews) having been in Egypt, it just weren't two million of them leaving the country. Some of your sources were apologetics, not science, even MyWOT plugin warns me about those websites being unreliable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Upon what counts as academic consensus, you should read WP:CHOPS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Who is this guy, he comes into wikipedia from nowhere and writes that personal "Guideline" full of his rules all by himself and expects all the rest of wikipedia to be bound by it! This has been noticed by a growing number of other editors. What chutzpah! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
You have created your account in 2007, I have created mine in 2002. Besides, I only drew the necessary conclusions from already accepted Wikipedia policies and guidelines and I have fleshed out a rule of thumb for what scholarly consensus and scientific consensus mean. I was not pretending to create new, original policies, just to have a shorthand of the arguments which I have repeated so often in talk pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The topic of the historicity of the Exodus is pseudo-controversial, as defined at [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Just for clarification, Til has another fairly inactive account, User:Codex Sinaiticus, created in 2005[6]. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry TGeorgescu, for some reason I thought you were more recent and didn't realize you had me beat there. I am not going to get bogged down in this unending debate at this time, it is merely another typical case of your trying to exclude Judaeo-Christian views of history and of the historicity of Judaeo-Christian scriptures. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
As I have acknowledged, the theological view that the Exodus has happened is notable and should be rendered, but it should not be conflated with "there is historical evidence for the Exodus". Many things which are vanilla in theology are fringe in history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, the very advocacy of a sectary view of history is misleading. Mainstream history isn't sectarian and it has no political color. The very fact that you qualify those views as sectarian means they aren't mainstream history. Otherwise we could argue that Muslim, Hindu, Bahá'í or Pastafarian views of history are marginalized, ending in never-ending quarrels about religiously biased editing. Mainstream history does not depend upon one's religious allegiance. By the very fact that they are specifically traditionalist Judaeo-Christian views, they aren't mainstream. Historical facts do not depend upon the religion of the readers of historiography, since that is a subjective choice, it does not alter the objective facts. Besides, it isn't proven that all Jews and Christians hold to such views of history, they are rather the views of a vocal fringe trying to monopolize all Judaeo-Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The vocal minority says: if you don't subscribe to The Fundamentals you are no true Christian. But most educated Christians made peace with the idea that science is autonomous from religion. There isn't a Christian physics (but only a Christian Science, which is another matter), there isn't a Muslim chemistry, there isn't a Hindu biology, there isn't a Buddhist sociology, since science is universal. Therefore theologically biased views of history aren't representative for mainstream history. It may well be that most Christians have accepted The Fundamentals for most of their history, but this does not entitle The Fundamentals to preferential treatment inside Wikipedia and inside the universities. The views which have been uncritically believed for most of the time aren't entitled to the status of facts just because their were held true for most of the human history. In any secular university (secular does not mean atheistic) they would laugh at the idea that Muslims should attend different history classes than Christians, since facts would have to be distorted according to religious preference. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, consensus doesn't have to be unanimous, but it has to be near-unanimous at least. it doesn't look like this is the case here because there are many who hold the different view.
you mentioned WP:CHOPS. this is ironic because one of the sources that you rejected is a study of Prof. Colin J. Humphreys of Cambridge University. Cambridge is the "C" in your CHOPS test.
you easily disregard the study of the distinguished archaeologist Prof Bietak, to whom even Cambridge University and Oxford University listen (again they are "C" and "O" in CHOPS test).
you say, "Albright school is very much a thing of the past." i respect your opinion; nevertheless, the public has a right to know and decide for themselves because we're not an expert in the field.
in addition, here is another book supporting the Exodus historicity, found in Oxford University library.
Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition "examines the most current Egyptological evidence and argues that it supports the biblical record concerning Israel in Egypt."
my apologies, but considering there are many professional experts who support the historicity of Exodus, i believe Wikipedia should convey to the public the accurate and whole information regarding this disputed topic, instead of sounding as if there is no dispute whatsoever.
76.88.102.40 (talk) 08:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Another academic source who believes that the Exodus is historical is Professor Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University: Kitchen KA (2003) On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 662 pages. He also refutes the "millions of Israelites" strawman argument that the biblical minimalists keep bringing up. I recommend reinstating Justin's edit (75.16.36.203) as he politely requested. CarlDrews (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
There are reliable sources quoted in the article which state what is consensually agreed among mainstream historians and archaeologists in respect to the Exodus. To these sources I add this:

