Talk:The Exodus/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

On the historicity section

I have just noted that one of the sources in the bibliography section states the following concerning the range of scholarly opinions on the historicity of the Exodus:

"The range of opinions stretches from those who suggest that the nucleus of the story is basically authentic and the episode reflects an important event in the early history of Israel, on the one hand, to those who entirely dismiss the historicity of the episode, emphasize that the story was written at a later time and suggest that it mainly reflects the time of its composition, on the other hand. According to the latter view, the Exodus story is essentially myth that was formulated in late time and does not reflect the reality of the early history of Israel. Between the two extremes lie scholars who accept the historicity of a few details in the story and suggest that the story includes a nucleus — albeit small — of historical events that took place on Egyptian soil."

This is stated by Nadav Na'aman on pages 39-40 of his article "The Exodus Story: Between Historical Memory and Historiographical Composition". Na'aman himself is not a maximalist scholar, but he notes that there are scholars who take a maximalist position on the historicity of the Exodus narrative. So we actually have a WP:RS which indicates that this sort of scholars do actually exist. Potatín5 (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We have another source saying “few, if any” mainstream scholars hold this opinion now, and further identifying them with the fundamentalist fringe. It’s possible this wording has been altered as this article is the site of constant revisionist editing (from both the pro- and anti-authenticity crowds. It’s impossible to keep track of every little change, unfortunately, and they often add up to the article changing drastically). What about the current wording would you like to change?—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Mainstream scholarly opinions lie from small nucleus to myth. Of course, fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals disagree, but they are WP:FRINGE.

While there are many evangelical scholars who agree with that POV, they are not mainstream Bible scholars. What is a mainstream Bible scholar?

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Nope, there are scholars such as Kitchen (1998, 2003), Hoffmeier (1999, 2005), Bietak (2015, 2022) and Falk (2018) who hold that there was an historical exodus event and you cannot just dismiss their stances by saying that they are "fundamentalists" or "conservative evangelicals" (none of them are fundamentalists, and only two of them would count as evangelicals). Those guys are also part of mainstream scholarship, even if you don't like it. Potatín5 (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case, they count as “few”, don’t they? That’s three scholars, the same three who are always brought up.—Ermenrich (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

They are four scholars, not three. And those were just examples. Here you can find a group of fourteen scholars who also hold to an historical exodus. Potatín5 (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a kernel of historical truth in the story of the Exodus, but it is deeply hidden under layers of cruft and embellishment. Besides, as Joel S. Baden argued, the Bible has at least 4 (four) contradictory stories of the Exodus, so it depends which story of the Exodus from the Bible you mean. Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus - Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal).

And here you have it stated by Jewish Rabbis: Greenberg, Moshe; Sperling, S. David (2007). "Exodus, Book of.". In Skolnik, Fred; Berenbaum, Michael; Thomson Gale (Firm) (eds.). Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol. 6 (2nd ed.). pp. 612–623. ISBN 978-0-02-866097-4. OCLC 123527471. Retrieved 29 November 2019. Current scholarly consensus based on archaeology holds the enslavement and exodus traditions to be unhistorical. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There are scholars who hold for the basic historicity of the Exodus narrative, based on their analysis of the pertinent archaeological data. See Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary, based on the research of Dr. David A. Falk. There you have a mainstream Egyptologist and Bible scholar arguing for the historicity of the Exodus. Potatín5 (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, we all know that is the majority opinion. The question is whether the minority that supports more substantial historicity for the Exodus is large enough to be worth mentioning in the article. Look at the book description that Potatín5 linked to. I don't have access to the book and don't know to what extent each author thinks the Exodus is historical; I suspect they vary considerably. But its authors all signed on to a project whose description says "the reports in the Hebrew Bible should not be cavalierly dismissed for ideological reasons but, rather, should be deemed to contain authentic memories".

Notably, Gary Rendsburg has a chapter in the book that argues for "the literary unity of the Exodus narrative". Moreover, Rendsburg said in 1992 that "I agree with those who take a positive approach to the biblical account, though naturally one would not accept each and every detail recorded there. Thus, for example, I concur that there exists sufficient evidence on the Egyptological side to substantiate the basic picture portrayed in the book of Exodus." I'm also reminded of Brad C. Sparks' paper in the Levy, Schneider, and Propp volume, which seems to argue that Egyptian literary motifs that resemble the plagues of Egypt and the drowning of the pharaoh's armies are derived from the same historical event that inspired the Exodus. I don't personally find this argument convincing, but the point is that is exists and has been voiced in a very scholarly venue.

Again, I'm not saying that opinions like those of Hoffmeier, Rendsburg, or Sparks are mainstream. But if readers have come across these opinions in the wild—as they are liable to do, given that fundamentalists trumpet anything that looks remotely like scholarly support wherever they can find it—then it is better if Wikipedia mentions these opinions and clearly states that they are in the minority than if Wikipedia simply acts as if they don't exist when they clearly do, in which case readers might decide that WP is simply lying to them. A. Parrot (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

A. Parrot, how would you recommend including such opinions? I think a paper from 1992 is probably simply too out of date - too much has changed since then. I think that was back when the "maximalist" position was still relatively mainstream even.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The most logical place to mention such views would be in the first paragraph of the section on origins and historicity, which mentions only two viewpoints ("some historical basis" vs. "little to no historical basis"). This characterization is based on Grabbe 2017 p. 36, which says that in the present-day mainstream "the exodus is rejected or assumed to be based on an event much different from the biblical account."

But a paper by Nadav Na'aman from 2011 describes three points on a spectrum: "The range of opinions stretches from those who suggest that the nucleus of the story is basically authentic and the episode reflects an important event in the early history of Israel, on the one hand, to those who entirely dismiss the historicity of the episode, emphasize that the story was written at a later time and suggest that it mainly reflects the time of its composition, on the other hand… Between the two extremes lie scholars who accept the historicity of a few details in the story and suggest that the story includes a nucleus—albeit small—of historical events that took place on Egyptian soil."

I'm not sure how to word a change to the article that incorporates both those characterizations of the field. A. Parrot (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Does the fact that the current source is Grabbe 2017, whereas the main contestant here wants to change or qualify its assertion based on Na'aman 2011 mean anything? Grabbe apparently did never get or read the Na'aman memo from 2011. Or he just decided to ignore it? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The bigger problem here is the vagueness of the term "nucleus", which is open to editorial bias - it would be better to find a source that qualifies this somewhat more precisely. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Even Na'aman's words are problematical. In absolute biblical chronology, the events refer to something that putatively took place in the 15th.century BCE, several centuries before the emergence of a Canaanite/proto-Hebraic script, and some 2 centuries before we have mention of an 'Israel', let alone a proto-ethnic entity of 'Israelites'. The narrative's recension seems grounded in a 6th century milieu, a millenium afterwards (the neo-fideistic school ratchets the events down to the 13th century). Loose language like speaking of the exodus as an 'episode (that) reflects an important event in the early history of Israel, when Israel did not exist at the time only complicates the use of such sources. The nucleus, inferentially, from many different sources that evaluate the story positively, if differing endlessly in the details, is that 'some constituent (minor/marginal) element of the population later known as Israelitic had its origins in tales passed on by the heirs of one group of people who had endured a period of slavery in Egypt before reaching Canaan', just as Romans despite their indigenous roots, touted their putative Trojan origins in Asia Minor because divine fiat (Aeneas, like Moses, is fato profugus) ) had promised the remnants of the Greek destruction of their old world a new homeland in Italy. But one would need a source for that construal of such a 'nucleus'.Nishidani (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"In absolute biblical chronology, the events refer to something that putatively took place in the 15th.century BCE" I would suggest that the chronology should be disregarded. We have writers from the Achaemenid Empire and/or the Hellenistic era composing a tale about the distant past, without having accurate information about this past. So the tale includes anachronisms, elements borrowed from different sources and eras, and things that the writers made up. Basically part historical fiction and part fantasy. Dimadick (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@Dimadick: See Hoffmeier & Rendsburg (2022). There you will have an explanation as to why the historical background of the Exodus is set during the Ramesside Period (13th-12th centuries BCE). Potatín5 (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Which exactly makes the point that Dimadick is making - the "setting" is calculated backward from "what must surely have been", rather than being based on actual evidence from the time in question. Does any scholar offer any actual evidence that there was an "exodus" of "proto-Israelites" during the Ramesside period? Wdford (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence, is the best kind of evidence available to the ancient historian and valid when built into a properly structured induction. Potatín5 (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So it sounds like you are admitting that the "historical nucleus" theory is based on supposition and WP:SYNTH? Am I understanding correctly? Wdford (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I have stated that Hoffmeier & Rendsburg have provided strong circumstatial evidence to demonstrate that the historical background of the Exodus is set during the Ramesside Period. Potatín5 (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is circumstanial 'evidence' - more like a series of rather grasping, circumstantial suppositions. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we can start by defining that 'nucleus' as what all editors will agree that it includes (and what the advocates of that position argue for): that there was a substantial group of [proto-]Israelites in Egypt, that they left that country in an exodus event and went into Canaan, and that said exodus "reflects an important event in the early history of Israel", in Na'aman's words. As for the biblical chronology, most scholars would agree that if an exodus event happened, then that must have ocurred somewhere between the 13th and 12th centuries BCE as our article currently indicates. Potatín5 (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

