Talk:Moses/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Strabo

Strabo is identified as a Roman, but in fact he was Greek, as is correctly stated in the article about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.31.50 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Moses' Appearance

Moses was a Black Man. Because of the Hebrews' population growth, the Egyptians decided they would impose upon them their own form of birth control. Pharaoh made a decreed that all Hebrew baby boys are killed at birth.

Exodus 1:22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive This brings us directly to the story of Moses.

Moses was born a Hebrew - Israelite from the tribe of Levi (exodus 2:1-3). He spent 40 years in the house of pharaoh (Acts 7:23) and was raised as the Pharaoh's Grandson

Exodus 2: 10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. Moses had the same physical characteristics because again, he was raised in the house of Pharaoh, as the grandson of Pharaoh, when Pharaoh ordered all Hebrew males to be killed at birth. If the Israelites were a white-skinned people, how could Moses the Hebrew survive (secretly) in the house of Pharaoh among black-skinned Egyptians for 40 years, and not be noticed.

Furthermore, after giving the decree (himself) to kill all Hebrew males, how could Pharaoh face and rule over his people, if he knowingly had one living in his house with all the rights and privileges of his own family? Moses survived 40 years in the palace of Pharaoh because he was a black man just as the Egyptians were.

This is deep, Pharaoh looked into the eyes of Moses as a baby and thought this was his own flesh and blood. He looked into the eyes of Moses as a teenager and thought this was his own flesh and blood. He looked into the eyes of Moses as a young man in his 20's and 30's and thought this was his own flesh and blood. Pharaoh saw Moses grow into a man of 40 and he thought this was his own flesh and blood grandson.

Just as Joseph's brothers couldn't tell the Hebrews from the Egyptians. Pharaoh couldn't either, or Moses would have been killed instantly.

Scripture tells us that Moses killed an Egyptian, after he saw him mistreating a Hebrew. So Moses had to flee from Egypt for his life, because Pharaoh found out and sought to kill him (Exodus 2:12-15). Pharaoh was trying to kill Moses because he found out Moses was a Hebrew and not his flesh and blood grandson.

Moses fled to the land of Midian (located in Saudi Arabia) where he helped seven daughters of the priest of Midian water their flock, after chasing away some bully shepherds. The girls went home to their father, Reuel and told him what happened. Exodus 2:16-19 16 Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock.

17 And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock.

18 And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day?

19 And they said, An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock.

Notice they didn't say a Hebrew in Egyptian clothing saved us, they described Moses as a black-skinned descendant of Ham (Egyptian).

Further proof that Moses was "black" can be found in Exodus 4:6-7, In this passage,YAHAWAH, (The Creator's name in Hebrew) is showing Moses miracles so that he can prove to the children of Israel who sent him. YAHAWAH tells Moses to put his hand into his bosom, which he does. When he takes his hand out, it is LEPROUS (White) as snow.

Verse 7 says, YAHAWAH told Moses to put his hand back into his bosom, and it turned as his other flesh. Meaning that the rest of his body (skin) was other than white or the opposite of white, which is black.

YAHAWAH goes on to say in Verse 8 that if they (the Israelites) don't believe in the first sign (turning Moses rod into a serpent) then they will believe in the second sign which was changing his skin white. YAHAWAH is stating how powerful the second sign is, it will make a believer out of the stiff neck Israelites.

Exodus 4: 8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign. In the book of Numbers, chapter 12 verse 1, Moses' sister and brother, Miriam and Aaron spoke out against him because he married an Ethiopian woman, (not because she was black skinned, but because she was of another culture / Nation, read Acts 10:28:) their behavior angered YAHAWAH. Verse 10 says, He TURNED MIRIAM LEPROUS, WHITE AS SNOW. Once again if Miriam, who was a Hebrew, was white to begin with, what would have been the curse of turning a white skinned person white? YAHAWAH was angry with her, he showed his anger by turning her white with leprosy. If she was already white, why not turn her Jet Black?

Numbers 12:9 And the anger of YAHAWAH was kindled against them; and he departed.

10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous (white).

11 And Aaron said unto Moses, Alas, my Master, I beseech thee, lay not the sin upon us, wherein we have done foolishly, and wherein we have sinned.

12 Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.--Knighthonor (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Old Testament characters

Abraham - Amenemhet I

Jacob - Yakubher

Moses - Thuthmose III

David - Psusennes I

Solomon - Siamun

WillBildUnion (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

See the original research guidelines and the reliable source guidelines. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Moses native

MOSES was born in nubian land and put in basket then the known story ...its real name in his his nubian language (MUNSA) regarding philological issues means ::forgotten::

researcher in Abrahamatic religions related to contemporary conscious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.29.161.82 (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

unnamed pharaoh?

I am pretty sure Pharaoh Seti I ordered that all children should be killed (something like that).

12.34.35.152 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

From Moses to Mahaprabhu by Srila Saccidananda Bhaktivinode Thakura If the reader carefully considers, it will be found that the spiritual science gradually evolved from ancient times and became more simple, more clear and more condensed. The more impurities arising from time and place are removed, the more the beauties of the spiritual science brightly shine before us. This spiritual science took birth in the land of kusha grass on the banks of the Sarasvati river in Brahmavarta. As it gradually gained strength, this spiritual science spent its childhood in the abode of Badarikashram, which is covered with snow. It spent its boyhood in Naimisharanya on the banks of the Gomati river and its youth on the beautiful banks of the Kaveri river in the province of Dravida. The spiritual science ayyained maturity in Navadvip, on the banks of the Ganges, which purifies the universe.

By studying the history of the world, it is found that the spiritual science reached its peak in Navadvip. The Supreme Absolute Truth is the only object of love for the living entities. Unless one worhips Him with attachment, however, the living entity can never attain Him. Even if a person gives up all affection for this world and thinks of the Supreme Lord, He is still not easily achieved. He is controlled and attained by transcendental mellows alone. These mellows are of five types - shanta, dasya, sakya, vatsalya and madhurya.

The first mellow, shanta, is the stage in which the living entity surpasses the pains of material existence and situates himself in transcendence. In that state there is a little happiness, but no feeling of independence. At that time the relationship between the practitioner and the Lord is not yet established.

Dasya rasa is the second mellow. It contains all the ingradients of shanta rasa as well as affection. "The Lord is my master, and I am His eternal servant". This type of relationship is found in dasya rasa. No one cares much for any of the best things of this world unless they are connected with affection. Therefore dasya rasa is superior to shanta rasa in many ways.

Sakya is superior to dasya. In dasya rasa there is a thorn in the form of awe and reverence, but the main ornament in sakya rasa is the feeling of friendship in equality. Among the servants, one who is a friend is superior. There is no doubt about it. In sakya rasa all the wealth of shanta and dasya is included.

It is easy to understand that vatsalya is superior to sakya. A son gives more affection and happiness than any friend. Therefore in vatsalya rasa we find the wealth of four rasas. Although vatsalya rasa is superior to these other rasas, it appears insgnificant before madhurya rasa. There may be many secrets unknown between father and son, but this not the case between husband and wife. Therefore, if we deeply consider, it will be seen that all the above-mentioned rasas attain perfection within madhurya rasa.

If we go through the histories of these five rasas, it is clearly understood that shanta rasa was seen in the beginning days of India. When the soul was not satisfied after performing sacrifices with material ingredients, then transcendentalists like Sanaka, Sanatana, Sanat-kumara, Sananda, Narada and Lord Shiva all became detached from the material world, situated in transcendence and realized shanta rasa.

Much later, dasya rasa manifested in Hanuman, the servant of Sri Ramachandra. That same dasya rasa gradually expanded in the northwest and manifested in a great personality named Moses.

In the age of Dvapara, Uddhava and Arjuna became the qualified authorities of sakhya rasa. They preached this rasa throughout the world. Gradually tha rasa expanded up to the Arabian countries and touched the heart of Mohammed, the knower of religious principles.

