Talk:The Exodus/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Recent undid revision of mine

@JudeccaXIII has undid a revision of mine, claiming I have 'not provided sources' for ongoing scholarly research and discussion on the exodus, when I have quite literally cited even the international archaeological conference based in California in the exodus that took place in 2013. The quote that said scholarly research on the exodus has been abandoned was written... 2001. The international archaeological conferences have literally taken place over a decade after the false proclamation that exodus research has been abandoned. The most hilarious thing is, even if someone takes a look at the sources for the VERY WIKIPEDIA PAGE WE ARE DISCUSSING on the exodus, you'll realize dozens of them come after 2001 as well, which is the greatest irony. So this very Wikipedia page, which argues against the historicity of the exodus, contains a grand proof that exodus research is ongoing. In other words, the idea that exodus research has been abandoned is blatantly false. If someone wants hundreds of more scholarly resources on the exodus since 2001, please follow the following instructions: 1. Go to Google Scholar, 2. Type in "exodus archaeology" and click enter, 3. On the left-hand side of Google Scholar, click on "custom range" and enter 2002 - 2017, and scholar through hundreds of scholarly publications that relate to at least some aspect of the exodus since 2002, which comes after the 2001 date of that quote in discussion. A quite grand source can be found by clicking on this link published in just 2015 by numerous top authors -- http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-04768-3 -- that should show that the quotation in the current Wikipedia page that research on the exodus has been "abandoned" is blatantly false. So far, we've heard not a single reason for maintaining this quote. It should be removed as early as possible. Wikipedia is better than this.Korvex (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Copy and pasted discussion from my talk page

You very soon have undid a reversion of mine on the Exodus page. I had discussed this reversion on the Talk Page before I went through with it, and it basically sums up to this: The quotation says that exodus research has been abandoned as a "fruitless pursuit", and the quotation goes to 2001. This is abysmally false, and I've shown that exodus research has most definitely not been abandoned, by citing published papers on various aspects of the exodus, as well as an international archaeological conference devoted to the exodus itself in 2013 that discusses numerous aspects of the exodus. I have even made the user who added that quote, PiCo, admit that "some" researchers continue to conduct a scholarly pursuit of the exodus. Therefore, by the very admission of the person who added in the quote, ongoing exodus research pertains in academia and that is why I reverted the addition of this quote which is blatantly false and violates Wikipedia:Fringe theories as no archaeologist would pretend (other than William Dever, the guy who made that quote) that exodus research has quite literally ceased in the scholarly community. Funnily enough, William Dever himself participated in the 2013 international archaeological conference on the exodus. So I think you made a mistake in undoing my revert, please remove your undo.Korvex (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC) @Korvex: As interesting as this sounds, the content PiCo added was sourced and consensus wasn't reached in the discussion. What makes it worse, you had issues previously in the same article concerning "Avaris" which the community has denied your sources. And this new message you've sent are so far claims until you provide sources instead of just saying "research has most definitely not been abandoned" which is a claim as well. And please keep the discussion in the articles talk page, not mine. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, the Springer link you added is simply that same book we've been talking about - the 2015 collected papers from the 2013 conference. I'm beginning to think you haven't actually read any of it. It's a perfectly good academic source that we can use in our article. If you want to make a contribution to the Wikip[edia article, by all means use it - I would myself.PiCo (talk) 09:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