Noll, K.L. (2001). "6. The Iron Age I". Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. London: Continuum. p. 157. ISBN 9781841273181. ISSN 0266-4984. The Conquest Model For much of the twentieth century, this hypothesis for the emergence of early Israel in Canaan enjoyed a consensus among historians, but it has been abandoned by almost all competent historians today. Essentially, the Conquest Model was a paraphrase of the biblical story (minus the miracles, of course). {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This article is about the Exodus, not the Conquest. CarlDrews (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
At [7] there is a report upon Hoffmeier's speech during the 'Archeology and the Bible' conference at University of Liverpool, stating that Hoffmeier (among other speakers) tried to show that the scholarly consensus upon the historicity of the Exodus must be false. Well, that's and oblique way of admitting that there is a scholarly consensus and that Hoffmeier disagrees with the scholarly consensus. Q.e.d. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
A year before that, Kitchen was there, arguing that the scholarly consensus must be false. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Granted, it is not article about the Conquest, but if there was no Conquest (and Israelites emerged from Canaanites) there could be no Exodus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Peter Enns confirms my view upon 3 Things I Would Like to See Evangelical Leaders Stop Saying about Biblical Scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I’ve read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn’t impossible. He knows very well he hasn’t proven anything. You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view

— Peter Enns
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I have read all three Hoffmeier books, and I read a much stronger conclusion than that characterization by Peter Enns. By the way, Peter Enns encourages the erroneous idea of millions of Israelites. Maybe he should find some King James literalist to argue with.
Citing the opinion of various people on the evidence for the Exodus is like asking young-earth creationist Ken Ham about the evidence for evolution. Of course he will cite a bunch of people who agree with him. Instead, you need a scientific poll of recognized biblical scholars, not someone's impression of what they think the consensus is. CarlDrews (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original topic of this section, the sources cited by Justin are academic and should be reinstated. Add Professor Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University for good measure. CarlDrews (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, Enns is at least qualified to tell what the consensus is. As are Kitchen and Hoffmeier, who have admitted that they disagree with the scholarly consensus. It is weird to base your case upon Hoffmeier and Kitchen and yet not believe Hoffmeier and Kitchen telling people that they aren't part of the consensus.

But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites. The strong consensus is that there is at best sparse indirect evidence for these biblical episodes, and for the conquest there is considerable evidence against it.

— Peter Enns
For making such assertion Enns is fully qualified and this is also the understanding of the sources quoted in the article for establishing the consensus view. Please mind that Enns is your brother in Christ, so treat him as a brother. I don't say that theologically the reality of the Exodus would be problematic, since theology isn't history. In matters of history, the historicity of the Exodus is a marginal view and according to WP:UNDUE it should not be given more importance than it has in the academia.
Of course, there could have been an Exodus of 500 or 1000 laborers, but this hardly fits the biblical description and the theological importance granted to the Exodus in Judaism and Christianity. Who am I to tell that a flight of some hundreds of laborers should be attested in recovered Egyptian archives? At this level, ok, you have saved the Exodus but ruined the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
And the Bible and Spade is simply not an academic journal, but a work of apologetics. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
this discussion is very interesting with many useful info. if someone wishes to learn about the historicity of Exodus, wouldn't it be more educational for that person to hear from the both sides of the topic, just like we're doing right now? apparently there are many scholars who support the historicity of Exodus. yet, the current Wiki page does not reflect this info at all and makes it sound as if there is not a single scholar with the different view. i think the edit would benefit the public to understand the full scope of the situation. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 21:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
As I have told, there is an Wikipedia policy about this, it is called WP:UNDUE, you may want to read it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Quotes like this:

The Bible, however, plainly teaches that man was created fully formed and with a sophisticated intellect right at the beginning of creation (Mk 10:6, Gn 1:27). When God decided to judge the world because of its great wickedness (Gn 6:7, 2 Pt 2:4–5), Noah and seven others from his family were spared in the Ark. All human beings alive today are descendants of Noah’s family. If this fact of history is rejected, once again false conclusions will be drawn.