Vatsalya rasa manifested throughout India in different forms at different times. Among the different forms, vatsalya mixed with opulence crossed India and appeared in a great personality named Jesus Christ, who was a preacher of Jewish religious principles.

Madhurya rasa first shone brightly in Braj. It is extremely rare for this rasa to enter the hearts of conditioned souls, because this rasa tends to remain with qualified, pure living entities. This confidential rasa was preached by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, the moon of Navadvipa, along with His followers.

Till now, this rasa has not crossed beyond India. Recently a scholar from England named Newman realized something about this rasa and wrote a book about it. The people of Europe and America have not been satisfied with vatsalya rasa mixed with opulence as preached by Jesus Christ. I hope, by the grace of the Lord, in a very short time they will become attached to drinking the intoxicating nectar of madhurya rasa.

It has been seen tha any rasa that appears in India eventually spreads to the western countries, therefore madhurya rasa will soon be preached throughout the world. Just as the sun rises first in India and gradually spreads its lights to the West, the matchless splendor of spiritual truth appears first in India and gradually spreads to the Western countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.28.59 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Date of Exodus section

This section seems extra large, especially for this topic. It could be condensed, or maybe included in the article on Exodus. It also may be out of place in a Historiography section as it relates mostly to Biblical archaeology. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Why has any reference to a date been removed from this article? Did Moses live in a timeless vaccuum? Does Moses have a millenium when he is alleged to have lived? Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

American history section

This was removed today by another editor, replaced in error by Cluebot, and I removed it again for the same reason, this was an attempt to merge an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, added by the same person who created the deleted article. We can't overturn the deletion process in this way. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As commented in the ANI section, the material did not "overturn the deletion process" and was in fact a major rewrite and 70% shortening, all in order to meet the earlier rationales for deletion. Hence, this section should be added back, and should be considered an improvement to the article. It has been supported. I have no problem with the fact that you had "limited Internet connectivity during the June discussion and didn't see it [this discussion]," since I have also missed talk page discussions before doing article edits. However, we should discuss and keep the merits of the material in the talk page, as was done in the above sections.

The only other opposition was an implication that material about "American history" was too "America-centric," which some might agree is more a point of logic, not opposition. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And in May - see "consensus section" two editors endorsed my removal, with you opposing it. You haven't gained consensus since then to restore it, although you did. Do you really see consensus for it's having been replaced after it was removed earlier this year? Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no support to your removal based on your rationale, that it "bypassed the delete decision" relating to the original, and 3-times larger article. One person, who joined in, wrote for his rationale that the material was "not particularly high quality material, undue weight to one national tradition," and the 2nd one gave a similar rationale, "gives undue weight to just one episode in the general Moses reception." Those may be rationales for editing or rephrasing, which no one has done, but not for deleting an entire section on American history and wrongfully bypassing open discussion. Your rationale, which is shown to be incorrect, was merely used as a pretext by those other editors to the removal for ulterior reasons unrelated to yours. There has indeed been support for inclusion. User:Jayjg presented some questions, which were then answered. He did not continue to oppose inclusion, which could be assumed a form of tacit approval.

An added comment you made in May for why even our president Obama referring to Moses in an important speech, is likewise not any kind of rationale:

It shows no evidence that history would have been different if there had never been a Moses story. The story is used as an example, if there had been no Moses story Obama would have used another example.

I assumed you knew that an OR and POV statement like that does not belong anywhere, not even on a talk page. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.125.94.231, 18 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please have the picture of the statue of Moses be the first image. It makes sense that a picture of Moses be first rather than a picture of him as a baby with other people. 174.125.94.231 (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I see nothing wrong with that. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done: There is already an almost identical painting just below this one. One baby image is enough. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link, minor nuisance

The section on Michelangelo's horned statue links to a church of St. Peter in Venice, whereas the statue is actually in the Basilica di San Pietro in Vincoli. The correct link should be this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_di_San_Pietro_in_Vincoli (Apologies if this is something I could have fixed myself, but the article seems to be protected, as well it probably should be, considering its subject.)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.84.55.185 (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrmusumeci, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The following should be added to the Christian's View of Moses' Life: The body of Moses shall never be found because Michael the Archangel retrieved the body of Moses immediately after Moses' death (Jude 9, NIV). In addition and even more importantly, Moses appeared in the transfiguration with the Lord Jesus Christ along with Elijah (Math 17:2, Mark 9:2, NIV). The transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the resurection of those who are in Christ and therefore, eternal life. Elijah did not see death but was translated into the presence of God (IIKings 2:11-12, NIV). Therefore, Elijah, already in the presence of God, together with Moses, whose body was recovered by Michael the Archangel and was then also in the presence of God, is transfigured along with the Lord Jesus Christ, who came from the presence of God and will be raised unto eternal life after his death on the cross. The transfiguration that included Moses, with our Lord Jesus Christ, and Elijah, is therefore a promise that, our mistakes aside, God will honor our faith in Him and bring us into His Presence, and therefore, eternal life. This is the promise for all believers in our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ. Mrmusumeci (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. Please read the current section for an example of a neutral, encyclopedic tone. If you want to add to the section, please detail what you would like to add in a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail and use a neutral tone. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mrmusumeci, 16 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The following should be added to the Christian's View of Moses' Life: The body of Moses was taken by Michael the Archangel who retrieved the body of Moses immediately after Moses' death (Jude 9, NIV). In addition and even more importantly, Moses appeared in the transfiguration with Jesus Christ along with the prophet Elijah (Math 17:2, Mark 9:2, NIV). The transfiguration is a foreshadowing of the resurrection of those who are in Christ, and therefore, will experience eternal life (John 11:25). Elijah did not see death but was translated into the presence of God (II Kings 2:11-12, NIV). Therefore, Elijah, already in the presence of God, together with Moses, whose body was recovered by Michael the Archangel and was also in the presence of God, is transfigured along with Jesus Christ, who came from the presence of God and was raised unto eternal life after his death on the cross (John 20:17). The transfiguration that included Moses, Jesus Christ, and Elijah, is therefore a promise that, mistakes aside, God will honor those who place their faith in Him and bring them into His Presence, and therefore, eternal life (reference the thief on the cross, Luke 23:43). Mrmusumeci (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I don't see how this is fundamentally (no pun intended) different than the previous request. This is not the place for a religious tract; this section describes how Christianity in general views Moses. Please read it. If you have anything to add in an equally neutral and encyclopedic tone, please make another request. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dating of Moses

Why are there no historical dates in the article for Moses existence? Certainly academic scholarship has been able to approximate dates for certain events in his life. However, this article appears to have no reference to any dating whatsoever... That leaves it as a very unencyclopaedic article. Stevenmitchell (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You want to read Moses#Historicity, which does have "historical dates", such as the quoted "possibility of a Moses-like figure in Transjordan ca 1250-1200 [BC]". Please read the entire article before complaining about what is or is not in it. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What does the inscription say on the Russian icon?

Could you please add a translation of the inscription of the Russian icon, for those of us who don't know Slavonic? Thanks! -- 77.7.155.77 (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Biography of Living Person?

This page is locked to prevent modification of the biography of a living person?

Really?

I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic faiths regard Moses as still living. So - is this a Scientology thing? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.5.105 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected because of vandalism.