To editor PiCo: That's absolutely right, PiCo, it was a conference in 2013 and book from 2015 and bla bla bla, that's exactly my point, research on the exodus has absolutely not been abandoned, there have been countless publications on the Exodus since your 2001 quote, which means the quote that claims exodus research has been abandoned must be removed from the Wikipedia page. It's out right wrong considering all the peer-review on the exodus that has only been published very recently as I've shown from numerous sources. Therefore, your addition of a quote that says "exodus research has been abandoned as a fruitless pursuit" or whatever is simply false, it's an indefensible claim that you yourself have admitted was wrong by admitting top academics like James Hoffmeir continue to pursue it (and the funny fact it, even the critics of the exodus continue to publish papers on the topic of the exodus). The quote must be removed. The funniest thing is, the very man who made that quote (William Dever) on exodus research has himself further published on the exodus since 2001. In other words, the quote is completely in violation of WP:FRINGE, and the very man who made it is in blatant self-contradiction, and even you have admitted ongoing exodus research. It's clear that anyone who wants to maintain that quote in light of all these facts is clearly POV pushing. Simply admit that this blatantly false quotation must be removed.Korvex (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Are there any more objections to the removal of the false quotation by Dever that contradicted by an overwhelming body of peer-review published on the exodus since 2001? Or can I go ahead and delete it?Korvex (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course you can't remove it. Your opinion on whether it is true or false is entirely irrelevant. However, I think it should be attributed to Dever in the text since since it is clearly an opinion and all opinions should be attributed. Dever is not stupid enough to imagine that nobody would keep looking for the exodus, but to see his intended meaning you have to notice that the paragraph is describing "all respectable archaeologists". That phrase is there to signal that he doesn't consider the exceptions to be respectable. It should be noted that neither of the two archaeologists cited at that part of our article are regarded as "minimalists". I reworded the text to attribute Dever. Zero^talk 01:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ooops, no it is fully protected and I'm not supposed to make normal text edits while it is in that state. My intended text is "According to William Dever all "respectable archaeologists" have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit." I'll put that in when the protection period ends. Zero^talk 01:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Zero, I did not put forth an opinion. Read the entire conversation when you bust in and say that I'm postulating my opinion. The idea that all "respectable" archaeologists have abandoned exodus research is a fantasy. The funny thing is, William Dever is the one who made that quote in 2001, but DEVER HIMSELF has continued publishing on the exodus since 2001, making the mere statement a self-contradiction. Asides from that, in 2013, there was an international archaeological conference based on the exodus in ITS ENTIRETY where many of the worlds leading archaeologists came together to discuss it. An entire international archaeological conference just three years ago, came together to analyze research and discussion and archaeology on the exodus. This completely blows out of water the ridiculous claim that exodus research has been abandoned -- here is a link to the website on the conference where all speakers and everything they say can be found -- http://exodus.calit2.net/ --- so it is a simple fact that the worlds leading archaeologists all coming together to analyze research and discussion on the exodus destroys the claim that exodus research has been abandoned, whether or not we're talking about the more extreme scholars in their views or the most respectable archaeologists in the world. The most amazing thing is, aside from the complete crushing of that quote from the aforementioned international archaeological conferece, THIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE ITSELF is an ultimate proof against the nonsensical notion that exodus research has been abandoned, because if you scroll to the bottom of the Wikipedia page, you'll hilariously find that dozens of the sources used come after 2001, all on discussion on the exodus, and all supposed to be existing in an era where exodus research has been abandoned! Zero, what do you have to say about all of this? Of course, the edit you're proposing is impossible.Korvex (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You are making another mistake, confusing research on the Exodus with research on the Exodus tradition. Of course the tradition is important and many scholars are interested in how it originated and how it was transmitted. That's entirely different from supporting the details of the biblical account. Here is Dever published in 2015 (and this disproves your claim about him). This might be a better quote than the earlier one.

"To make a long story short, today not a single mainstream biblical scholar or archaeologist any longer upholds “biblical archaeology’s” conquest model. Various theories of indigenous origins prevail, in which case there is neither room nor need for an exodus of significant proportions. To put it succinctly, if there was no invasion of Canaan by an “Exodus group,” then there was no Exodus. A small “exodus group” may have existed, perhaps a few hundred or thousand, and they could have come later to be identified with the biblical “House of Joseph.” It was the view of these two southern tribes, who had a dominant influence in shaping the later literary tradition, that “all Israel” had come out of Egypt. In time that became quite understandably part of the foundation-myth of the Hebrew Bible, particularly in the Exile and hereafter. But the ancestors of the majority of ancient Israelites and Judeans had never been in Egypt. They were essentially Canaanites, displaced both geographically and ideologically." [1] Zero^talk 00:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that either way, you've got an obvious problem on your hands, Does James Hoffmeir, who is most certainly a mainstream scholar, not pursue research of this? Many mainstream scholars continue pursuing the historicity of details of the exodus, whether or not they think there were a full 600,000 dudes or not. Therefore by no interpretation is the quotation possibly accurate. I also think wen should wait to see whether or not Douglas Petrovich becomes a mainstream scholar in the next few years based off of his publication coming later this year on identifying some 1800 BC Egyptian tablet as being written in Hebrew, he's already spurred some considerable scholars to respond and has addressed them to my liking. But aside from my opinion, I'm interested on seeing where Petrovich's claim goes. But even aside from Petrovich, Hoffmeir seems like a knockdown for this quotation being kept.Korvex (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