For anything on wiki, we required strong sources. My guess about what the nucleus might be thought' to have been is just that, my impression. But as I read these things, I keep being forced to ask myself, what or where is is this nucleus? Joseph, Moses, the plagues, the Pharaonic hatred, the travails of 2,6000,000 'Israelites' in a waterless desert for 40 years, the event on Mt Sinai (that certainly in rabbinic tradition is what counts), etc.etc., and none of the sources I have read ever specify what the 'nucleus' is, shorn of everything we know to be pure invention. Words like 'proto-Israelites' are a good example of petitio principi, a fallacy of circular reasoning which assumes as a premise what has to be proven. If for example the pre/extra-Israelitic Shasu legends were as Bietak suggests, to have formed the basis for the sacerdotal romance of the Exodus, the historical implication would be that a non-Canaanite bedouin clan/tribe's legendary retelling of their life in Egyptian servitude was assimilated into the legendary cycles of Canaan elaborated by the Israelites, who had no such experiences. The exodus would be, in that reading, an appropriated myth (this is extremely common in ancient Near Eastern myth cycles) and not a story reflecting the pre-history of Israelites, let alone the later Jews. So we need several sources that converge on defining what the nucleus/core of historical truth is supposed to be, as opposed to just vague repetitions that something there may possibly reflect an echo of a real historical event.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, what I have said is what all scholars who take a more "maximalist" approach to the historicity of the Exodus narrative agree about. You can read all the sources that take this position and you will find there the three points that I listed in my previous comment. Potatín5 (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Na'aman alternatively argues that oppressive Egyptian rule in Canaan may have caused the "collective memory" - so the "nucleus" may be as simple as that. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The nucleus is according to many mainstream scholars a real, but now unknown event. I.e. the nucleus is beyond recovery. Add to it cultural memories about the Hyksos and about Egyptian dominance, and you have the ingredients for the myth of the Exodus. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

At pages 39-40 of his article Na'aman distinguishes between those who "suggest that the nucleus of the story is basically authentic and the episode reflects an important event in the early history of Israel" and those who think that there is only a small nucleus of truth in the narrative. Potatín5 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

That the nucleus is "basically authentic" still does not help define it. Give that Na'aman gives multiple possibilities as to what said nucleus might be, I suspect @Tgeorgescu's evaluation is correct. i.e. the nucleus is something unknown/undefined. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

This source states that "some scholars view the Exodus story as, generally speaking, reliable historically". Potatín5 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Some" tells us nothing. It is a weasel word. Is that a minority, an extreme minority, or just the fringe? We cannot tell. Na'aman says that the landscape sits between two extremes, and this is outside of that, which suggests it is fringe. If so, we do no need to overly concern ourselves with giving attention to "some fringe scholars", since our role here is to clearly present the mainstream range of viewpoints. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that many of the possibilities that Potatin5 and others have expressed for what the nucleus might be are already discussed in the section "Potential historical origins", though none of them posit that the Exodus is "essentially reliable history".--Ermenrich (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Some" means that there is a group of mainstream scholars who hold that the Exodus story is historically reliable, independently of how numerous they are. And Na'aman nowhere states that those who hold that the story is "basically authentic" are a fringe group. If they were a fringe group, then we would expect any of both sources to say so, but none of them does. Potatín5 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Scholars can and frequently do hold fringe views. Fringe does not mean 'not a scholar'; it just means 'outside the mainstream'. Alone, that statement means exactly what it says: 'some scholars', which is a weasel-y and frankly useless. But all of this is largely irrelevant because the source still brings us back to the same crux, which is that most scholars simply point to some sort of notion of a nucleus/core, which tells us no more than we already know from far better sources for it. That particular source is not a good one for this subject in the first place. There are more than enough dedicated, specialized sources on the exodus, or, one circle out from that, biblical analysis in general, that we have absolutely no need to consult general historical works on the matter. Robert G. Hoyland is a historian, not a biblical text specialist. Na'aman says that one wing of scholarship holds that a nucleus of the story is 'basically authentic', not that the story as a whole is basically authentic, let alone 'reliable'. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, I have shown that some scholars think the Exodus story is generally historical. You still claim that those scholars are a fringe group, but you haven't provided any evidence for your claim, so this doesn't help. The source I cited is a good one for the subject, since it is a mainstream textbook on the history of Israel/Palestine from Antiquity to modern times; and the author of that chapter in question is Avraham Faust, who is certaintly a biblical text specialist (Robert G. Hoyland is only one of the editors of the book). Na'aman says that those scholars who hold that the nucleus of the story is basically authentic think that this nucleus represented "an important event in the early history of Israel", yet our WP article does not mention that position in any place. It only says that those scholars who take a more maximalist approach to the biblical account are either fundamentalists or do not exist at all, which is very misleading in my view. Potatín5 (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I claim nothing. The source you presented at the start of this thread says that the most maximalist position in mainstream scholarship is that there is a core/nucleus of the story based on something historical (again without an ill-defined core/nucleus). Your edit here then deleted a quote that states that a more maximalist position than that - any that assumes the Bible is correct short of disproof - is not just fringe, but "fundamentalist fringe". Deleting this stable, reliably sources content, regardless of how misleading you personally find it, was not very appropriate. Incidentally, Avraham Faust is an archaeologist whose career rests on drawing links between the bible and dig sites, so his more ecumenical take is hardly unexpected; again, not a philologist. Lester L. Grabbe (2017), who you have deleted as 'misleading', is a Professor of the Hebrew Bible. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the change as lacking consensus over the stable version. We may reach a consensus to reword how we discuss the maximalists, but we clearly are not there yet.—-Ermenrich (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The source that I presented does not state that the most maximalist position holds that the nucleus of the story is based on something historical, but that said nucleus is historical in itself; this is very different from what you are implying. The problem is that you are pretending that a maximalist scholar is someone who thinks that the narrative must be accepted as 100% accurate unless the opposite is proven; that would be the case if we were talking about people like Bryant Wood or similar guys, but there are plenty of scholars who hold that there was an historical exodus without thinking like that. Avraham Faust is not just an archaeologists but also has a lot of expertise in the history of ancient Israel and so he is an authority in this topic. And why are we supposed to think that only the opinion of 'literary scholars' matters when assesing the historicity of the Exodus? There are a lot of archaeological scholars who are also experts in the Hebrew Bible or ancient Israel. Potatín5 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

To exactly which "nucleus" is he referring, please? Wdford (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

The nucleus is that there was a substantial group of [proto-]Israelites in Egypt, that they left that country in an exodus event and went into Canaan, and that said exodus "reflects an important event in the early history of Israel", in Na'aman's words. Potatín5 (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. As explained already, the "proto-Israelites" were merely Canaanites, and the phrase "substantial group" could mean anywhere over 6 people. Whatever its size, this "group" left no archaeological trace of itself. Since they were just ordinary people like all the other Canaanites, and since they left no actual traces of themselves, it is very dubious that this little group made any meaningful impression on the "early history of Israel". Such ambiguity is very close to wishful thinking, and very far from history. Do you have any reliable sources which have actual evidence of an exodus event? Wdford (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