It is NOT "locked to prevent modification of the biography of a living person".71.109.146.207 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, though, the BLP semi-protection template was used, which could cause it to appear that way. I've changed it to the vandalism semiprotection template. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Biblical longevity template

This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it featured so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted this from both Moses and Jacob with the same talk comment and not taken my hint to centralize discussion at the ongoing mediation. Because this issue is relevant to some 80 articles, please continue there. JJB 05:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a rationale for keeping the template on this page. We are discussing the content of this page, here on the talk page related to that content. Please explain why it should be included here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, please centralize discussion as above. This template and its sister appear in 82 articles. JJB 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be 82 articles too many. What was the rationale on the last article it was added to? "This template appears in 81 articles?" You have not provided a rationale for this list of essentially irrelevant data. Vote to remove this trivia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it really doesn't belong here. I'm not convinced it belongs anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that no editors are talking about applicability to Moses, but only to general applicability as if this is already a WP:TFD and as if WP:NOTVOTE doesn't apply. The question is whether comparison of Moses' age to other Biblical figures is appropriate. Well, sure enough, this article quotes Easton's Dictionary on that very point. I've also seen it argued that the 3-year gap with Aaron assigns Aaron a "fourth clan" among the traditional three Levitical clans. Comparison with Joshua (110) is also prevalent, and the Talmud has exceeding detail on age comparisons and significances. Even the primary text, such as in Moses' personal genealogy in Ex. 6, makes clear that age comparison is significant by listing ages only for Levi, Kohath, and Amram, rather than anyone else who is not a direct forebear of Moses. I'm not bothering to search sources right now because they are so widespread it takes awhile to find the most reliable. Now you could make a different case, as G hints, and say that the template was misplaced or should be on hide status, which might have standing in undue-weight and are fine solutions, as no undue weighting was intended, only graphic/text flow. In short, ample sources indicate such a comparison is encyclopedic, and this template has amicably and stably served that function since its inception. JJB 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that you had created it, but I am still very dubious that it belongs anywhere. And it links to a heavily disputed article, Longevity myths, which I don't thinik is a good idea. It is transcluded to 43 articles, I don't know where your figure of 82 comes from but it's wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug, it is correct, please read the first link I posted, where your continuation of this topic should continue per WP:MULTI, unless you have something to say about Moses. JJB 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB content in individual articles is decided on the talk pages of those articles. You're creating a diversion here with WP:MULTI. There is no consensus to include this trivia. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

G, per WP:TALK, "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about (other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." I am the only one talking about Moses, you are cutting-and-pasting arguments. We have followed each other well so far in this discussion on trimming longevity articles, but now you are pointedly breaking basic talk rules and not sticking to the subject. The fact is that "Aaron 123 Moses 120" and the like are very well-sourced subtopics for this article. There is in fact no consensus to delete from this article, only to do something that should be discussed by a wider group, as I first said. You are also not interacting with my compromises to demote or hide the template. JJB 17:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, you are simply ignoring what others are saying and wiki-lawyering in the worst way here. I'm not really up for this right now. I'll leave you with your WP:OWN mentality to argue with other people. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pure unadulterated trivia. In fact it's worse than trivia, as it adds an age scorecard. There is no relevance to such a massive block of age-related scores and implied, but silly relationships to the article. IMO, it's an embarrassment to have it here, and maybe anywhere. Note your addition to Longevity myths: "In fall 1955, Guinness World Records began maintaining a list of the verified oldest people . . ." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT trivia. Get a brain, and use it. Age, and especially old age, is NOT trivial. Did you know that 44% of the US national budget goes to the aged (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security)? Did you know that 80% of claims to age 110+ in the Social Security records are false, thus implying massive fraud? Did you know that age verification of extreme age claims dates to the 1870s, not the 1950s? Life insurance companies and actuaries are very interested. Did you know that most scientists consider claims above age 130 to be mythical? Even at age 115, 99% of claims made are false. Even at age 110, a majority of claims made are false, even in the U.S. Age, to you, may be just a number...but to actuaries and insurance agents and government officials, it's money. To scientists, it's an issue of fact versus fiction. How can we demonstrate life extension, should it occur, if we don't know how long people live?

What significance does a Biblical template of longevity have? First off, it provides a useful example of the beliefs of a major culture...the Judeo-Christian culture...regarding longevity. Note that in Islam, we also have longevity: Jesus died at age "120" in the Koran, although the Christian Jesus died at 33 1/2 years. Why the discrepancy? A lot of this has to do with the fact that extreme age is seen as honorific and age "120" is the age that the Biblical Moses lived to. Islam denies the resurrection and crucifixion, so age 33 is out. But Islam still reveres the words of Jesus as a prophet, so a semi-mythical age association of "120" is made.

It's a shame that people like you can't tell the difference between a video game and encyclopedic material. Many, many Christian scholars have analyzed Biblical ages, pointing out that various ages are associated with sin and punishment or blessing and life fulfillment. Whether the template needs cleanup is irrelevant. That people like you deny its importance without even giving it a thought, shows that too often, arguments on Wikipedia have devolved into blogger-style disputes, rather than an honest discussion of content.Ryoung122 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, quit arguing about it and nominate the darned thing for deletion. TfD is the place to hash it out. here, I'll do it for you.--Ludwigs2 19:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

there you go, have at it.

Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds

It is strongly recommended that those who can actually edit this article, change the references "Red Sea" to "Sea of Reeds" or incorporate the "Sea of Reeds" in the text when ever "Red Sea" is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.152.175 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also there are references which suggest that Moses was able to predict solar eclipses. That is how his staff turned into the largest snake that ate all the others. The snake was the "length of the cast shadow". Egyptians used analemmas to time their agricultural processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mosaic Law

Lisa, since this is the first removal of material on this page, i shall make additional review of the sources. However, you must note that [WP:RS] is not equal to [WP:NOR], so the provided reason for removing my edit is not entirely solid by mentioning them both. Never the less, i shall ignore your mistake, since [WP:RS] is legitimate claim in this case until the sources are reviewed. In addition, you are advised not to rely on such statements as as we have seen before, since you do not represent any judging body or wikipedian authority (refer to yourself as singular). Finally, i would like to remind you that [WP:5P] clearly says you do not own the article and must avoid of personal attacks (Wikipedia is free content - no editor owns any article; Wikipeadians should interact in a respectful and civil manner - "...avoid of personal attacks"). I hope you understand.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Life of Moses

How about disentangling the Exodus story from the later legends and putting them in two separate sections? PiCo (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

makes sense, also The Exodus has its own article, and we do not need more than a brief summary of that for the purposes of this article. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical narrative section

The section contains this sentence: "According to Genesis 46:11, Amram's father Kehath immigrated to Egypt with 70 of Jacob's household, making Moses part of the second generation of Israelites born during their time in Egypt." This seems like OR to me. After all, between Jacob coming to Egypt and Moses leading the Exodus are (according to Exodus 12:40) 200 to 400 years. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Also, the narrative section is far too long and needs to be shortened to about half its present length. It isn't the point of this article to retell the biblical narrative in every detail. There are enough online bibles, and people can simply go and read the Book of Exodus if they are interested in the narrative. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Name, again

In my view name Mosheh is clearly an epithet of a "deliverer", which makes perfect sense in view of the Exodus tradition. Nevertheless, the Hebrew text itself gives an aitiological myth for the name, deriving it from the scene where the baby is drawn out of the river.

We should also keep in mind that the name Mošeh is only recorded in the Masoretic text. Strictly speaking, the Hebrew text of antiquity just records mšh, and you can't analyze that for grammatical form. But I don't think there is any doubt that the name was Mošeh from at least 300 BC, and probably also in 500 BC when the text was redacted, because the LXX rendition is Mωϋσῆς.

Following Gesenius, the article is simply saying that the traditional explanation, verifiably dating to antiquity, is "the one who was drawn out", while modern etymologies may prefer "the one who draws out", i.e. "Saviour", but then there are also other modern etymologies which follow Josephus in comparing Coptic (Egyptian). --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I like all this, but I read that Mose was a common name in Egypt... Isn't that an epithet?