We mention Hoffmeier by name in the Summary subsection of our Historicity section. He's a respected archaeologist and his conclusions are sensible enough, but they amount to no more than that the exodus story is plausible. As Moore and Kelle make clear, that view is not mainstream. Anyway, I've made a revision of the article that might meet your concerns.PiCo (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

PiCo, I overall like your edits (I think they are an improvement) but I am still for the annihilation Dever's quote as it is blatantly false. The thing is, even the scholars who DON'T accept the historicity of the exodus, at all, still continue research on it, INCLUDING DEVER HIMSELF! There's nothing like a good self-contradiction, is there? The California conference in 2013 where Dever himself partook should signify the stomping of this quote. There are in fact other top scholars that continue research in the exodus aside from Hoffmeir, such as more conservative top scholars including guys like Richard Hess and Berman. Most people only know about the California conference, but there was also an international archaeological conference in 2014 (I think) on the Exodus as well in Texas! To sum up, the California one basically shows the liberal side of scholarship on the issue, and the Texas one was more conservative (interestingly, James Hoffmeir partook in both of them if I'm not mistaken). So at best, the historicity of the exodus position can be considered a "minority", but it is nowhere near fringe let alone abandoned! Also, I'm for removing the phrase that there is "No indication" of Israelite's in Egypt. If you made that edit three months ago, I wouldn't mind, but now I call for its removal (although the Kadesh Barnea thing can stay because I know it's true). In the latest meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research, Douglas Petrovich presented a paper where he exclaimed that he had discovered that the oldest alphabet on Earth, in which the inscriptions are located in Egypt (such as Serabet el Khadim and Wahi el Hol) are proto-Hebrew. This paper was presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research which makes it definitely credible, and his book is going to be published on it for the full presentation of the evidence in the next few months if I'm not mistaken (probably by the end of this year). I have access to the table of contents of his book (that's about it so far), and one of the final chapters of the book is evaluating the historicity of the Israelite's in Egypt based on this breakthrough. So as of December of 2016 at the ASOR, the debate is most definitely on in the academic community and I've seen many scholars hyped up over the book. PiCo, so far, two (top) scholars have responded to Petrovich, Thomas Schneider and Christopher Rollston (by the way, Rollston supports the historicity of the exodus as well as that there is evidence for it, just saying). I want you to read their criticisms, and then I want you to read Petrovich's responses to them. If you do, I have no doubt in my mind you will agree that there is something here. So that part of your edit should be removed as I think it would be jumping to a conclusion before the scholarly community has its debate on Petrovich's work. Your thoughts?Korvex (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

His book comes out this month. In December he was discussing his ideas on a mailing list I'm on and I'm sure there will be more discussion when its published. Doug Weller talk 22:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, it might be better/best to restrict this discussion to the Dever quote that you began with. My understanding of the conference is that it wasn't discussing the exodus as an event. but as a story. As the latter it certainly exists and certainly merits investigation. But as an event, as William Propp says in the abstract to his paper, "the exodus, however we define it, cannot be called historical". The exodus is a literary and cultural reality, but not a historical one. PiCo (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That, incidentally, is one thing our article conspicuously lacks: it has a long section on historicity (could be just 2 or 3 paras) and nothing at all on the history of the text. Who wrote the four books? When? Using what sources? For what purposes? All this is missing. PiCo (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