If you are interested, the works of Kitchen (1998, 2003), Hoffmeier (1999, 2005), Bietak (2015, 2022) and Falk (2018) deal with a lot of Egyptological data. For example, we have ample evidence for multiple West Semitic peoples ("Cannanites", as you would say) living in Egypt since the start of the 2nd millennium BCE. Potatín5 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course we do. At certain stages, the so-called Hyksos kings even ruled parts of Egypt. However while Canaanites certainly did travel and trade continually between Canaan and Egypt, there is no evidence that these were the proto-anything - far less that an exodus ever happened. More like the stories of Joseph's brothers and the lean cows, less like the stories of Moses and the exodus. To be "Israelite", they needed to be followers of a mono-atheistic religion, with ten commandments in a special box, with a series of divine plagues behind them and a genocidal rampage ahead of them all the way to the River Jordan. For this, there is no verifiable evidence. Wdford (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Technically speaking, there is some evidence that some of the West Semitic peoples that inhabited Egypt in the 2nd millenium BCE were probably proto-Israelites. Archaeologists have found some four-room houses at the Egyptian site of Medinet Habu, and since the four-room house is commonly considered to be a distinctive Israelite ethnic marker, Bietak has suggested that the settlers in those houses may have been related to the Israelites. Also, the biblical account reflects some elements of Egyptian rituals and culture, which suggests some genuine memories of Israelite presence in Egypt at that time. Potatín5 (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly there were West Semitic peoples in Egypt. However there is zero evidence that these were "proto-Israelites" any more than any other West Semitic peoples who never went near Egypt. In addition Egypt invaded Palestine several times over the ages, and there is no surprise that they left elements of their culture and rituals - probably they left a lot of genetic material in the local gene pool as well. If this is the basis of the theory, then it is no surprise that mainstream scholarship laughs it off. Please pause to count just how many weasel words you have included in your statement above, and understand why you are not getting any consensus here. PS: While the "four-roomed house" was indeed very much present in the settlements of what might now be called "ancient Israel", it was not exclusive to Israelite communities. In fact, the Israeli experts Avraham Faust and Yair Sapir have made a big study of a large four-roomed house in Tel ‘Eton, as part of their attempts to verify the existence of the so-called United Monarchy. Their extensive dating efforts discovered that the four-roomed house was actually built by Canaanites, and was taken over by later Judean occupants - probably peacefully. They called this the "old-house effect—in which buildings and settlements existed for a few centuries, but only left significant remains from their last phase." Maybe later Israelite occupants found the Canaanite design to be well suited to local conditions, and adopted it going forward? Food for thought, yes? Wdford (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, and do you think that this and this study provide better evidence for the Israelites being slaves in Egypt? Potatín5 (talk) 09:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Good stuff. Some takeaways from the cited paper by Manfred Bietak:

1. Bietak says that [Nadav Na’aman] believes that the "Egyptian oppression" experience comes more from the Egyptian invasion of Canaan than the Canaanite presence in Egypt, and that these "memories" were later fused "into the Hebrews’ collective memory in an altered form, with Canaan and Egypt interchanged".
2. Bietak says that Na’aman also expressed the opinion that the narrative was remodeled according to the realities of the late eighth and seventh centuries in Canaan, integrating the experience with the Assyrian oppression and deportations.
3. Bietak states that the occupants of the Four-roomed house in Western Thebes in Egypt were "persuasively" the Shasu Bedouins, but that their identification as "Proto-Israelites" is "perfectly possible" but "not necessarily cogent", and that "We are also uncertain whether the early exponents of the Yahweh cult are identifiable as Proto-Israelites".
4. Bietak also states, re the Four-roomed house, that "we are also not yet convinced that this architectural type was used only by the Proto-Israelites during Iron Age I."

This hardly supports the "exodus is history" theory, now does it? Wdford (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Na'aman presents a "range of opinions" from the nucleus option to discounting the historicity altogether. Therefore in Na'aman's presentation, the nucleus folk are the most extreme of the mainstream. It remains unclear if Na'aman established quite what range of options he means by "nucleus", but one way or another, it clearly falls well short of Biblical maximalism, which, as our page for that states "affirms the historicity of central Biblical narratives". This is not supported by Na'aman's "nucleus". A historical part is not a historical whole. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, where does Na'aman state that those who hold that the nucleus of the Exodus narrative is historical are more 'extreme' than those who discount the historicity altogether? Secondly, the word 'nucleus' is defined as "the central and most important part of an object, movement, or group, forming the basis for its activity and growth." So what Na'aman is saying is that some scholars hold that "the central and most important part" of the biblical account is basically historical, so that sounds much like what a Biblical maximalists would argue for. Potatín5 (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

By most extreme, I meant the closest opinion within the range of opinions to the Biblical maximalist position while still within mainstream scholarship. Apologies if that was unclear. For nucleus, we don't need the dictionary definition, we need the definition in the context as defined by the scholars using the term; otherwise it remains a vaguery. Maximalists do not believe in a nucleus of truth, they believe in the bible's truth and accuracy a priori short of it being specifically demonstrated to be contradicted by other evidence. Someone who simply suggests that a biblical story may have a kernel of truth to it is far from a biblical maximalist. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that in context Na'aman is pretending that the word 'nucleus' means anything different from what the dictionary states. Potatín5 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. Even if this weren't synth, multiple dictionaries have multiple definitions, and this particular one also states that it applies to an "object, movement, or group", none of which a "biblical narrative" is. But yeah, you could take the word "basis", but that then begs the questions of how to quantify "basis". Etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the citations are based on Bietak (2022):

1. Bietak is simply giving there Na’aman's opinion, but he himself does not agree with it (at least not totally), since he holds that there was a historical exodus event and that it took place in Egypt.
2. Bietak also says that "The combination of Egyptian toponyms mentioned in the books Genesis and Exodus and the geographic context have the likeliest fitting in the Ramesside geography of the eastern Delta". He also adds that "Later editorial input also brings Late Period concepts into the picture", but he continues saying: "nevertheless, the Ramesside context remains still clearly recognizable".
3. Bietak states that the identification of the occupants of the four-roomed houses in Western Thebes in Egypt as proto-Israelites is "perfectly possible". So even if it is not completely certain, the possibility that the dwellers were proto-Israelites cannot be discounted without any reason.
4. We may not be certain that the Israelites were the only ones that employed the four-room house, but it is clear that they were the people who most frequently employed it. In Bietak's own words: "[the four-room house] is considered to be the prototypical house of the Israelites until the Babylonian Exile".

I find all this consistent with an "exodus is history" theory, now isn't it? Potatín5 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, no. Nothing at all in the Bietak paper is in any way "consistent with an "exodus is history" theory." Bietak gives no evidence at all of such an extraordinary event. In his paper – and in his 9-point conclusion – he largely cites the fact that West Semitic people did live in Egypt, and that they left evidence of their presence. Nobody ever disputed that they lived in Egypt, but this is not consistent with an exodus – or even with their being "proto-Israelites". On the contrary, Bietak openly admits that these West Semitic people may have been "Proto-Israelites" but also that they were most likely Shasu Bedouins.

In his 9-point conclusion, the closest that Bietak gets to any mention of an exodus-like event is to state (way down in point 8) that "The collective memory of the Egyptian oppression endured by the segment of early Israel in Canaan seems to have merged with the experience of suffering by Proto-Israelites in Egypt." Vague, ambiguous and unconfident.

The Hoffmeier paper is even worse. Hoffmeier openly admits that there is no clear archaeological evidence to support the exodus theory, but he doesn't see a lack of evidence as a problem, and he maintains that the Bible stories should be regarded as a collection of different and mutually-supportive accounts, and thus historical. Not really persuasive at all.

Like Bietak, Hoffmeier relies on the fact that the Bible stories refer to a number of "real-life" places, and he claims that this somehow proves that the exodus myth itself should be regarded as historical. This is akin to accepting wholesale the stories of Perseus and Hercules, because "real-life place names" are mentioned in those tales. Ditto the stories of Robin Hood, Dracula, James Bond, Harry Potter etc etc. To any objective analyst, this approach is clearly nonsense, which is why mainstream scholarship still regards the exodus tales as "myth".

Interesting though, is that Hoffmeier does admit at pg 54 that the "Hebrews, Shasu, or 'Amu cannot be differentiated archaeologically." He also notes that the author of Deuteronomy at ch.26 reports that "A wandering Aramean was my father." I'm not sure that Arameans were the same as Shasu, far less were they Israelites, but perhaps this does cast a ray of light onto the "proto-Israelite" argument? Wdford (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Bietak holds that there was a historical exodus event. He suggests that the event took place either during the reigns of Sethnakht or Ramses III. He states that the West Semitic people who lived in Egypt during the second milenium BC were probably Shasu Bedouins, but he does not see this as incompatible with the idea that they could have been proto-Israelites as well.

I also don't see how Bietak's point 8 shows that he does not hold to an "exodus is history" theory, since even there he clearly refers to "the experience of suffering by Proto-Israelites in Egypt".

And Hoffmeier and Bietak do not limit to argue that the Exodus account refers to a number of "real-life" places, but that the geography of the biblical account best fits the geographical realia of Egypt during the Ramesside era rather than that of later periods, which means that it is unlikely that the story could be a later invention.

As for Deuteronomy ch.26 the report that "A wandering Aramean was my father" is a reference to the patriarch Jacob, who lived in the region of Paddan-Aram (see Gen. 28–31) and who later went down to Egypt with his sons. And the relevant issue is that the entire creedal statement is considered to be archaic in origin. Potatín5 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

So you claim that Bietak is happy that these Shasu slaves were proto-Israelite (without any actual evidence, and based purely on the finding of one "sort-of-Israelite house" in the general area where some slaves were known to have worked), and that some of these slaves may have relocated to Canaan at some point in small numbers, and that therefore the Biblical exodus is effectively historical? All that Bietak actually states in his conclusion, is that "the experience of suffering by Proto-Israelites in Egypt" "seems to have merged" with "The collective memory of the Egyptian oppression endured by the segment of early Israel in Canaan". This is in no way indicative of a Biblical exodus. Your claim is clearly WP:SYNTH, and since mainstream scholarship does not accept such a wild extrapolation, Bietak's assumption is fringe.