Yes, as far as I know Mose is only recorded in Masoretic maybe someone smart could compare the dates for when cartouches were used to see if the dates match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.136.5 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Moses isn't a historical character. If you find a cartouche sensationally mentioning Moses, you should announce the discovery in scholarly literature, not on Wikipedia. Egyptian ms is an element in names such as Tuthmose, Ahmose etc. The "mose" spelling is just the conventional Egyptological pronunciation. There is no reason to assume that it has anything to do with Hebrew Mosheh. --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Paul222148, 27 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} From the article on Moses - According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time when his people, the Children of Israel, were increasing in number and the Egyptian Pharaoh was worried that they might help Egypt's enemies. Moses' Hebrew mother, Jochebed, hide him when the Pharaoh ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed.

The above passage should be amended to read "hid him" not "hide him" Paul222148 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Moses' wife or wives

My understanding is that there's some debate as to whether Moses had one, two, or three wives. Is this in fact the case? If so, it seems as though it bears mentioning in the article. I'm no expert in this field, and would be interested to hear someone with more authority weigh in. Mattymatt (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add circa date of Moses' life

I'm surprised this page doesn't once list the alleged date, circa 1400 BCE, of Moses' life (Ex. 6:16-20). That's one of the most basic and important starting points of any biography. Here's a ref link for it. http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

please read the article. Moses cannot be established as a historical individual and thus doesn't have any lifespan. All we can say is what Talmudic scholars have said about the question. We give such a calculation in footnote 67. It could be discussed more prominently if you provide better references to Talmudic texts. Your jewfaq.org reference is worthless. It says "Moses was born on 7 Adar in the year 2368 from Creation", but it doesn't say who said so. This may or may not be the Seder Olam date. If it is, the correct BCE date would be 1391. This calculation may date to the 2nd century BCE. But we need scholarly literature to substantiate this, we cannot rely on educated guesses based on a google search. I think the best place to discuss this would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus article, which deals with attempts of placing The Exodus (and hence Moses) in an Egyptological context. The short answer is that such attempts have failed. --dab (𒁳) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the "In Judaism" parts of this article need improvement. The Moses in Rabbinic Literature article is a joke. Also, dates for Moses in Early Christian tradition would be of interest. Jerome apparently places the birth of Moses at 1592 BC. Needless to say, these sources also have the birth year of Abraham, Noah and Adam. They are interesting in their own right, but they have nothing to do with historicity. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you... but can't we please add at least some range of dates for Moses? Prehaps, 14th through 15th century BCE, and if you like include something explaining that it's only an alleged date without historicity. Jadon (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a little annoyed with your jewfaq.org "reference". By all means we can add traditional birth years, i.e. the one of Seder Olam, the one of Jerome, and others if you can identify them. But this needs to be referenced properly and presented in the correct context. If you can provide this, I do invite you to make the addition. I do not think it makes sense to present a "range" of dates, because these aren't scholarly estimates with error bars, they are discrete values from identifiable traditions. Note that this is not a biography article, it is an article about a character in the Torah and its reception in later tradition. As you can see from Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus, the actual range of suggestions spans the 17th to 13th centuries. But these suggestions aren't all notable, and not all of them assume a historical Moses even if they assume a historical Exodus. --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The bible records quite unambiguously that the Exodus occurred in Moses's 80th year, and that this (the Exodus) was in the year 2226 after Creation. Certainly worth mentioning. PiCo (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moses being aged 80 at the Exodus and 120 at the time of his death can obviously be integrated in the "biblical narrative" part of the article. The calculation of the Annus Mundi of his birth is biblical exegesis and belongs under "in Jewish/Christian tradition". "The Bible" is not a single document, but a compilation of many unrelated documents. It is one thing to state what the Exodus narrative itself contains, it is another to report naive chronological calculations based on the genealogies of the patriarchs. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for your claim that in Biblical chronology Moses was born in AM 2146 (2226-80)? I mean, I have just given the Seder Olam claim the benefit of doubt, but it's not like it's actually referenced. Ussher (1658) says AM 2385. Seder Olam Rabbah allegedly says 2368. Our Biblical chronology article says 2367 (also no reference). Now you insist on an "unambiguous" AM 2146? I have tried to accommodate these dates in a brief summary in the lead, but can you please bother to provide references (better than jewfaq.org) before calling for the inclusion of such stuff? --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Masoretic dating, the exodus happened in 2448 AM (see The Exodus#Date). As Moses was 80 years old at the time (see Exodus 7:7), per the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism, he must have been born in 2368 AM, which corresponds to 1392 BCE. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the Biblical chronology entries. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can believe that a man of 80 can bound up and down Mt Sinai like a mountain goat you should have no trouble with the ages of the Patriarchs.

The article on Biblical chronology is under the watchful eye of Lisa, who won't allow that the bible is anything but God's literal truth - it's a very bad article, and these two facts may be connected. For something a little more soundly based, try Jeremy Hughes's "Secrets of the Times". (Published by Sheffield Academic Press - he's kosher). PiCo (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab, perhaps I didn't answer your question very well. The fact is there's no point in trying to find a date in real history for Moses and the Exodus, as the chronology of the Old Testament is symbolic, not historic. It counts off time in units of 480 years, which is a theologically significant number (it's 4x12 raised to 100, all of which carried symbolic meaning - 4 symbolised the Earth, 12 was Heaven, and 100 was an intensifier, so that 480 means an extremely important event uniting Heaven and Earth). Thus it's 480 years from the Tabernacle to the foundation of Solomon's Temple (this is stated in Kings), and another 480 from then to the dedication of the Second Temple combining figures given in Kings and Ezra - which, incidentally, shows that the persons responsible for the chronology lived after the return from Babylon). There's therefore no point in trying to count backward from a historically secure date (586 BCE, the second year of Cyrus, the year Ezra gives as that of the dedication of the Second Temple) through those two 480 year periods to the year of the Exodus (and then back another 80 to the birth of Moses, if you're so inclined). If you want to talk about chronology at all, you have to recognise and respect what the biblical authors were trying to do - the bible is theology, not history. (The source is that book by Hughes, which is pretty exhaustive, but you can also look up standard references such as the Mercer Bible Dictionary).PiCo (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

we clearly have a problem of communication. You keep explaining stuff, and I keep asking for a reference. The question of whether "there is a point" of calculating a BCE date of Moses imo is completely irrelevant. I am only interested in what the sources say. If the Seder Olam Rabbah in 160 CE calculated such a date, my position is that we can also report that date, regardless of whether there is a "point" in reporting that (of course the Seder Olam doesn't use "BCE", it uses the date of Alexander's conquest. Which we know was in 331 BCE, so it's easy enough to convert that). As for a discussion of "symbolism" and what not, you are on the right track, simply give the proper citation of Hughes, Mercer or whatever and you will have made a valuable addition.

You don't need to convince me that Moses isn't historical. But the Moses story is historical, it was written about 2,700 years ago. But of course there are historical people, such as the author of Seder Olam, who were convinced that he was, and it is perfectly appropriate to report what authors in antiquity had to say about Moses. This is why we have "Hellenistic era" and "Rabbinical Judaism" sections in this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dating question