— Henry B. Smith, Jr., Bible and Spade, Fall 2006, Vol. 19, No. 4, p. 97
... ain't gonna pass through peer-review in any academic journal worth its salt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This is even better:

Most of the dinosaurs were simply unable to survive the adverse environmental conditions that existed after they left the Ark.

— loc. cit.
From the sublime to the ridiculous is only a step. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Professor James Hoffmeier's books are published by the (academic) Oxford University Press, which is the 'O' in your CHOPS test. It is easy to name prominent adherents to the historicity of the Exodus. CarlDrews (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
He is prominent, namely as a dissenter (see the quote from Enns above). Dissent does not imply that there is no consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
"The exodus from Egypt is a topic around which whirl controversy, debate and heated argument. There is no consensus regarding the date of the Israelite slavery, nor its nature, nor even its historicity"
"In the absence of a consensus concerning the book's historicity and composition"
"Modern scholarship has failed to reach a consensus relative to the Exodus event"
"Though much light has been thrown on these subjects by archaeology, it has been inadequate to create a consensus of opinion among scholars."
"The literal truth of the Exodus narrative is hotly disputed among archaeologists and Bible scholars. "
199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. Bible and Spade is a journal written by kooks, see the dinosaurs quote above.
  2. A serious source, but does acknowledge that there isn't any evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible, therefore unwillingly lends support to those denying the historicity of the Exodus (since if there is no evidence, historians default to unhistorical). States JEDP as fact.
  3. A spammy website run by a marginal cult has edited that work and sells it for a big sum of money. I think this says enough about the credibility of the work.
  4. 1982... perhaps then it was still true.
  5. Popular news source, not a scholarly journal, restates the claim that there is no evidence for the Exodus outside of the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. we should consider the author of the article, not the journal publishing the article. e.g. let's assume Yahoo posted two articles: one is authored by Einstein and the other authored by Mickey Mouse. will you call Einstein a "kook" because Yahoo posted his article?
  2. a serious source, and it states: "In the absence of a consensus concerning the book's historicity".
  3. again, we should consider the cited author, not the website.
  4. perhaps, it continues to be true considering the other article by Prof Wood is from 2008.
  5. the article was written by a doctorate science journalist who also wrote for Science, Smithonian, etc. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
"Bible and Spade" says "most contemporary Biblical scholars deny the historicity of God’s miraculous deliverance of Israel from Egypt as documented in the Old Testament," which is pretty much what our article says. The article on Exodus from the New Oxford Annotated Bible says that "some of the traditions" behind the Book of Exodus are ancient "and may well reflect authentic historical memory" - again, pretty much what our article says (and implying, incidentally, that Exodus contains a great deal that's not ancient and authentic, which again is what our article says). Ellinson's book is from the early 1980s - recent sources, as quoted in our article, say that the debate has moved on. (Read the book by Moore and Kelle which I've added to the bibliography). Helen Fields isn't a reliable source, and the discovery of a single Canaanite (not Israelite) house in Egypt isn't proof of the historical accuracy of the Book of Exodus (no-one denies that Canaanites lived in Egypt at all stages of its history - linking this to Moses parting the Red Sea is a bit difficult).
"Bible and Spade" article also says, "There is no consensus" just one sentence above your quoted sentence. you're mistaken to assume that "most ... deny" equates to "consensus". apparently the archaeologist who wrote the article knew the difference and he had differentiated them. thus, it is not pretty much what our article says. you say that Helen Field isn't a reliable source, yet you use her article and her opinion to make your point. it looks to me that she is indeed a reliable source. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Fields states "But one house doesn't prove the Exodus." So I don't understand how you can infer from the discovery of such a house that the Exodus has happened. Such inference would be a non sequitur. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Fields also states "If Bietak is right, the trenches could be the first physical evidence for the Bible story of the Israelites' exodus from Egypt. The literal truth of the Exodus narrative is hotly disputed among archaeologists and Bible scholars." we already established that Bietak is an established figure in archeology. also the article states "... Stager, who adds that he's still "agnostic" on whether the Exodus actually happened." Stager is the director of the Semitic Museum at Harvard University. does it sound like Stager believes that there is a consensus against Exodus historicity? it sounds more like the historicity is still an open question. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
btw, i am not trying to prove Exodus historicity. what i am trying to do is make the Wiki present more balanced info to the public. as we see in this discussion alone, there are many distinguished archaeologists who support the historicity (or at least not convinced that the historicity is false). then, doesn't it make sense for Wiki to convey this info to the public? isn't this what Wiki is for? 199.106.103.54 (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Read WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
i have. and obviously this is not the view of tiny minorities. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the theological view that "the Exodus happened because God wanted so, as written in the Bible" is notable and should be rendered (as theology, not as history). However, the view that "we know the Exodus has happened because there is historical evidence for it" is a fringe view. And Enns is much closer to evangelical Christianity than I am or most mainstream historians are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, it looks like you're the only admin who opposes the edit. may i ask you to request other admins to participate on this issue please? it would be nice to hear their opinions as well. 199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Admin? I think you mean editor. Can you tell me what sentences in the article you object to, because I honestly can't see any that contradict what's in those sources you list.