The geography of Egypt and the Sinai did not change much over the millennia, far less over a few hundred years. The use of Ramesside city names in the biblical account does not at all eliminate the possibility that the story could be a later invention. Setting fiction stories in earlier periods was as common then as it is now.

My point about the wandering Aramean is that it states that the proto-Israelites were Aramean rather than Shasu Bedouins. Abraham himself is said to have come from Ur, which is in Iraq rather than Aram. Laban was the grandson of Terah, and thus also originally an Iraqi. And all statements in Deuteronomy date from the time when Deuteronomy was finally written down – the original creation date thereof is unknown and unknowable. Wdford (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I find it somewhat contradictory how you claim that Bietak is claiming "without evidence" that some West Semitic slaves in Egypt were probably proto-Israelites and just after that you mention the very evidence that Bietak has presented to support his claim. And if Bietak holds that there was once a group of proto-Israelite slaves in Egypt that later moved to Canaan, how is that different from the Biblical account in any significant way? And what is your basis for saying that Bietak's position is fringe within mainstream scholarship?

Much of the geography of Egypt did not change over the millennia, but some did. The city of Pi-Ramesses (Biblical Rameses) was abandoned during the 11th century BC and it did not became inhabited again until the Roman period. And honestly, how could a Hebrew writer in the Persian period had any real knowledge about the greography of Egypt in the second millennium BC? If the story were a later invention, we would expect that it reflects the geography at the time when it was first written, but this is not the case here.

To say that "all statements in Deuteronomy date from the time when Deuteronomy was finally written down" is very misleading, since most Biblical scholars agree that the writers of Deuteronomy made usage of earlier sources and traditions for composing the book. And one of this earlier sources is the creedal statement in chapter 26, which makes reference to the Exodus event. Potatín5 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no way to link the so-called Four-Room House to the slaves. Slaves do not normally live in nice houses, so the houses were probably occupied by somebody other than slaves. The occupants may have been Canaanites, or they may not have been.

Even if there was once a group of proto-Israelite slaves in Egypt that later moved to Canaan, this is massively different to the Biblical account of a million people following a plaque-wielding prophet on a 40-year genocidal rampage, parting the sea, destroying an Egyptian king and his entire army, receiving manna from heaven, burning and slaughtering town after town, etc.

The fact that mainstream scholarship regards any such proposition as preposterous, makes that proposition fringe – it’s a matter of definition.

How could a Hebrew writer in the Persian period had any real knowledge about the geography of Egypt in the second millennium BC? The same way we know about it – from records. The Persians and the Egyptians traded with each other, and both were big on keeping records. However the Persian period was much closer to the time of Ramesses II than we are today. If a competent author was trying to create a creation myth, he would surely have made a bit of a effort to make it sound plausible – including by doing some basic research.

Certainly the writers of Deuteronomy made usage of earlier sources and traditions. However they also added fictions too. We cannot know today exactly which parts were fiction and which were history. However an exodus event as described in the Bible would have resonated around the known world, and would have been mentioned somewhere. Egyptian records did not shy away from recording wars and famines and other disasters, so it is strange that they missed out on the Ten Plagues, or the mass exodus of a million slaves, or the great annihilation of their king and army by a parting sea, etc etc. Since the exodus is completely unsupported by records or archaeology, we can be reasonably certain that it is fiction. Or to put it more politely – "myth". Wdford (talk) 23:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Slaves did not certainly live outdoors, so they must have lived in some sort of house. The Four-Room House is a model of house that is scarcely attested in Egypt but very well attested in ancient Israelite settlements, so it is highly probable that the dwellers of those houses were proto-Israelites, as Bietak has proposed.

If some scholars have pointed to several pieces of ciscumstantial evidence to support the view that there was once a group of proto-Israelite slaves in Egypt that later moved to Canaan, this is consistent with the Biblical tradition. I'm not sayind that this proves that all the details in the Biblical account are neccesarily true, but these scholars argue that there was an historical exodus event, which is the very core of that account.

That a Hebrew writer in the Persian period would have consulted the records of Egypt during the second millenium to compose a fictional text is very improbable for a number of reasons. Not only is the fact that the Hebrew writer would have needed to be a sort of Egyptologist (at a time when Egyptology did not exist as an academic discipline) to study those ancient records, but that he would have had to known the ancient Egyptian language that was spoken at the time when those records were written, and which was substantially different from the Demotic language that was spoken in Egypt during the Persian period.

That Egyptian records would have recorded the Exodus if this event had happened is not very likely. The ancient Egyptians did not recorded defeats in their official inscriptions (for example, there are no Egyptian inscriptions mentioning the Sack of Thebes by the Assyrians in 663 BC), and even if they had recorded this defeat, it is possible that those records are now definitely lost because, as Hawkins (2021) has pointed, virtually all the papyri from the eastern Nile Delta is now lost. Potatín5 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Slaves in Egypt did not live in Four Roomed houses. The house in question may have been occupied by a Canaanite family, but highly unlikely to have been a slave. The workers’ villages elsewhere showed us that even Egyptian skilled labour did not enjoy such residences, far less foreign slaves.

A handful of Canaanites moving back and forth between Egypt and the Levant would not constitute an exodus – that would be considered to be routine commuting, and it happened all the time every year for millennia. Your source is really stretching the point here.

Actually, a Hebrew writer in the Persian period would most likely have consulted the records of Babylon and Persia to compose a fictional text. Those scribes might perhaps have lived in Babylonian exile, and they would be fluent in the local languages – no Egyptologist would be required. However such a scribe probably could read Egyptian writings as well – once you know how, it is not particularly difficult, and that was the career of a scribe. Israel traded with Egypt, was invaded by Egypt, and its kings married Egyptian princesses, so the Judean scribes would have been well able to read and write in Egyptian as well.

The Egyptian records would certainly have recorded the Exodus if this event had really happened. The ancient Egyptians did indeed record catastrophes as well. The Sack of Thebes by the Assyrians in 663 BC was well recorded by the Assyrians, and the lack of "Egyptian" records may have been due to the fact that thereafter there were no Egyptian or Kushite rulers in the area – only Assyrians. In contrast, the period of Ramesses was very well recorded indeed. There is also the indication from the archaeological record that the city was not devastated by the "sack", and that perhaps the local Egyptian people saw this more as a rescue by the Assyrians rather than a disaster. The Kushite rulers were themselves invaders, after all, and many native Egyptians co-operated with the Assyrians.

Your contention that all the records of the exodus “may have been lost” is preposterous, and cannot be relied upon as a "source" supporting an extraordinary event. There is good reason why mainstream archaeology considers the exodus to be myth. You need to accept the reality – your POV is fringe. Wdford (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what is your source for asserting that slaves could not have lived in Four Roomed houses. There are in fact sources indicating that (at least some) Egyptian workers did indeed live in houses with several rooms [1].

If Bietak holds there was once a group of proto-Israelite slaves in Egypt who later escaped and moved to Canaan, then he is defending the historicity of an event that constitutes an exodus in its own right. You may not agree with Bietak, but he is advancing this position and he is a mainstream scholar. I think that opinions like his should be included among the range of scholarly views on the historicity of the Exodus, even if only in a brief manner.

I find very unlikely that a Hebrew writer living in the Babylonian exile could have found any information about the geography of Egypt during the second millenium in such a remote region (I mean, it is highly unlikely that the Babylonians would have kept any record about the geography of Egypt at a time when there was little contact between both). There is also no evidence that Judean scribes ever had any knowledge of 2nd millenium Egyptian language (let alone during the Persian period, when Demotic was the currently spoken language in Egypt); Egypt had withdrawn from Canaan by the time Israelite civilization emerged, and the existence of trade cannot be considered as sufficient evidence for Judean scribes having any knowledge of Egyptian (especially since the 8th century BC, when Aramaic became the language for trade in the whole Near East).

The ancient Egyptians did not record defeats in their official inscriptions. Those inscriptions were commisioned by Pharaohs with the purpose of lauding their achievements, not their failures. And the idea that the lack of Egyptian records for the sack of Thebes can be explained by saying that "there were no Egyptian or Kushite rulers in the area" is simply impossible, since Egypt did have a ruler even after the Assyrian attack: Psamtik I.

My contention that any putative record of the exodus in papyri could have been lost is relied upon a source published by Eerdmans, so I do not know how you can disqualify it with such ad hominen attack. Potatín5 (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Your PBS website is hardly a reliable source. Furthermore, it is referring to elite craftsmen, not foreign slaves. And it nowhere mentions four-roomed houses. Once again, your attempt at SYNTH falls way short of anything meaningful.