Currently, it is both 2011 CE and 5771 AM (in the Rabbininc Jewish tradition; assumed stated from now on). This means that 3761 AM was 1 CE. However, if I recall correctly, there was no 0 CE, and year 3760 AM corresponds to 1 BCE. As such, that would require subtracting 3761 from dates prior to 3760 AM to get the BCE analogue. This would make Moses's life from 1393 BCE until 1273 BCE. Am I mistaken? -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about the lack of a Year Zero. The rest of it is beyond my limited arithmetic. I think the way to go is to consult a reliable book or website. Just out of curiosity, what do Jews who follow the traditional dating do with events that happened before Creation? (i.e., before 3700 BC or thereabouts?)PiCo (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All dating from that epoch and earlier is approximate anyway. As as for carbon dating and red-shift age of the universe and similar, to paraphrase you from the section above, if one believes in an omnipotent creator, how hard is it to believe that the universe was created already aged (less carbon 14 than should have been, photon streams megaparsecs long created simultaneously with the galaxies that ostensibly emitted them, etc.)? -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

um, but the 2nd century rabbis didn't have carbon dating? This isn't about historical events, it is about traditional calendars and how they relate to one another. Also, we don't know the date of the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) from carbon dating, we know it from historiography. Figuring out the 587 BC date has nothing whatsoever to do with believing or not believing in a creator god. Neither has the task of giving a clean account of the various calendar systems of Late Antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that God created the world very recently but with signs of great age is known as the Omphalos hypothesis (please forgive me if you already know this) - the wiki-article on it is quite good. As that article says, there's no way to either prove or disprove it - but on the other hand, it's not ver useful as a means of explaining the world and all things in it (because if God were capable of creating the world five minutes ago in such a form that it seems billions of years old, then he is also capable of creating me alone in that world, with the rest of you just figments of my God-given imagination... - this is known in metaphysical circles as solipsism, and is equally incapable of disproof or proof). PiCo (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, PiCo. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just explaining how I can simultaneously remain an Orthodox Jew with all that entails and yet appreciate, recognize, and reap the benefits of the marvels of modern science. Religion, in the end, is a matter of faith, after all 8-) -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also the problem of Gregorian vs. Julian years. This makes for a difference of two years over this period. Then there is the Missing years problem, which basically says that the modern Jewish calendar is off 165 (or 163? Julian? Gregorian?) years relative to the ancient Jewish calendar. It's complicated, which (as PiCo says) is why we should base it on literature instead of figuring it out ourselves. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delegation

Shouldn't more of the Moses#Moses in Hellenistic literature be moved to its "main" page? The section is as big as Moses in Hellenistic literature. There should just be a summary in the section.--Zakteh2 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mose's Name

Having studied the story of Mose's, as well as Hieroglyphics, I believe I can make some coherent comments. Pharoh's daughter first identified the baby by hearing it -mesu / -mose. Next she tried to see where he was: m' ssa (in the shallow water?), and m' sha (in the reeds?). This created several different spellings in Egyptian; not to mention further translations. Later, when he was written as a cartouche, he was referred to as the baby drawn out (of the marsh), because the Faroh's daughter's arm was added (perhaps this was the first formal reference).

reference: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=507558852701584314#

this isn't a "reference". Th--VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)e article is aware of suggestions of Egyptian etymology, something of the kind you seem to be suggesting. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ok.

Why are people so myopic and try to prove what's in the Bible by quoting the Bible? Chinese have a saying, "You can't see the mountain when you are in the mountain." To see the big picture, you have to step away. The bigger the mountain, the further away you have to step. The Jews wrote the Old Testement during their Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C. They learned of the well-known old story of the Akkadian, Sagon the Great who, as a baby, was pulled from the river in a reed basket by a gardener. They took the story and made it their own and gave it to their "savior". Moses is not a "name", it's a title. Many Egyptian pharoahs had that title, i.e. Ramoses, Ahmoses, Tutmoses, etc., all well before the Jews wrote their books. If the leader of the Exodus is a "prince of Egypt", he was probably a well educated man and should be well versed in Akhanaton's monotheism claims. As he needed unquestioned obedience when he failed to bring his people to the promised land but got them lost in the desert, he proclaimed Yehweh, the old Israelite God of Host worshiped by Abraham, their one and only god for the band of wanderers. He never claimed Yehweh was the one and only "God" for all people. If you ever read the Bible, you will know that Yahweh is an extremely racist vicious bigot. He was not even able to keep the few tribes of Jews in line. The kingdoms the Jews created were very small and did not last very long. So much for this all mighty Yahweh. When he failed to protect his "chosen people", he blamed the Jews. Christianity and Islam gained supremacy by violence and massacre, the more pagants you slaughter, the greater your sainthood. Have you noticed that only little children sees the world in black and white and their parents are all powerful? That's the simple religion of this simple people to reflect their unsophisticated society. Grown-ups know better. That's why all civilized societies had polytheism where gods were many and complex to reflect their multifaceted cultures. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic law . levites or cohen

im of the cohen/levite tribe and i found that when describeing the levite preists in this section would be more informative by the real name given to them they were cohen preists not levite's there is a blood difrence in levites and cohen tho they derive from the same tribe . the levites are the protectors of the cohen hipreist. if some one could change that that would be great i find it dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.196.204 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

the herbrew word for authanticty is Kohanim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.196.204 (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronoun addition

{{edit semi-protected}}

<The "law of Moses" was discovered in the Temple during the reign of king Josiah (r. 641–609 BCE) probably corresponds...>

likely meant to have relative pronoun before word <was> (eg <which was discovered>) Nickholbrook (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Merneptah?

The name of Merneptah appears in the middle of this article with no explanation - at the very least it neds wikilinking, and mentioning as the "Pharaoh of the Exodus", if that is what is intended. 109.154.68.162 (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mose's Father-in-Law's Name

The article says that his father-in-law's name is Hobab (The Shepherdess's Father) , that was the name of his brother-in-law. His father's name as is well known was Jethro. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_(Bible) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.45.100 (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In Rabbinical tradition Jethro is attributed to have 7 different names (appearing in different places in the bible): http://www.oztorah.com/2009/02/yitros-7-names-yitro/ Yitro's 7 names – Yitro. People’s names in the Bible all have a special meaning. In the case of Jethro – in Hebrew Yitro – there are seven names and seven meanings, according to rabbinic midrash. His two main names are connected with a root that means “additional” – he was “Yitro” because he performed extra good deeds and “Yeter” because he caused extra texts to enter the Torah. He was “Chovav” because he was beloved of God, “Re’u'el” because he was God’s friend, “Chever” because he was a close associate of the Almighty, “Puti’el” because he abandoned idolatry, and “Keni” because he was zealous for God. YSchary (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Scripture 'claims'

To promote an NPOV, then it's reasonable to paraphrase a narrative. So just because the article says that the burning bush was not consumed, that doesn't mean it wasn't consumed - it means the Bible says it wasn't consumed. You can't get more neutral than that.

In contrast, the word 'claims' is a loaded term, since it carries an implication that what is being claimed is not true. Therefore the phrase 'scripture claims' is further away from the NPOV that Wikipedia is trying to promote. I hope you see I'm not saying anything about whether the bush was consumed or not, just trying to promote an academic neutrality. Asnac (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Asnac's argument. Varlaam (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

So it can say 'scripture states'. I agree we shouldn't use 'claims'. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation

This line reflects bias: "Historically, the Exodus narrative can be traced to the 7th century BCE kingdom of Judah, where it acts as a founding myth presented by the Yahwist faction."

That is some scholar's interpretation, and should be listed as such. Articles have to be closely monitored to not reflect bias. Thus, there in contentious matters, statements should be predicated by "According to some scholars," etc. Wikipedia is not a forum for choosing sides or favored positions, but for presenting encyclopedic matter that is wholly without bias. Religious viewpoints should be presented alongside the various different (and oftentimes contradictory) scholarly ones, with each cited by the proponent of the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.75.249 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed this line - not for the reasons given above, though, but because it's a misunderstanding of what the majority of scholars really think. (The Exodus tradition and Moses can be traced to 8th century prophets in Israel, though not earlier). And unsourced. PiCo (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Organisation of Biblical Narrative section

At the moment this section - essentially a summary of the stories in Exodus-Numbers - is organised according to headers that have no relationship to the various books. Wouldn't it be better to organise the events according to the books they're found in - Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers?PiCo (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Questioning the Appropriateness (neutrality) of Biblical Criticism In the First Paragraph of a Biblical Figure

The recent revision entered the following text: "Prominent archaeologists and Egyptologists dispute the existence of Moses as well as the veracity of the Exodus story, citing logical inconsistencies, new archaeological evidence, historical evidence, and related origin myths in Canaanite culture.[3][4][5]"

While all entries of Biblical stories and characters may be subject to biblical criticism and archeological dogma (if I can't find it, it didn't exist), I question the appropriateness of placing this in the first paragraph.