Gematria

"Some have suggested that the 603,550... is ... a gematria ... for bnei yisra'el kol rosh..." The Wikipedia article on gematria highlights the mispar gadol method. The gematria based on mispar gadol is 62+541+50+501=1154. Gematria relies on some assumptions: 1. The author intended to use gematria in this instance, 2. We know which one of the dozen gematria methods listed in Wikipedia were used. 3. We know which of the potentially many different combinations of words that sum to 3,550 were intended. 4. Textual criticism can safely be ignored. 5. An author would choose 603,550 which is not literally true but would be symbolically correct based on its gematria. I suggest that A) That 603,550 is related to "bnei yisra'el kol rosh" seems highly improbable so that particular gematria should not be used. B) Assuming 603,550 has numerical significance; it can still be interpreted that there literally were 603,550 men. The subchapter focuses on whether 600,000 is historically accurate. Gematria only is relevant to the subchapter if one accepts assumption 5, in which case assumption 5 should be listed. CreateW (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SOURCES and WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Modern Biblical Date of Exodus

The Wikipedia article on the documentary hypothesis dates the Torah (JEDP) based on Wellhaussen (950,850, 600 and 500 BCE) and Friedman roughly (730, 700, 700, 600). Wikipedia has separate articles on Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly Source which provide other estimated dates. This Exodus article has (The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the Pentateuch as we know it was shaped in the post-Exilic period) (The opinion of the overwhelming majority of modern biblical scholars is that the Torah was shaped in the post-Exilic period). I would prefer that this article elaborate on that conclusion. What role did JED and P play in the Exodus narrative? When did JEDP live? Then when was it redacted and the extent that the redactor had in impacting the text. I am partly concerned by the lack of clarity. Also, e.g., based on Wellhaussen's dates, it would be true that the bible as it we know it is post-exilic, however, it would also show some pre-exilic evidence for the Exodus. CreateW (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SOURCES and WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Chronology