It is highly doubtful that “a group of proto-Israelite slaves who escaped and moved to Canaan” could be considered to constitute an “exodus”. However the article does already include mention that some historians believe a small group of escaped slaves may have contributed their personal experience into the general collective memory.

The Babylonians (and other Mesopotamians) traded with the Egyptians for millennia. This information would have been readily available to them all. We are merely talking about city names, which are not really secrets. Israelites traded with Egypt as well, as already explained, and would certainly have had scribes who could write in Egyptian. Solomon was married to an Egyptian princess, and Shishak later invaded and conquered Israel, so it would be astonishing if there were no competent scribes around in Israel who could read Egyptian.

Psamtik I was an Assyrian puppet, and the sack of Thebes was well documented by the Assyrians. My point exactly.

Any event large enough to constitute an “exodus” would have been recorded in many places, and not just in some papyrus scroll in a small Delta town. Your beloved Four Roomed house was not in the Delta, it was in a dry rocky area. And the administration of Ramesses II documented stuff in a big way. It is certainly possible that the departure of a handful of families would be so routine and non-notable as to elude recording, but such a small event is not an “exodus” as such. Wdford (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The PBS source was cited in response to your claim that "even Egyptian skilled labour did not enjoy such residences", and while it is not a super-reliable source in itself, his statement is independently corroborated by another source [1].

I also want an explanation as to why "a group of proto-Israelite slaves in Egypt who later escaped and moved to Canaan" cannot be considered to constitute an “exodus”.

There is no evidence that the Babylonians (or other Messopotamians) ever kept any record about the geography of Egypt during the late second millenium. And even if some Judean scribes could read Egyptian (which remains unproven), this would not have been the Egyptian language of the 2nd millenium (language changes much over time, and lets remmember that by the 8th century the language of Egypt had evolved into Demotic).

Psamtik I was an Egyptian and a ruler of Egypt, and the fact that the sack of Thebes was recorded by the Assyrians is irrelevant; there is still no reasonable explanation as to why the Egyptians would not have recorded such event in their inscriptions unless you admit that said Egyptians had a tendence not to record defeats.

I have never stated that an exodus event would have been recorded in papyri in just one small Delta town; but the fact is that we don't have virtually any papyri from the entire eastern Nile Delta from this period, and this was the region where the Israelited dwelled in Egypt according to the topographical references in the Bible. Potatín5 (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I would not expect the Egyptian stela to proclaim that the mighty Egyptian army was defeated by a bunch of slaves, but assuming that two to three million people have left Egypt overnight, that would be a major social-economic catastrophe for Egypt. Such a catastrophe would have produced administrative paperwork needed to address the crisis. As Donald B. Redford said, it is an argument from silence, but the silence is watertight. Even if the Egyptians were censoring such information, there should still be traces of it. And if they were not 600 thousands Israelite soldiers who left the Egypt, but 60 slaves, you have rescued the historicity of the Exodus by giving the lie to the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The Greek historian Herodotus claimed that Xerxes raised an army of over two million soldiers in his attempt to invade Greece, and the biographers of Alexander the Great also wrote the same about the Persians in the battles. Even if the Biblical numbers were hyperbolic, rather that literally historical, this does not mean that the number of Israelites that would have been in the Exodus was limited to 60; much like with his Greek counterparts. Potatín5 (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The PBS source, unreliable as it is, does not say that the elite Egyptian craftsmen lived in anything as grand as four-roomed houses. And there would have been a huge gulf between elite Egyptian craftsmen and foreign slaves.

An “exodus” generally involves a large number of people. However in this Biblical context, it involves an enormous number of people. You can use the word loosely to describe a group of school-children heading home after school is over for the day, but in this particular context, you are way off the mark.

NB: nobody has offered any proof that these were a “group of proto-Israelites”, or that they were even slaves, so again, the desperate stretching is totally transparent.

The Babylonians etc corresponded with their Egyptian counterparts for millennia. They would have known the address to which they were sending their communications. When the Egyptian government was in Pi-Rames or Thebes or wherever, they would have known, and this would have been recorded. They would have had scribes capable of reading every known language, and the Egyptians etc would likewise have had scribes capable of reading every known language. You are being silly now.

Psamtik I was a puppet ruler of Egypt. He answered to his bosses the Assyrians. The Assyrians did keep detailed records of this event, and the Kushite rulers ran away.

No king would have died without his death being recorded, and certainly any king who died in a miraculous parting-of-the-sea event would have been recorded in detail - particularly in the time of Ramasses II. This would not have been limited to papyrus scrolls in the Delta. Again, you are being silly.

The armies of Xerxes and of Alexander the Great were at least recorded. The so-called proto-Israelite exodus was not. Again, a silly diversion. Seriously, you have proved in great detail that there is no basis for a historical exodus – exactly as the mainstream scholarship has concluded. It’s time to accept reality, yes? Wdford (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The PBS source states that the elite Egyptian craftsmen lived in "houses [that] had several rooms", as grand as (or even greater than) four-roomed houses. And again, you haven't still provided any source supporting your assertion that slaves could not have lived in four-roomed houses.

Bietak never states that the number of proto-Israelites involved in the exodus was limited to 60 people, as Tgeorgescu would say. Technically speaking, he does not state what was the exact number of people who were involved in such event, but he certainly regards said event as a kind of exodus.

There is no reason why the Babylonians would have recorded any place in Egypt except perhaps the exact places were their messengers would have been sent for communications. There are no known cuneiform tablets mentioning the city of Pi-Ramesses or many others mentioned in the Biblical account, and there is even lesser evidence that the Biblical authors would have ever searched for them.

Psamtik I was only a puppet ruler during the early part of his reign (he later became more independent), and this does not explain why the Egyptians did not mention the Sack of Thebes in their official inscriptions.

Probably no king would have died without his death being recorded, but the Bible does not state the Pharaoh died drawn at the Reed Sea. Dr. David A. Falk holds that Ramasses II did not take part in the persecution of the Israelites at the Reed Sea (see HERE).

The armies of Xerxes and of Alexander the Great were recorded by those who won those wars (the Greek historians). This is irrelevant for my point: The ancient Egyptians did not record defeats in their official inscriptions. Potatín5 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Your PBS source does not state that “elite Egyptian craftsmen lived in "houses [that] had several rooms", as grand as (or even greater than) four-roomed houses” – that is your WP:OR. Nobody has ever stated that slaves lived in four-roomed houses. Since four-roomed houses were actually quite rare, and there were few dwellings other than palaces which exceeded them, you would actually need to provide reliable sources stating that slaves lived in four-roomed houses.

Bietak does not attempt to put a number on the hypothetical escaped slaves. He merely concludes that some slaves went to Canaan, where their memories were merged into the greater knowledge base of the local Canaanites. This is not controversial, and is already covered in the article.

Furthermore, Bietak states that the occupants of the Four-roomed house in Western Thebes were "persuasively" the Shasu Bedouins, and that these Shasu might not have been “proto-Israelite” to begin with, but that their identification as "Proto-Israelites" is "perfectly possible" but "not necessarily cogent". This is very far from “evidence” – even Bietak himself is open about this deficiency. You are cherry-picking to protect your POV.

All governments collect information about neighboring countries. That would include the Babylonians and the Israelites. In addition, as I have said many times already, Israelite kings were happy to marry foreign wives, including King Solomon, who married at least one Egyptian princess. There was extensive contact between these countries throughout ancient history, and hundreds of traders and diplomats crossed back and forth every month. Their knowledge of ancient Egypt would have been extensive, and the records would have been detailed. The Biblical authors would not have needed to “search” for them – this information would have been common knowledge to the educated classes, in the same way that people today know the names of many cities in countries we have never personally visited.

Psamtik I was an Assyrian puppet, and the Assyrians created detailed records of their actions in Egypt. The records were indeed made, by the scribes of the area at the time. They were not Kushite, and they may have been Assyrian or even the local Egyptians who appeared to have supported the Assyrians. That is to be expected. To demand that Psamtik should create a second set of records later on, is silly. Also, Psamtik the Puppet was on the winning side here, so I still don't see the relevance of your so-called point. I suspect there is no real relevance at all?

Falk is not the only scholar who believes that Ramasses II did not take part in the persecution of the Israelites at the Reed Sea. All mainstream scholarship holds that view – and also holds that NO Egyptian king was involved in that event, because the event itself never happened.

Your POV-pushing has no historical basis, and the exodus never happened, as the mainstream experts agree. No amount of PBS blogs and Youtube videos is going to outweigh them. Wdford (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The PBS source does state that elite Egyptian craftsmen lived in "houses [that] had several rooms"; I invite you to read the source again and you will find that sentence very clearly. I also find very surprising your assertion that the four-roomed house was exceeded almost only by palaces. If that were true, then this will mean that most of the Israelites in Canaan were living in a very 'luxurious' type of house, since the four-roomed house was the prototypical house of the Israelites during the entire Iron Age.