All historical figures (e.g., entries in Wikipedia) can be called into question - yet I do not see these promeniently displayed in other entries: e.g., for example, the actual source material on Alexander the Great is not first hand, yet few doubt his existence, based on human history and achievements.

The fact that an entire people witnessed Moses and his life, which were recorded in a book that has some 6 billion copies printed (and read?) in some 2000 languages - the Bible (http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.html)- seems to be reference enough, even if the authorship that book is debatable (heaven or earth).

Needless to say, while faith and historical records are not always aligned nor reconcilable,in an entry about a faith-based figure, it would seem more reasonable from an editing point of view as well as a neutral point of view, to locate a minority opinion that questions the very existence (validity?) of an entry under a separate cateogry at the end.

My proposal is to relocate this debatable sentence mentioned above under a new subsection of the Modern reception section labaled Biblical / Archeological Criticism YSchary (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The number of copies is completely irrelevant. That 'an entire people' witnessed Moses is highly debatable. And the lead needs to sumnmarise the article, even the bits some people may not like. See WP:LEAD. Whether it is a minority opinion or not is irrelevant, by our criteria it is a significant opinion and belongs in the lead. That's how 'neutral point of view' works. Your comparison with Alexander the Great would only be appropriate if there was a significant view among historians that he never existed. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If Moses was not a biblical character, you can bet that there would be no dispute of his existence. Portillo (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean, I hope, if he wasn't a religious character from long before his first mention in the Bible. There are better documented 'characters', mainly kings, from the distant past, China, Sumeria, etc whose existence is disputed, so you are wrong. Dougweller (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, what I am seeing in this section is a bunch of people pushing their POV.

The sentence as it reads states essentially that a majority of modern scholars believe Moses did not exist.

If that is the case, then you should take out the WP:WEASEL words and the article should say so.

If opinions are divided on the existence of Moses among historians, then the WP:LEAD should not give WP:UNDUE weight to the traditional school of biblical criticism (i.e. that the Bible, unlike most other historical/mythological documents from the period, is complete fabulation with no basis in actual events) over other schools of biblical criticism (e.g. that Moses was probably based on a historical figure of some sort).

The existence or non-existence of Moses, not the vercity of details of his biography, is an appropriate subject for the WP:LEAD.

Many the records we have on the existence of some ancient kings come from the Greeks, or from tablets that are themselves mythical and religious in content, not historiographic. Absent that, history would be silent on them. Yet historians take those accounts (not the details, but the idea that such persons might have existed) seriously, whereas to this day historians do not take the history of e.g. African kingdoms seriously (consistently underestimating their territorial integrity or antiquity on the grounds that we have only oral tradition to go by, e.g. in the case of discoveries of 900-year old royal bronzes in the back yard of a local African chieftain, whose family had long claimed (without support from historians) that their town had been an ancient city state. This is a serious problem in terms of disproportionate weight in the field.

It is also worth pointing out that there is a "significant view among some historians" that Jesus never existed. Should every article about such an ancient figure include such a lead-in? If so, you better get cracking on adding them. If not, then it's optional here and needs to be rewritten for clarity as to what POV the person who added it is pushing in the name of "balance". Another user could just have easily added to the WP:LEAD that "there is a significant view among some historians that Moses existed and that many of the tales about him are true." That would be WP:UNDUE for the same reason. Yclept:Berr (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your comments about the debate over the historicity of Jesus, as his existence is more or less accepted by historians, and he isn't an ancient figure in any case. The lead here actually says, in a better way, that there is a view among historians that he existed and many of the tales are true. What it does not do is use the phrase 'significant view', so why you are suggesting it does is puzzling. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

You can bet that if Moses wasn’t a religious figure he would be labelled outright as “mythical” or “legendary”, like Agamemnon, Helen of Troy, King Arthur, King Lud (supposed founder of London) and many other charming figures of fable. Campolongo (talk) 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest adding in the "Link" section a link to "The Prince of Egypt", a 1998 cartoon about Moses. Also, add a link to "Let My People Go" song by Louis Armstrong. fractal-vortex@yandex.ru

Masoretic Dates

Can someone put the Masoretic dates 1557-1437BC in after his name please? Just to add a bit of context. Thanks.149.254.224.238 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Those dates are conjecture, just as the other dates in the main article and in footnote 7. It's best not to have too much clutter, but if you have a verifiable reference, you may add that to footnote 7, making sure you follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style. — Glenn L (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Avigdor

Can someone who knows something about it add pertinent information to the Name section regarding his Hebrew name "Avigdor"? 71.87.23.22 (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 72.225.205.143, 15 September 2011

The Red Sea is sometimes referred to as the "Sea of Reeds". Please include this on the page (where Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea)

72.225.205.143 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: That type of information belongs on the Red Sea article (and it is on there). — Bility (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

Okay, Doug, perhaps I was a bit too bold. But the 1593 date and Insight ref should be considered even if Jerome's citation for 1592 can't be not verified; apparently both authors had similar reasons for their early date, even as Ussher. — Glenn L (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd leave it as it is. If they used the same chronological calculations in order to arrive at this date (a year's difference is neither here nor there because of uncertainty over the year of Jesus' birth) then the Insight ref does not add anything independent. asnac (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the point, we could probably add a lot more if we did this. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

1 Kings 6:1 says the Exodus took place 477 years before Solomon became king. Solomon became king in approximately 971 b.C. and Exodus 7:7 says that Moses was 80 years old so another age of birth would be 1528 b.C. This would make Thutmoses III pharaoh during the Exodus (1448 b.C.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nielsdolieslager (talk • contribs) 19:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The article can either quote the bible and use dates strictly from the bible or it can try to develop material from archealogy or some other secular means. But the above appears to use both. Can't pick and choose. "Moses", the person, cannot be confirmed outside of Genesis/Exodus and biblical references back to Genesis. Pinning him down by a year is a " real challenge," to say the least. We can probably date the conquest/domination of "Canaan" by the Egyptians, leading to some Israelis being taken to Egypt. The return of their offspring is "difficult" to chronicle, however. Student7 (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Historicity

I understand that ideologies, policies and even people need critics, but I fail to see the need for such vague statements as this:

"Others, such as Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that the Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, is an idea that most biblical historians no longer support. He argues that "biblical studies as we know it must end," and writes of the "irrelevance of the Bible for modern times.""

This line is accompanied by a source, but it offers no information other than that someone named Hector thinks no one should study the bible anymore because it's irrelevant. It basically says, "The story of the exodus is fake and nobody should study the bible." It could (and should) be removed and if it was, the page would lose nothing.

Like I said, I understand the need for a criticism section, but since we all know that there are individuals and even groups that make it a point to dispute the bible, should a "disclaimer" really be added to every page about a biblical subject on wikipedia that states that there are people that think the specified subject is make-believe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.85.168 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It annoys me to quote WP:NN authors on any topic, though sometimes we have no choice. We had a choice here, so I removed Avalos.

From a purely scientific/historic/secular pov, there is no need to consider the story of Moses as an actual fact, word by word. It may be inspired. It may be a lot of things. But historians haven't been able to find anything to corroborate it. Doesn't mean anything for believers. But it does for historians. Student7 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Avalos is a professor of religious studies at Iowa State University, and therefore a "reliable source" as Wikipedia defines the term. However, he's only one such reliable source - you can find others saying all sorts of things, some of them contradicting Avalos. The point, for Wikipedia, is to find what the majority of such reliable, authoritative sources say. This isn't impossible: from time to time a scholar will say, "The majority of modern scholars believe that...", or even "An overwhelming majority of modern scholars believe that..." (fill in the blank). This is what we should be doing, not quoting one person, however authoritative he might be. (In other words, I support the removal of the Avalos quote, but would like to see it replaced with something along the lines I've indicated - try the Introduction to any recent commentary on Exodus). PiCo (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw in the film Zeitgeist that there is an Egyptian god called Mises with a very similar history to Moses why there is no wikiarticle for Egyptian Mises and whay there is no mention of Egyptian Mises in this article?