That's quite an omission! The current entanglements of one with the other make for difficult reading; I hadn't even noticed until now. Haploidavey (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no omission of any discussion on the Book of Exodus which talks about this and its authorship, because Wikipedia already has a full page on the Book of Exodus. As for "limiting the discussion to the Dever quote" -- that was exactly what was happening, until you decided to add in a new edit that says there is no indication of any Israelite's in Egypt. The rest of the edit was fine, however this needs to be removed because of Petrovich's findings. Petrovich's book is being published, at least according to Doug, this month -- and this is aside from Douglas's paper submitted and presented to the ASOR (American Schools of Oriental Research) which happened in December if I'm not mistaken, so there's absolutely nothing lacking here regarding the fact that very recent archaeology is in complete undermining of the idea that there are no traces of Israelite's/Hebrews in Egypt. Indeed, this should be removed from the Wikipedia page until further research either validates or disconfirms Doug's hypothesis (as far as I'm concerned, Doug has already silenced the criticisms of Thomas Schneider and Christopher Rollston). And again, for the Dever quote -- I have not only shown further investigation of the Exodus even from the people who don't believe it, I have not only pointed to the very bibliography of the Wiki page on the Exodus in which dozens of sources were published after 2001, but I have shown EVEN DEVER HIMSELF has participated in the international archaeological conference on the topic of the exodus in 2013, therefore he is blatantly throwing his own claims out of the window. If Dever disagrees with Dever, what on Earth is Dever's quote doing in the current Wiki page? This will only lead to confuse readers of Wikipedia! According to all this evidence, and the fact that I have not seen any further defenses of the blatantly false Dever quote, it is to my knowledge that it should be removed. This is what I think should happen. 1) remove claims that there are no traces of Israelite's/Hebrews in Egypt (once Petrovich's book comes out, or perhaps soon thereafter, I might decide to submit a proposal to add its findings in the Wiki page) and 2) Remove Dever's quote, which contradicts not only himself, all the archaeological work continuing in relation to the exodus by both supports and dissidents, but the very bibliography of the Wikipedia Exodus page!!! I think these two points are fair.Korvex (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, regarding your two points:

*On the Dever quote, when I moved it down from the lead I also qualified it by adding the word "most" ("most scholars...") Isn't that enough to meet your concerns?

*On evidence of Israealite presence in Egypt, I take it you're referring to Petrovich's assertion that he's found epigraphic evidence in the Sinai: are you aware that Rollston and others have rejected this outright?PiCo (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Your two points have already been addressed. The annihilation of Dever's quote must be annihilated because MOST scholars continue research on the exodus. There is no doubt about this. Dever himself included. We've already talked about the 2013 California conference, and the fact that a large portion of the references on the exodus on the very Wikipedia page we're discussing post-dates 2001. There is absolutely no doubt about this.

As for Rollston, what did I say to you earlier? I told you to read Rollston's two responses and Thomas Shneider's response to Petrovich's claims (none are peer-reviewed). Then, I told you to read Douglas's responses to both of them for yourself. I told you to do this because if you read both sides, you'll not only be completely convinced of Petrovich's claims, but you will see Rollston and Shneider's objections disintegrate. Read them for yourself, their objections have already expired and there is no doubt about this whatsoever. If you cannot find the links for the talks between Rollston, Shneider and Petrovich, I will post them to you myself. Petrovich's work has already been endorsed by one of the leading scholars, Eugene Merrill, as well as from Sarah Doherty. When you say "Rollston and others", you really mean "one another", being Shneider, who has been unable to address Petrovich's latest slashing of his blog-post. I have not yet bought the book, but I know that people have started receiving their copies and so I hope to purchase Petrovich's book on this from Carta in the next few days to read it for myself, but I already have access to enough material to know it is legit. Again, alllll I can offer you right now is not just reading a media post from ScienceNews and JerusalemPost on this finding, but 1) read the preview of Petrovich's book which you can find on his academia.edu page, and 2) read the discussion between Rollston and Shneider with Petrovich. If you wish to deny what I say here then you must at least be aware of the information already present to us in discussion.Korvex (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

This has been answered before: there is a difference between research on the Exodus and research upon the tradition of the Exodus. Dever definitely is not included in research on the Exodus. These being said, a hypothesis has to become accepted by the mainstream, at least by a sizeable minority of the mainstream in order to be worthy of our encyclopedia (as scientific claim, not as fringe claim, since fringe could be notable in itself). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