All your points about Bietak describe things I have already expressed myself in previous comments. Read especially my comment dated to 13:27, 7 July 2023. I am not going to repeat that again.

You haven't still provided any explanation as to how a Hebrew writer in the Persian period could have had any real knowledge about the greography of Egypt in the second millennium BC. If the story were a later invention, we would expect that it reflects the geography at the time when it was first written, but this is not the case here. The conclusion is that the writers of the Biblical account must have had access to a genuinely ancient source or tradition describing the events and that, as such, can be traced back to the Ramesside era (making it almost contemporary with the events described).

I have also to remind that this is an argument that can be found in much of the scholarly literature about the historicity of the Exodus and that I have previously provided sources from scholars advancing this argument (Bietak, Hoffmeier, Falk); I think their position and arguments should have a place in this WP article. Otherwise, I have responded to all your objections about this point in previous comments and I will not repeat them.

The Assyrian records on the Sack of Thebes were created by the Assyrians themselves and in Assyria; this is true for the Rassam cylinder, which is the Assyrian record of the Sack and which was produced by the scribes at the court of Ashurbanipal. And again, the fact that the sack of Thebes was recorded by the Assyrians is irrelevant; this is not any reasonable explanation as to why the Egyptians would not have recorded such event in their own inscriptions.

I am surprised as to how authoritarian you have become by asserting your position as factual in such a dogmatic and arrogant way. Your two last paragraphs are the clearest expression of that attitude. Potatín5 (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be addressing this at the noticeboard discussion rather than continuing it here? A. Parrot (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Very few Iron Age Israelite houses have been found in Canaan. These would have been the homes of comparatively wealthy families – the vast majority lived in lesser homes. If you can find a reliable source which says four-roomed houses were standard accommodation for peasants and slaves, I would be very surprised.

I have explained exactly how a Hebrew scribe would know about Egyptian cities. You just don’t want to hear it.

Regarding your scholarly sources, you are seriously cherry-picking them. Bietak admits that identifying the builders of the Four-Room House in Western Thebes as Proto-Israelites seems “perfectly possible” but that this “conclusion is not necessarily cogent”. Hoffmeier claims the Bible stories should be considered to be correct, so no value there, and Falk admits that the evidence supporting an exodus is “indirect” – and bases his extraordinary conclusions on a handful of place names and a few Egyptian customs. I have clarified all of these already, several times, but you just don’t want to hear it.

Your continued flogging of the Psamtik horse adds no value. I have clarified all of this already, several times, but you just don’t want to hear it.

My “position” on this is based on reliable sources, who are the mainstream experts in the field. If you cannot accept that, then you need to move along. Wdford (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

There are mainstream scholarly sources indicating that the four-roomed house was the prototypical house of the Israelites (in general) during the entire Iron Age. Check for example this source.

I don't find convincing your 'explanations' about how the Hebrew writer had any knowledge about Egyptian places from the Ramesside period based on later writings from other civilizations. I find more reasonable the idea that the author had access to an ancient source or tradition that can be traced back to that early era.

I am not cherry-picking my scholarly sources: All of these three scholars hold that there was a historical exodus event. Even if you don't personally agree with them, you cannot deny that they show that there are scholars who indeed argue for the substantial historicity of the Biblical account. This is exactly my point in this discussion.

I have read all your 'clarifications' on this issue, and my conclusion remains the same: The ancient Egyptians did not record defeats in their official inscriptions. Those inscriptions were commisioned by Pharaohs with the purpose of lauding their achievements, not their failures. This is the reason why the Egyptians never recorded an event like the Sack of Thebes in their official inscriptions, but you are the one who just doesn’t want to hear. Potatín5 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Or just go look at the sources on four-room house and the quote from Ziony, which goes: "The Iron Age pillared houses, the "four-room house," are not uniquely Israelite ..." Shocker. Ancient Near East culture was extremely fluid, and architecture is a particularly fluid art form. As for a writer or scribe having access to an old document, well sure, yes, they could learn place names from literally any old piece of copied Egyptian writing. That doesn't make imply said document was anything important: you could literally read it off a tax register or some pharaoh's biography. As for there being no record of the exodus because it was ignominious ... sure. Maybe. But that's not proof. That no one can disprove a negative just gets you back to square one - it isn't positive evidence. On the whole, these are all mere titbits of theory. Most are no more than a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Herzog, Ze'ev (29 October 1999). "Deconstructing the walls of Jericho". Ha'aretz. Archived from the original on 11 August 2021. Retrieved 13 January 2022. Many documents do mention the custom of nomadic shepherds to enter Egypt during periods of drought and hunger and to camp at the edges of the Nile Delta. However, this was not a solitary phenomenon: such events occurred frequently across thousands of years and were hardly exceptional. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

If as Biatak holds the Shasu and Midianites were proto-Israelites that undermines a large part of the way the Exodus tale is spin in the Tanakh. No one, among those who speak of a 'kernal' of truth appears to agree what the kernal is, except for a generic view that part of what became the Israelite population, some hundreds in Biatak's view, were Shasu bedouin once engaged in corvée labour in Egypt who eventually managed to get to the formerly Egyptian-ruled territory of Canaan. But that sort of view is so speculatively abstract that it hardly constitutes a 'core' of truth to the later extremely elaborate scenario depicted by Israelitic tradition as conjured up in the OT.Nishidani (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Bietak does not state that the Midianites were proto-Israelites. Potatín5 (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

He states they probably came from the same gene-pool.

Daher ist Edom für uns ein besonders interessantes Gebiet aus der die Schasu im Papyrus Anastasti VI in einer für unsere Fragestellung besonders entscheidenden Zeit auftauchen. Sie könnten aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach aus dem gleichen Genpool hervorgegangen sein aus dem die Midianiter, Keniter und Proto-Israeliten stammten.' Manfred Bietak, Ägypten und der Exodus: Ein altes Thema, ein neuer Ansatz, in Stefan Jakob Wimmer and Wolfgang Zwickel (hrsg.) Ägypten und Altes Testament, pp.151-180 2022 ISBN 978-3-963-27062-8 p.155

It's silly to talk of gene pools in this way, but saying Proto-israelites and Midianites hailed form the 'same gene pool' suggests what I said. In any case, in his field it is often suggested that the striking absence of the Shasu from the Tanakh might be explained by the Midianite role, who function there in narrative terms to mediate the silenced Shasu tradition, since the former form part, by intermarriage, of the proto-Israelite legends.Nishidani (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We can certainly add some mention that a few scholars believe that an element of history MAY underly a piece of the Exodus myth, but we would first need to find proper sources to support which elements are considered to be historical, and to what extent they actually support certain pieces of the myth. That has not yet been done. Considering how much attention this issue receives in academia and in religious circles, I am surprised that nothing meaningful has been published yet, and I assume that this absence means that no reliable sources have any actual evidence to offer. Or did I miss something? Wdford (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

No, that's about the gist of it - one can only assume that the 'historical' elements are either very poorly nailed down, or so diverse and varied that there is simply no scholarly consensus on which ones the more historical fragments might be. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can I remind everyone that we're not here to discuss whether we think the Exodus did or didn't happen. The only thing that should interest us is whether reliable sources argue that the exodus did or didn't happen, and whether we have statements of academic consensus on the subject.

I'd suggest following A. Parrot's advice and stopping this constant back and forth here and allowing the dispute resolution to take its course. There's no reason to keep trying to get the last word here.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in first paragraph

Only 4 books are listed as part of the torah. You forgot to add Genesis 188.64.206.205 (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Genesis doesn’t mention the exodus.—-Ermenrich (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

New Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a source you can start with:[1]. See also Moses in Islam. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Additions by Torah musa

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

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

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

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

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

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

Objectivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Otherwise see WP:VERECUNDIAM about the argument about Vesalius.

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

— WP:FLAT

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

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

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

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

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

GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

— [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exodus: Myth or Fact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually it is part of the material culture that archaeology studies. But as has been pointed out, besides the accounts not being written centuries later, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence anyway. Maybe not for individual battles, but for the conquest. Also see [3]. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

"Mainstream" is an arbitrary term. It is also poisoning the well before considering "non-mainstream" arguments from scholars that have largely equal credentials through reputable publishers about the same evidence that "mainstream" scholars have written about. KevinT24 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In the jargon of the Wikipedia Community, "mainstream" is not opposed to "minority view, but credible"; it is opposed to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic.

"Belief " and "myth" are — one could say — synonyms. To quote Wiktionary: A myth is...

A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.