I saw in the film Zeitgeist that there is an Egyptian god called Mises with a very similar history to Moses why there is no wikiarticle for Egyptian Mises and whay there is no mention of Egyptian Mises in this article?

heinh?

Humanbyrace (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... because that movie is a lunatic collection of conspiracy theories and other drivel? I'm just guessing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now now Lisa, keep it polite :) PiCo (talk) 08:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly. I can only imagine what you'd have to say about it. ;) - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 December 2011

82.12.255.114 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC) A citation tn that appears to take you to a Encyclopedia Britannica source actually takes you a wikipedia page, can this be changed? Wouldn't a link to the source be more useful.

"Moses", note no. 89

 Done Link removed, I can't link to the actual source because apparently you have to pay for it online. CTJF83 15:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Asiya, the wife of Pharaoh

No where in Islam is it claimed that Asiyah is not the daughter of Pharaoh. The article suggests something significant. Faro0485 (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Founder of

If the Islam and Muhammad articles (prominently) state that Muhammad is the founder of Islam shouldn't the same principle (of NPOV) apply to the Judaism and Moses articles? 175.107.232.114 (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Problem. We have conclusive proof that Mohammed existed. We don't have the same for Moses. Student7 (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I don't know that Jews do regard Moses as the founder of Judaism - there's Abraham before him, and in fact all the patriarchs back to Adam. PiCo (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Name

The Egyptian phoneme ms begins to appear in Pharaonic names at the beginning of the New Kingdom, at the end of Hyksos rule, and at one of the possible times of a Biblical Exodus. The phoneme emphasized the divinity of the Pharaonic family as children of divinities: Thut-mose, child of Thoth; Ah(mun)-mose, child of Amun; Ra-mose, child of Ra. If it was taboo to speak the name of the diety YHWH at the time the Books of Moses were written down, a member of the Pharaonic family -- perhaps even an adopted one -- named as a child of YHWH might thus be given a zero form of the divine name: (SILENCE)-mose. Of note is the semantic overlap of the Egyptian and Hebrew etymologies: any child's birth requires that it be "drawn out of the water", that is, the amniotic fluid that bathes it in its mother's womb. Webodactyl (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webodactyl (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

We'd need sources that are reliable by our criteria. See also WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. It would have to be something pretty widely discussed at the very least. Then there's the problem of whose dates to we use for the Exodus (which a lot of people think never took place). Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you read WP:NOR, esp WP:SYNTH. We need sources making the same argument you are making, you can't use sources that don't make the argument. Dougweller (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mosaic Law Section

I think that underneath the further information links inside the Mosaic Law section should include a link to the Halakhah page, since they are synonymous and yet are in still in separate articles. However, the article is semi-protected, so I can not edit it myself to make my proposed change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.153.78 (talk) 01:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Moses "adrift on the Nile?"

I know that's what the source -- the 1906 (a bit dated, wouldn't you say?) Jewish Encyclopedia -- says, but it's not what the biblical text (Bible or Torah) says. Exodus 2 clearly states that Moses' basket was merely placed in the reeds on the bank of the Nile and that's where Pharaoh's daughter found him. No "harrowing journey down the river" as is typically depicted in Hollywood's offerings. 67.233.242.191 (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Eurocentric photos of Moses and Israelites

The photos of Moses need to be removed because they are Biblically inaccurate. White skin was the curse God put on Moses' sister, Miriam, when she dared question Moses as a voice of God (if you will). White skin = leprosy (leprous) = a "defiling skin disease."See Numbers 12:1-10 See also Exodus 4:6 when God temporarily turned Moses' hands "leprous...like snow." These photos included in the article either need to be removed or updated; as they depict Moses "leproused" and with a defiling skin disease. The entire article lacks credibility because of this simple, yet overt and selective ignorance of the scriptures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationnation (talk • contribs) 19:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The idea that white skin is a curse equivalent to leprosy would appear to be a delusion shared by no reliable sources, and just as offensive as the 19th century delusion that black skin is a curse. Leprousy is a real skin disease, and can affect persons of all complexion. You have provided no good reason to censor historical representations of Moses that are appropriate to a good encyclopedia article. Even if they portray him as lighter than he actually was, which is indeed quite probable, they still have historiographic and traditional artistic value. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You said: "The idea that white skin is a curse equivalent to leprosy would appear to be a delusion shared by no reliable sources." Are you saying God is delusional? Please refer to the cited scriptures for the reliable source. You say the photos may be inaccurate, but should remain because they "still have historiographic and traditional artistic value." This is an encyclopedia article (as you've stated as well), not an art studio. You admit the photos are inaccurate, ignore the citations, but say the photos should remain. If nobody can give a rational, reasonable reason to keep these photos, they either need to be removed or updated. "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." These photos misrepresent the facts, are categorically incorrrect, and simply display a Eurocentric idea with "historiographic and traditiona1 artistic value." Operationnation (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say God is delusional at all. I said, the idea that white skin is leprousy is delusional. See the difference in the two statements? It might help your case if you can find an RS making the case that white skin is a disease like leprousy. Simply pointing at a primary source and expecting us to follow your own peculiar interpretation of it is a kind of Original research, which is a misuse of primary sources for a synthesis with no secondary sources to back it up. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We are having a similar argument at Cyrus the Great where someone wants to remove a work of art because it may not accurately portray Cyrus's death. The accuracy of a work of art is not a reason not to include it in an article. This has nothing to do with NPOV (which by the way requires the article not to say that Moses was a real person, so we can't base any arguments on the assumption that he was). Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, this edit[1] by Operationation is interesting. Dougweller (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Name in different languages in the lead

As Moses is seen as a central ancestor of the Hebrews, and his name first appears in Hebrew scriptures, it makes perfect sense giving his name in Hebrew. I don't see the need for any other language, except English, on the English Wikipedia. Versions of his name in Greek and in Arabic are currently given in the lead, and these are hardly relevant as Moses was neither Greek nor Arab. Just as I see no reason to give the English version of his name in the Greek or Arabic Wikipedia, I don't see any reason to include Moses's name in Greek or Arabic here.Jeppiz (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Avigdor

More relevantly than Moses' name in other languages, I think, is Moses' name in Hebrew: Avigdor--something that finds no mention in this article at all, including in the section specifically devoted to his name, a section linked to even from near the top of Avigdor (name). 96.41.249.21 (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Painting of Moses with horns

Why do you feature the Jusepe de Ribera painting, which depicts Moses with horns? This product of the Inquisiton perpetuates antisemitic myths and is offensive.Ny10128 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be good to brush up on classical artistic symbolism; the horns are symbolic of his power and authority, and are not any form of antisemitism. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

See Moses (Michelangelo). Editor2020 (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the Qur'an (?)