What you say is false, Tgeorgescu. Research on the "tradition" of the exodus is none other than research on the exodus itself, because the tradition of the exodus narrative is just a subcategory of research on the Exodus in general. Your claims are like saying research on who the pharaoh of the exodus is different from research on the actual exodus. Secondly, Wikipedia clearly states that for something to be included in a page, it either must be the majority view, or a MINORITY view that has PROMINENT defenders in the scholarly community. There is no doubt that Eugene H. Merrill, who has advocated Petrovich's findings, is none other than a renowned scholar himself. Sarah Doherty also supports it, as well as several other lesser known scholars that have contributed to Doug's book. So there is no doubt here, it seems to me, that this material has absolutely no issues. However, you may be confused -- I am NOT advocating (yet, I will no doubt do this later as I am too lazy for now) for this material to be included in the current Exodus Wiki. I am saying that the existence of this material DISINTEGRATES the proposal that the Hebrews have no trace in Egypt. Therefore, any statements in the current Wiki page of the Exodus that say there is no evidence of Hebrews in Egypt is fundamentally and empirically false, and should be removed, even though we shouldn't yet add in Doug's findings. So all references in the current Wiki page which says there is no evidence of Hebrews/Israelite's in Egypt need to simply be removed. I also think that when the Wiki says that the evidence is "not on the side of the exodus", this is also blatantly false, but that is an issue I will pursue on another day. My point is 1) all claims there are no traces in Egypt of the Hebrews/Israelite's must be removed ASAP and 2) Research on ANY aspect of the exodus, including its dating, tradition of the narrative, size of the exodus population, historicity, exodus-pharaoh, etc, ALL are fundamentally types of research on the exodus itself, and therefore Dever's quote not only contradicts the international archaeological conferences on the exodus since 2001 (which DO talk about the exodus, regardless of how you define it), the many many papers and books that talk about the exodus since 2001, the many very prominent archaeologists such as Hoffmeir, Kitchen, Hess, Merrill, etc, that continue research on the exodus, but even himself. That means the quote is wrong. If a quote is wrong, it needs to be removed.Korvex (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

About Canaanites in Egypt, if you read the archives of this talk page, everybody agreed that there were Canaanites in Egypt. There is just no a jot of evidence of a mass migration of Canaanite slaves and their families from Egypt to Palestine. If 600 slaves did escape, who am I to say that it didn't happen? But that's not the story reported by the Bible. About the Hyksos, Donald B. Redford thought that a distant memory of the Hyksos exodus was embellished to produce the Exodus legend, which the Bible has reported. But that's old research now. Just to make this point stronger: there couldn't have been Hebrews in Egypt before the formation of the Hebrews as a people, see e.g. [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, let me address your points. For one, I didn't mention the Hyksos a single time in my previous comment, and I care not a single thing was Redford writes, because it relates zilch to what I have noted above. Not only does Redford's hypothesis maintain little evidence to speak of, it wouldn't change, no matter how much you want it to, whether or not the proto consonantal script is proto-Hebrew or not. I also didn't say anything about "Canaanite's in Egypt", I said Hebrews in Egypt. It's not even debatable that Canaanite's were in Egypt, but I'm talking about Hebrews here. So that's the real discussion. In your entire comment, you only note a single thing to actually challenge what I'm putting forward. That is, some link to biblicalarchaeology.com, a website I really like.