(emphasis added by me)

Or to quote the Wikipedia disambiguation page on "Myth":

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society

So, what's the problem with calling it a "myth"? Where do you see an inconsistency? And how is talking about mythology "anti-semitic"? Nakonana (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

" We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. " The peer-reviewed literature suggests you are wrong here and logicians would conclude you have made a fallacious statement. See Douglas Walton Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 1997), 239-242. KevinT24 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To claify, are you saying on the talk page we cannot discuss different views? Or question the philosophical assumptions in the discussion on the talk page? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply a system for churning WP:SOURCES. Not for indulging in WP:OR. That is: my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, only the opinions of mainstream full professors matter. We may discuss assumptions in so far this helps distinguishing between mainstream sources and WP:FRINGE sources. We are not called to produce research based upon our own assumptions. Nor to challenge the assumptions of Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If individuals cite the approved university presses, then you can talk about those subjects in the "talk" section? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions in the talk page are usually meant for solving problems with the article. If there are newer WP:V mainstream insights, just add them to the article or request an edit to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia source I can look at to see what the policy is for the talk page? Its explicit limitations and purposes?

Back to the appeal to authority. Individuals viewing any page on Wikipedia should know that they should come to any conclusion on their own in dialogue with a wide array of reputable experts. This is the logical way to approach these subjects and appeal to expert arguments (including consensus). See Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd Edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 209-245; John Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 126. KevinT24 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Please pick apart this interesting article for me.

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

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

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

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

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

An Egregious Misquote

According to the article, "the Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17) ..." It attributes this statement to Dozeman & Schechtman 2016 .

The bible does not advance such claim at the cited locations (or anywhere). I do not have a copy of Dozeman & Schechtman in front of me, but I doubt very, very much that they said it did. Someone needs to recheck the source.

Quite possibly Dozeman & Schechtman quoted some medieval or early modern computation of the biblical chronology, and their statement was either misunderstood by a contributor to wikipedia or else simplified down to the point where it was no longer correct. The modern concensus is that the biblical chronology of events before the reign of Rehoboam is too vague and inconsistent to reconstruct what the biblical authors thought, although there is some evidence for symbolic patterning in P. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't claim consensus without offering a source. In any case, the "egregious misquote" is exactly what Dozeman and Schechtman say in the section on historical context:

A central question in the modern interpretation of Exodus is what historical events may have given rise to the elaborate narrative of the book of Exodus. The biblical writers certainly wish to anchor the exodus from Egypt firmly in history. They date the event to the 2666th year (Exod. 12:40-41) from the creation of the world, or year 1 (Gen. 1:26-27). The construction of the tabernacle takes place in the 2667th year (Exod. 40:1-2, 17). Biblical writers state further that the Israelite period of enslavement is 430 years (Exod. 12:40-41), making their arrival in Egypt the 2236th year (Gen. 47:9). Jacob and his family settle in a specific land within Egypt, Goshen (Gen. 46:28; Exod. 8:22; 9:26), also known as the “land of Rameses” (Gen. 47:11). (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 138)

I trust Dozeman and Schechtman's citation of these Bible verses for these dates over your interpretation that they don't support it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I did not have a copy of Dozeman and Schechtman in front of me. It appears, however, from your quote of what they said, that they are not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not responsible for their error, but it is responsible for choosing reliable sources and propagating misinformation.

These are the actual biblical quotes (JPS translation; all others are substantially similar):

Ex. 12:40    The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; 41 at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.

Ex. 40:1    And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:

Ex. 40:2    On the first day of the first month you shall set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.

Ex. 40:17    In the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was set up. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So because you don't like how they add up the numbers for the creation, they aren't a reliable source? That's not how WP:RS work. You can find these numbers in many sources, in particular the 2666 is a symbolic number and is related to the foundation of Solomon's Temple. Not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's certainly not the consensus. The Bible can't be cited for itself, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE - we rely on secondary sources like Dozeman and Schechtman, not editor's interpretations of what the verses mean.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

They are making a claim about what they say the Bible says, not what someone computes from the bible.

I don't disagree that many fundamentalists claim 2556 to be the year since creation in which the bible places the Exodus. That is not the same thing as saying that the Bible says that.It doesn't. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

2666, not whatever you said. And Dozeman and Schechtman are not fundamentalists. The specific dates for the exodus, along with the careful numbering of the people, encourage a historical interpretation of the story. But the vague references to geography and the unrealistic number of the group indicate that the book of Exodus is not history. (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 139) What's your source for the consensus that "The Fortress Commentary on the Bible" is not correct? Both Dozeman and Schectman are respected scholars, and Schectman even has a profile at "the Torah.com" [4], which is evidently your preferred source of information.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say they were fundamentalists; they certainly are not. But they misrepresented a fundamentalist computation as being what the Bible says.

Are you saying that when someone grossly misquotes the biblical text, their error has to stand because one is not allowed to cite the relevant biblical text itself? How does that make sense?

The issue here is not whether the Exodus is real history, it is the accuracy of a supposed biblical quote.

May I suggest rephrasing the statement in the article to read "Dozeman and Schechtman claim that the Book of Exodus itself ...". That way it will be clear that wikipedia is simply quoting their opinion without confirming the accuracy of the biblical quote. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to provide a source or keep relying on your own interpretation of the biblical text?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find the same numbers cited here (preprint for a chapter in a volume we use elsewhere in the article "Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective" 2015: The narrative of the exodus story plays out in the second half of the second millennium BCE—to be precise: in the year 2666 anno mundi, according to the chronology of the biblical text, which is 480 years before the dedication of the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1). The chapter cites "Hughes 1990" "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions". That refers to this book: Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perhaps you should take up your objections with Hughes. This number is very commonly cited, as a simple search on Google Scholar will show.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Schmid does say the date is "according to the chronology of the biblical text", but nowhere does he claim the bible says so explicitly. Instead, he cites Hughes as follows: "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions, see Hughes 1990"

Hughes himself makes it clear that he is attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source, and spends several hundred pages doing that. I haven't read the whole book, or indeed had time to do more than glance through it. However, i doubt very much that he claims the bible SAYS the exodus occurred 2666 years after creation. If he does, please provide the source.

So it looks like your backup sources themselves do not support the claim made in the wikipedia article that Ex. 12:40 and 40:1-2, 7 say the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM. And upon rereading your quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, I'm not sure that is what they claim, either.

Slight changes of wording have crept in during the process of citation and recitation that have changed a correct statement (namely, that according to some reconstructions of the Priestly chronology the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM) to an incorrect statement that the bible SAYS the Exodus took place in that year. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We cite reliable sources that interpret the text as indicating that. I trust them more than I trust you - you’ve yet to cite any scholarship for your position.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, Archaeobuf, insofar as I feel like I am missing an inferential leap somewhere along the chain here, but it seems plain to me that the current text is not a misquote of Dozeman and Shectman, whatever else it is. And yet again, you're just giving us your take on the matter "I doubt Hughes says that, so prove it to me" is not how things work. I tend to think you're right, that there's a better way to put this, but your arguments to this point have been unpersuasive from a Wikipedia standpoint. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for how you would reword it? My issue with a simple fix at the moment is that the main point, that the Bible tries to locate the Exodus as a historical event with dates and locations, is not in question. Just the chronology.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your unease, we have a reliable source that says one thing, and you (and me, to some extent!) saying "doesn't seem right to me." In the absence of something more than that, however, I think the best policy is to retain the current wording unless and until we can find sourcing that sheds more light. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me think about that for a day or two.

I still think you are missing the point, though. My issue is with the accuracy of a biblical quotation, not the validity or invalidity of the chronology. The secondary source quotes a primary source (Ex. 12:40, 40:1-2, 7) which simply does not say what the secondary source claims. At the same time, it fails to quote the actual source for its chronological data (plagiarism). That combination would be an "F" on any school paper. Archaeobuf (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism? That's quite an accusation - Dozeman and Schectman have a list of sources at the end of the chapter. As for saying "it doesn't say what it says" - maybe it doesn't literally say "2,666 years after creation," but it is easy to arrive at that date just by following the chronology as it is laid out in the Pentateuch. I'm beginning to wonder if you're WP:here to build an encyclopedia or are just trying to stir up muck with these sorts of accusations. We don't care about your opinion on academic reliable sources here, and your attitude suggests that you don't understand that we don't get to make calls about scholarship ourselves. As I've told you many times, if you have sources that disagree, you need to cite them.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right; I got too worked up. Just because Dozeman and Schechtman did not cite their source in the little snippet semi-quoted by wikipedia does not mean they did not cite it elsewhere.

I've been trying to avoid getting into the Biblical Chronology debate, because that is not what I think the issue is. Discussions concerning the Biblical chronology for the Exodus were quite common in the earlier half of the 1900s, before they were largely abandoned as hopeless.