The opening paragraph states: Moses was..., according to the Hebrew Bible and the Qur'an, a religious leader.... While this sentence may be true, it strikes me as odd to include the Qur'an here because the paragraph goes on to state that Moses "is also considered an important prophet in Christianity and Islam, as well as a number of other faiths." It seems like that statement alone is enough to demonstrate that Moses is important to religions other than Judaism. Given that the Pentateuch was written many centuries before the Qur'an, it is undoubtedly the parent text for the Islamic traditions about Moses and so it doesn't seem like including the Qur'an adds much to the article. In fact it seems odd to include the Qur'an then go on to batch the "other faiths" in the last sentence. It's sort of like saying "Jesus was, according to the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, etc...." While it's true, adding the Book of Mormon doesn't do much for the sentence since it clearly relied on the New Testament as source material. Maybe I'm being picky but it seems like it would be best to only use the "according to the Hebrew Bible (or Torah, or Pentateuch, or etc.)" in the opening sentence, keep the final sentence about Christianity, Islam and other faiths, and then discuss what the Qur'an says about Moses in the appropriate section about Moses and Islam in the body of the article. I suppose it's not a big deal and it is true as written but it strikes me as odd. Thoughts? Anyone even care at all? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and think the Qur'an ought to be mentioned in the lede because 1) Islam is one of the major four or five world religions and has had considerable time to develop a multitude of traditions regarding Moses, so we should not just put Hebrew Bible and expect that to cover Muslims, because of WP:Systemic Bias. 2) It's not at all indubitable, as you say, that the Pentateuch is the source for the narratives in the Qur'an about Moses. They are quite different. For instance, the Tower to heaven in the Qur'an, instead of Babel, is set in Egypt in Moses' era (Suras 28:38 and 40:36-37). It doesn't seem to rely that closely on the Pentateuch in many respects, but possibly reflects independent Arabic traditions about him. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with original suggestion. Christians and Muslims have obtained their core material from the Hebrew Bible. While the New Testament and the Qur'an may be divinely inspired, they are also clearly derivative. My lead would say (more or less), "Moses was a religious leader first documented in the (Jewish?) Torah." Then say, "Moses "is also considered an important prophet in Christianity and Islam..." This is as close to npov as we can get and (something like this) should not only be adopted here, but for other "Old Testament" figures, as well. No succeeding "religion" should be given "equal time" with the Torah as a basis, IMO. (BTW, I am Catholic). In any case, the Qur'an was written at least 800 years later. Student7 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"Independent Arabic traditions" about Moses, before Mohammed, would need a WP:RS BTW. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying, the Quran text regarding Moses being a completely different narrative, with different information that that of the Torah, is dubious to you and requires verification? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Back to the original question. Reworded. "Jerusalem was attacked and destroyed by Romans according to Josephus and Student7." It's true that Student7 supports this view, but it derives, directly or indirectly from the material furnished by Josephus. Why not take the original/earliest? Otherwise, we wind up with a whole bunch of articles that say, "Daniel was a prophet according to the Jewish Bible, the Qur'an, the New Testament, the Book of the Mormon, and Lord knows who all." And with every sentence, since some of them differ in what material is related.

Mohammed was illiterate. As often happened in those days, he had a "pretty good" memory. But not perfect. The Old Testament was read to him. Then he dictated verses, which (I am led to believe) not only rhyme but have a very catchy metre in Arabic. The words can't be the same even if his memory was perfect. The Koran was assembled by somebody else, so chronology (as bad as it is in the Bible) is much worse in the Qur'an. Facts are going to differ. Student7 (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, facts do differ so that they defeat any argument that the Quranic text simply parrots the OT narrative. Musa is also a revered saint and central figure in this major world religion, and the comparisons with the Book of Mormon fall short because LDS unlike Muslims see themselves as included within another world faith, Christianity. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dating the tradition

As I said in my edit summary, this needs something better - I should have added a fact tag I guess, but was going to get back to it today. Now it is no less and perhaps more NPOV because it only mentions the Documentary hypothesis and oversimplifies the dates for that. Clearly it isn't just the DH that suggests a date around the middle of the first millennium BCE, and now the article suggests that it is. And can we not have insults in edit summaries please, Til, you should know better. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe was Jewish, which begs the question "Why is he wearing Greco-Roman attire in the picture when it is prohibited by the Mitzvot?" Has anybody noticed that the second painting has the tablets written in Greek? The Greek language didn't even exist during the time of Moshe. The original tablets would have been written in Early Semitic, not Modern Hebrew nor Ancient Greek. Lastly, neither Jews nor Egyptians were Caucasian during that time period.AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 20:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Those critiques apply to almost every work of art depicting a Biblical character. If you can find a better representation than what the article shows, feel free to suggest it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Family Tree

I find it dificult to stablish who where his wives and children. Could we work on clarification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.49.133 (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 August 2013

In the section Moses#Historicity, please decapitalise "Documentary" in the first sentence. The word isn't capitalised on the actual page about the documentary hypothesis. 31.185.139.74 (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Favonian (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-simplification?

A principle of writing, best enunciated by Strunk (later amended by White) is called "keep it simple (WP:KISS and Wikipedia:Keep It Simple)." This principle has been recorded in Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Be_concise.

A sentence read "Although considered a messenger of God, Moses had difficulties with speech, which is documented in the Torah. Because of this, Aaron (the brother of Moses) would often do the talking for him.[8]"

I changed this to read "He was considered a messenger of God. Moses had difficulties relaying these messages to the people. Because of this, his brother Aaron would often do the talking for him." While imperfect, the simplification permits further improvement.

The reverting editor has the opposite style (looking back at his edits) and changes simple statements to compound ones. This is counter-productive and makes the paragraph harder to read.

The "information" about "Torah" seems obstructive since various believers use differently named texts, and the information itself is not in question (it is cited). Throwing in "Torah" is counterproductive to sentence structure and throws the reader off the main topic which is Moses speech difficulty and how he solved it.

Editors should avoid the use of parentheses where possible. It is easily possible here. "His brother Aaron" is simpler to understand that "Aaron (the brother of Moses)." We already have the subject, Moses, in here once. We don't need it twice.

Please use the principal of KISS when constructing sentences. Please use the Elements of Style, whenever possible. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree in principle with your proposed standards of clarity and simplicity, but your edit went further than this and disemboweled the paragraph of much of its meaning and import. The source is clear and should be represented accurately here. Your proposal split up the paragraph into three baby sentences that would find a good home in a children's picture book. I think we can clean this up to read something more like "Although considered a messenger of God, Moses had difficulties with speech, which is documented in the Torah. Because of this, Aaron, his brother, would often do the talking for him." Elizium23 (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

please correct the first sentence of the historicity section

the Elohist is the theoretical source, not the Deuteronomist -- look at the documentary hypothesis article if you don't believe me

it's unbelievable that an obvious mistake like this made its way into a featured article -- undoubtedly due to an ideological desire to mislead76.218.9.50 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All of the "sources" are in fact quite theoretical, as they have yet to dig up any ancient tablet that they have identified as one of these hypothetically reconstructed sources, and aren't likely to. (They hype you.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

They were in the dessert when they received manna, not the wilderness. Check your facts please. Bamidbar(בְּמִדְבַּר) translates from Hebrew to English as "In the Dessert", whereas the a common mistranslation is "in the wilderness".AurumSpiral1235813 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

בְּמִדְבַּר translates as "numbers". מדבר translates as "desert". Wilderness is a broader term that includes desert (but not dessert). I see nothing wrong here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, that is incorrect. בְּמִדְבַּר translates as "in the desert", or "in the wildernes" as the word מדבר is used to refer to a wilderness in Midrashic and allegoric terms (e.g. a place devoid of spirituality). It does not mean "numbers". The section is called "Numbers" because of the countings that occurred in the first two parshiyos: Bemidbar (parsha) and Naso (parsha). --- Avi (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Placed among the reeds

The Biblical Narrative section claims that Moses's mother set him adrift on the Nile and let his sister follow him to see where he would end up. Exodus, however, says that she placed him among the reeds by the bank of the river and posted Miriam nearby to see what would happen. The difference is certainly important. The mention of the fact that he was placed among the reeds suggests that his mother deliberately planted him at a spot where she expected him to be found, which sounds quite more likely than setting him adrift (and having her other child follow him who knows where). The contributor may have been influenced by the Ten Commandments or the Prince of Egypt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.88.173.230 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks for pointing that out. Placed citation to Torah. If there is Midrash or something somewhere, will have to take that into account. Student7 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)