So, what did your link give me? It gave me a reference to the theory of Avraham Faust who thinks the ethnogenesis of Israelite's commenced in about the 12th - 11th century BC. This of course has its own problems. One, it also doesn't matter, because if the proto consonantal script is in fact Hebrew, Faust's findings disappear. So it couldn't possibly rebut Petrovich's findings, in fact, Faust's findings will disappear in the next few months unless Petrovich is wrong, which there seems to be no indication of. In fact, Petrovich seems to be correct. Secondly, Faust does not at all interact with the findings that show the appearance of the name Israel in an archaic form that predates the Merneptah Stele, being the Berlin Pedestal's reference to Israel dating to about 1350 BC. A number of papers have been published on this --so two points so far. 1) Faust's hypothesis doesn't consider the work of earlier scholars demonstrating Israel's existence even before his proposed timeline, and so is not very relevant although has received considerable attention 2) Faust's work cannot invalidate Petrovich's work, but Petrovich's work can erode Faust's work. You don't give any references to show that the proto consonantal script is not Hebrew, which is the problem -- Petrovich's findings, already advocated by many scholars including the renowned Eugene Merrill, if correct (it is), show that it is an empirical fact that Hebrews were in Egypt. My friend, we live in 2017 now! I have observed the archaeology over the past two decades, the consensus regarding the exodus will shift very, very quickly in the next few years, or perhaps decades, but it will shift. It looks like the identification of the language of the proto-consonantal script itself will fuel the disintegration of the minimalist position. However, Tgeorgescu, you must acknowledge these findings. You should agree with me here. By the way, not only all of that, but the raw data of Faust's work (I think Faust is completely right about his data, except for how he interpets his conclusions) actually strengthens the historical validity of the Exodus-Judges period in the Bible. It's a conservative view, not a liberal one. I don't think you considered that. In fact, in the near future, I will without a doubt use this work that you introduced to me to further argue for the exodus in my later edits. Korvex (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Dever has written over and over that he doesn't believe the Exodus happened like the bible says and he keeps makes stronger statements that no respectable archaeologists believe it either. For you to call this research on the Exodus is just a word game you like to play. As for Petrovich, he is just one more fundamentalist creationist whose bizarre claims will never be accepted by the mainstream. Zero^talk 01:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I quoted Faust because at least he thinks ancient Hebrews were identifiable as a people, having a definite ethnic identity. Of course, a large body of scientific literature says that's bollocks. So any way we look now at Petrovich's work, it is either WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE or even WP:FRINGE/PS. Of course, we cannot predict the future of academic consensus, so if Petrovich's hypothesis becomes acceptable to the mainstream, Wikipedia will report that. But we will have to wait till then, that's what WP:PAGs say. We cannot base our articles on gut hunches like "the consensus regarding the exodus will shift very, very quickly in the next few years, or perhaps decades, but it will shift". If we can say anything, at the present moment biblical archeology (with the Bible in one hand and the spade in the other) looks discredited in most secular universities (secular does not mean atheist). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

": Just noting that the overwhelming majority of scholars place the writing of the Exodus story )the torah) in the Persian period, with further additions in the Hellenistic period and the chronology running from Genesis to Kings added in the 2nd century BC. The very late date for the chronology makes dating the exodus by means of the information in Kings extremely problematic. Just a note :) PiCo (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I very much like PiCo's attitude, but Zero has become a victim of his own bias. Zero says that I'm playing a word game with Dever's research on the exodus, which is false. ANY SCHOLARLY SCRUTINY, whether positive or negative on any given aspect of the exodus, is research on the exodus. To prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, I have typed in "define research" on Google and this is given: "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions" -- in other words, ANY research of any form of scholarly material that concludes that the exodus is entirely true or entirely false, partly true or partly false, all is research on the exodus. Therefore, Dever HAS done research on the exodus since 2001, and the work of James Hoffmeir, Kenneth Kitchen, Joshua Berman, Richard Hess and other renowned scholars that have put forth work in support of the exodus CERTAINLY qualifies as research by any conceptual standard. Therefore the idea that exodus research has been in, any way, shape or form abandoned, is empirically false. It's like claiming 2+2=5.

As for Douglas Petrovich, Zero seems like he must do some more googling. Petrovich has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology from the University of Toronto, and is a professor of ancient Mediterranean religions at Wilfrid Laurier University, which is a secular university, as well as the fact that Petrovich already has a body of published work in the field, including a paper from 2006 on the pharaoh of the exodus, which was recognized in the 2013 international archaeological conference on the exodus as the only paper in the field that thoroughly addresses the issue. Zero claims Petrovich's work, which has already been purported by scholars such as none other than Eugene Merrill, will never be accepted. Zero will be very surprised. The best I can do is recommend Zero to either buy the book on the proto consonantal script, or read Petrovich's available free material on it and his discourse with Thomas Shneider and Christopher Rollston on the issue. I must wonder to myself, if Petrovich's idea on the proto consonantal script was so stupid, how did it get peer-reviewed in the first place, let alone all this?