Consider, for example, the following quote from H. H. Rowley, "From Joseph to Joshua: The Biblical Traditions in the light of Archaeology", The Schweich Lectures, 1948, pages 77ff:

"Once again we find that genealogical and other similar information preserved in the Old Testament does not accord with I Kgs. vi.1. For we are told that Nahshon, who belonged to the period of the Exodus, was separated from Solomon by six generations. This is quite inadequate to cover a period of 480 years ...".

Then on pp. 86 ff: "That the 480 years of this verse are not easily reconciled with the framework of the book of Judges and the supplementary figures found elsewhere to cover the rest of the period between theExodus and founding of the Temple is well known ..."

Overall, Rowley devotes about 20 pages to the question of the Biblical cronology.

I could cite additional examples from Albright, Bright, Wright, and others from that era, all of which came to the same conclusion: The biblical data is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

I fear you will simply reject these sources as "unreliable", since despite what you say you do indeed pick and choose which scholarship you quote and what you do not. So I would suggest we return to Hughes, whom you yourself quote. He is quite specific that he was attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source; since when is the Priestly source the sum total of the Bible? And why did it take him 300 pages to reach his conclusions? Archaeobuf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems a mismatch to me: what the chronology actually was is not the same inquiry as how it was presented. We are talking about how the author(s) of Exodus chose to relate the historicity of the story they were telling; the actual historicity thereof is a different inquiry. Do you have any sources that would go more specifically to that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The sources I cited all dealt with the internal chronology of the biblical account and what its authors meant, before they addressed the question as to the actual date of the Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If we are talking about the internal logic of the Book of Exodus and its author(s), then discrepancies that arise in comparison to Kings or Judges are quite beside the point, it would seem to me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, you are not familiar with the structure of arguments as to the internal chronology of Exodus. They start with Kings and work backwards. And yes, that is a large part of the problem. Archaeobuf (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You were right after all. See my response to Ermenrich below. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, for a more recent source concerning the difficulties of reconstructing biblical chronology, you might want to take a look at William Propp's comment on Ex. 12:40 in The Anchor Bible Commentary: Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that the exodus is not dated to 2,666 anno mundi? You can’t point us to other problems with biblical chronology and not address the subject at hand.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Anno Mundi is a mythological concept, anyway. Or, if you prefer, a theological concept. And it seems that different books of the Bible have different chronologies. That isn't a problem so long as it's specified which of those chronologies is meant. Wikipedia makes no claim that that chronology would be accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me take the simplest possible approach. The Wikipedia article "Seder Olam Rabbah" reports a calculation according to which the Exodus took place in 2448 AM or 2450 AM.

Most of the difference is due to textual variants and different interpretations of Ex. 12:40, the very text which Dozeman and Shechtman cite as proof for their date of 2666 AM. Here is what Propp had to say about it (Exodus, Anchor Bible Series, p. 365 Textual Note to Ex. 12:40), which I cited above:

"4QExodb and some Syr MSS have "in the land of Egypt", while other Syr MSS support MSS. This is a minor matter. More serious is the LXX variant "in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan", paralleled by Sam's more logical "in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt" (cf. also Kenn 651, "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in the land of Goshen") see also previous TEXTUAL NOTE. The tradition that 430 years is the duration from Abraham to Moses also appears in Jubilees; Bib. Ant. 9.3; Demetrious the hronographer; the Qumran Testaments of Levi and Qohat; the vision of Amram (Grelot 1975); Josephus Ant. 2.318 (contrast Ap. 1.299); Gal. 3:17; Tg. Ps. Jonathan; Exod Rab. 18:11, and various early church historians (see Dillman 1880: 120-21). The opinion of some commentators notwithstanding (e.g., Johnson 1969), the shorter MT is preferable. On ecn easily envision the pristine text undergoing progressive expansion, while it is harder to account for the MT as abbreviated (Kreuzer 1991). See further under NOTE.

"thirty ... and four hundred. Here and in v41, LXXB as a variant "four hundred, thirty five," perhaps reflecting a particular scribe's or group's understanding of biblical chronology (see Kreuzer 1991:258)."

From Rowley, I should probably have cited pp. 66-73, which deals with the same issue. My mind was racing ahead.

Besides the issues in the text and interpretation of Ex. 12:40, there are significant differences between MT, LXX, and Samaritan in the chronology of the anti-deluvial and post-deluvial patriarchs in Genesis, which significantly affect the calculation.

So no, it is not accurate to claim the Bible says that the Exodus took place in 2666 AM. That is simply one interpretation of the Bible. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? We all know that 2666 AM is fiction. So it's not like we claim it were true. And that's the problem with the Bible, in general: we have absolutely no idea what the original text was. That implies there isn't any version of the Bible which is accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You think it is OK for wikipedia to present incorrect information on the grounds that "we all know ... it is a fiction"? Who is "we"? Have you forgotten that at least some of your readers are fundamentalists who honestly believe the universe is approximately 6,000 years old?

My suggestion is that you turn the passage in question into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman. That way it will be clear that its contents represent their interpretation. That is not the impression which a reader currently receives.

Incidentally, I have since noticed that the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible" also claims the Exodus occurred in 2666 AM. At least it makes it clear that it is quoting the work of Thomas Thompson. I'm not sure why he gets (near) exclusive billing in that article. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaeobuf, please review our policy on original research. What you've put together is all very erudite and convincing, but not for Wikipedia purposes. Our sources may rely on the Peshitta. the Septuagint, the Targumim, Josephus etc. We rely on them to interpret these for us because they are reliable. Saying "I think this is how they got to their conclusion, therefore it is wrong" is simply beyond our remit. I would not be opposed to attributing that particular piece of information, but I am also pretty okay with it staying as it is. So I guess the onus is on you to form a consensus around your proposal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting very frustrating. Much of the public relies upon wikipedia to provide them with accurate, correct information. That is a big responsibility.

It is up to you to choose which sources you consider to be reliable. I have given you evidence that, in this case, the source which you chose is not reliable. As a compromise, I suggested putting its statement in quotes so as to make it apparent that the entire statement represents that source's opinion. Yet you insist on propagating information that is demonstrably incorrect? And since when is another wikipedia article someone's "original research"? Archaeobuf (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You should perhaps look at WP:OTHERCONTENT as well. I am sincerely sorry if you're frustrated by Wikipedia processes, but we are after verifiability, not truth. If you'd like to make the case that the source is not reliable, you could certainly seek other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it appears to be quoting Ex. 12:40-41 directly, not Dozeman and Schechtman. That is a direct violation of wikipedia policy. Archaeobuf (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am done here. When you have a consensus supporting your change, by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My impression that 2666 is in fact the scholarly consensus hasn’t been shaken at all by anything brought here. On the contrary. So the information is not “incorrect” and I see no reason to change it. At best, we can link to biblical chronology. That article includes multiple sources that all agree on that dating (despite the claim above that it only uses Thompson). We would have no difficulty replacing the citation to Schectman and Dozeman even if they were for whatever reason not considered reliable (and to be clear, the sole basis for claiming they aren’t reliable is that they use the 2666 dating that is also found in all these other sources on biblical chronology. So not a very persuasive argument).—-Ermenrich (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How long did it take the four of us to figure out that Dozeman and Schechtman were relying upon Thompson's reconstruction of the biblical chronology? At the very least, an additional footnote is needed here, either to Thompson, to Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible".

A typical Wikipedia user would first encounter what appears to be a direct quote of Ex. 12:40-41. If he were familiar with the Hebrew text or cautious enough to recheck the citation, he would become very perplexed, because the plain text of those verses in isolation does not support what Wikipedia appears to claim it means. A sufficiently sophisticated user would then return to the Wikipedia text, note the citation to Dozeman and Schechtman, and conclude that Wikipedia was actually citing Dozeman and Schechtman's interpretation of Ex. 12:40-41. If he or she was sufficiently sophisticated, he or she would then check Dozeman and Schechtman itself. At that point, he or she would become even more perplexed, because Dozeman and Schechtman apparently do not cite at that point the source for their interpretation (at least, they did not do so in the snippet which you quoted for me). Now the user has a personal research project on his hands to figure out what is going on -- or more likely, he or she would just dismiss the quote as unreliable, as I did.

I would suggest keeping the quote, but taking two steps to fix it:

1). Add a footnote to Thompson, Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible", preferably attached directly to the citation of Ex. 12:40-41.

2). Turn the passage into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, or at least begin the whole sentence with the phrase "According to Dozeman and Schechtman ..."

Incidentally, I greatly appreciate all the time which you editors have spent with me on this issue. I have learned a great deal about Wikipedia's procedures, its strategy for verification, etc. Had I known at the start what I know now, I would have started off with a very different complaint: namely, that the passage appeared to be quoting 12:40-41 directly and thereby misled the reader. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)