"The chronology of the Exodus story likewise underlines its essentially religious rather than historical nature. The number seven, for example, was sacred to God in Judaism, and so the Israelites arrive at Sinai, where they will meet God, at the beginning of the seventh week after their departure from Egypt,[32] while the erection of the Tabernacle, God's dwelling-place among his people, occurs in the year 2666 after God creates the world, two-thirds of the way through a four thousand year era which culminates in or around the re-dedication of the Second Temple in 164 BCE.[33][34]" I suggested deleting this subchapter. The premise of 2666 is highly questionable. 1) To arrive at 2666, one must literally accept the biblical chronology; but then accept that numbers related to the exodus are symbolic not literal. 2) Wikipedia's, Chronology of the Bible, shows that there are many differing texts, and different ways to interpret texts (e.g., starting and ending point of 430 years of slavery) that make 2666 a mere guess. 3) One must assume the author can predict the future. 4) "In or around 164" 5) Why choose 2/3 instead of 1/2, or 6/7? Why is the rededication of the 2nd temple such a key event? Why choose a 4000 year era? Also, assuming the 2666 was chosen to be 2/3rds of 4000, then it still doesn't address whether the biblical authors felt that the numbers in the bible were literally true. (Deu 18:22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.) Regarding the 1st sentence. Yes, the exodus story has a religious nature, and it seems reasonable that numbers have symbolic meaning. There is a huge leap to therefore the exodus story was not intended to be numerically historical. note: Some biblical believers assume the bible is literally true others do not and some for example may make a distinction as to whether numbers are literally true. There are reasons why one may or may not accept the bible literally. I feel such discussion would mostly belong to the biblical literalism Wikipedia article which could be referenced. CreateW (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)CreateW (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:SOURCES and WP:VER. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not understand your comments. ″while the erection of the Tabernacle, God's dwelling-place among his people, occurs in the year 2666 after God creates the world″ is not a verifiable fact. Similarly, it is not verifiable that the tabernacle was erected in 2666 years since the world was created because the temple would be rededicated in 164 BC and therefore such events were essentially religious and not historical. Also, such views are not universally accepted, even though the Wikipedia article does not limit this view to a certain group of adherents.CreateW (talk) 09:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand that section. It talks of the reported dates, whose properties indicate that they were not a historical chronicle but chosen for their religious (and political) symbolism. That seems to be the gist of what Meyers, Hayes&Miller and Davies say. If you know of sources that interpret the chronology differently, please provide them. Huon (talk) 11:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation as I misinterpreted what was written in the Wikipedia article (I had assumed the paragraph was written from a religious perspective). At the very least the article should be clearer. I read Meyers, Hayes&Miller and Davies. Dates (Abraham 1946, enter Egypt 2236, exodus 2666). The 430 years in Egypt creates a theological problem. As genesis 46 lists levi and Kohath as going to Egypt. Kohath had a son Amram who had a son Moses. The ages of Kohath, Amram and Moses are mentioned in Pentateuch (Kohath lived 133 years, Amram lived 137 years and Moses was 80 at the time of the exodus=350 years)so they are inconsistent with the 430 year number. It is common to count the 430 from Abraham (eg Septuagint). It also relied on the 480 years from the Exodus to the temple. Spinoza had an issue with the 480 years (http://www.fullbooks.com/A-Theologico-Political-Treatise-Part-II2.html) where to get the numbers to work men would have to father children at the age of 90 for a few generations. I also noticed in their chronology that the 1st temple existed for 430 years. It was unclear to me whether Meyers, Hayes&Miller and Davies were speculating or stating facts. The 430 and 480 presumably are from redactors and not from JEPD and so their evidence of textual manipulation may not apply to the core text. The 430 could have been added after the destruction of the temple but before 164. The 430 may have been added out of piety and not with the intent of manipulating the text for personal gain. The 430 may have been added via the Septuagint interpretation (from Abraham) and not counting from the time of Jacob. Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible had the 1st temple existing for 410 (and not 430) years. Anyway, to claim that the text was manipulated around 164BC for personal gain that materially distorts the understanding of the Exodus/bible is a strong claim (I am unfamiliar with the evidence to judge) and it should require stronger evidence than provided. Also, the people that believe the bible was manipulated for personal gain in the 2nd century typically do not think the Exodus occurred in the year 2200 instead of 2448 or 2666.(So if Davies was provided a biblical text from pre164 or pre500 he would not assume the text was historical) Further, there are many key events (birth or key event in life of abraham, Jacob, Moses, exodus, entering the holy land, beginning of kingdom), different fractions, different ways to count when text is unclear that numerical coincidences can occur by chance. Suggestion: I prefer more direct wording such as Many people, particularly secular individuals, are skeptical of biblical chronologies (eg, 6000 years old, people living hundreds of years, inconsistencies, different authors with differing timelines, use of symbolic or round numbers) which make dating the Exodus challenging. I don't like "religious rather than historical"; the 2666/4000 seems to be built on many assumptions (those were the numbers they used, numbers were manipulated around 164 for personal gain, those changes materially impact the chronology of the exodus). Also, the current wording is indirect/unclear.CreateW (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:VER again. You have clearly missed its point. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Afterwards read WP:NOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Severely outdated and/or fringe sources

I have shown my reasons for reverting such edits at User_talk:214.69.128.197#January 2014. It was a time when the Albright school ruled the Levantine archeology, as it was a time when dinosaurs ruled the Earth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Very short and enlightening reading from an evangelical scholar: [8]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Walton 2003, p. 258.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Exodus/Archive_8&oldid=1076662034"