Now back to PiCo, whom I have attained much more respect for very recently. I did more research into Avraham's book, and it seems to have been completely misinterpreted, at least to some extent, here. Let me note what I learned in the past day. Avraham's book proposes that the CULTURAL IDENTITY of the Israelite's, not the Israelite's themselves, arose in the 12th-11th century BC. Avraham, and no other scholar doubts that Israel existed before the 12th century BC, just look at the Merneptah Stele for example which records Israel in the late thirteenth century BC or the Berlin Relief Pedestal. Avraham shows the evidence shows that the cultural identity of Israel arose (ethnogenesis) as early as the 12th century BC, and Avraham's game-changing work is without a question not only mainstream but on the conservative side of scholarship. Previously, scholars only believed this ethnogenesis occurred later, likely after the Iron Age I, but Avraham's work has pushed it back to at least the 12th century BC. Avraham only looked at the Iron Age I, he did not look at the Late Bronze Age II (it's not like there's much to look at there anyways) and so his work of course does not rule out an ethnogenesis of Israelite culture earlier to the 12th century BC, that's just the limit. Finally, I am not trying to predict future scholarship -- in fact, I am not even looking to add in Petrovich's work into the current Wikipedia article. My point is the claim there "is no trace of Hebrews in Egypt" is not accurate, that it reflects a positive conclusion of scholarship. Scholarship has no such conclusion, especially now that Petrovich's book is out which will no doubt be the indicator of whether or not there are any such traces. Petrovich's work is very obviously not "fringe" or "undue", especially with an endorsement from Sarah Doherty and especially Eugene Merrill. I have looked very closely at this so far, and I only see support for the work, especially since Rollston's and Shneider's blog comments were shut down by Petrovich. But I'm just saying that this Wikipedia article has no right to say that there is "no trace of Israelite's/Hebrews in Egypt". And it is ESPECIALLY false on the research part. Can't we at least agree on the research part here, which is fairly obvious considering the work of Kitchen, Hoffmeir, Hess, Berman, etc, etc. Korvex (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Merrill is just another fundamentalist "Biblical Scholar" from the Associates for Biblical Research. (See here attacking those who doubt the reality of miracles described in the bible.) As for Sarah Doherty, she is a ceramicist who contributed a dating of the Lahun Ostracon. I can't read her chapter or find anything else that says she supports Petrovich's epigraphic claims about the writing on the ostracon, and she probably wouldn't buy into that since epigraphy is not her field. If you can't quote something from her supporting Petrovich's conclusions about the writing, you should stop claiming she has endorsed his work. Zero^talk 00:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There are scholars who put all the eggs in the basket labelled "the Bible is inerrant". As theology, there is nothing wrong with that. But as history, that is a position of extreme bias. And not only that, but different scholars who put their eggs therein cannot agree among themselves what the Bible does predict (e.g. for the chronology of Jericho or for Egyptian chronology). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

E.g. for Albright the Bible provided clear and unambiguous dating. No longer so for newer fundamentalist archeologists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no violation of WP:NPOV to state that at the present time all evidence points towards the conclusion that there was no Exodus (as described by the Bible). This conclusion could be revised if new evidence so demands, but we will have to wait for such evidence to emerge. Of course, there are unfalsifiable tricks like "there were 600 families which escaped from Egypt, not 600 000." This saves somehow the historicity of the Exodus by compromising it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Zero, it seems to me that your credibility, at least on the exodus, may have undergone a self-implosion when you dismissed Eugene Merrill, one of the most renowned Old Testament scholars of this day, definitely one of the worlds most important scholars in the field as of today, as a "fundamentalist". Perhaps you should slap his name into Google Scholar, and see that many of his works have been cited hundreds over a hundred times, even (in fact, his credentials are pretty similar to those of James Hoffmeir, when it comes to how respected a scholar is in their field). The Associates of Biblical Research is just a Christian archaeological association that is promoting funding into archaeology to confirm Biblical narratives -- because the history of the Israelite's takes up one of the most significant blocs of ancient near eastern history, and the Bible is the most discussed, important work in the entire ancient near east, it is unsurprising that there exist organizations that focus their research on this massive subject. The Associates of Biblical Research are composed of many credentialed archaeologists and have consistently produced very good archaeological research. I'd suggest their article on the domestication of camels for anyone looking to read some quality scholarly work from the organization. Needless to say, it is easily credible, especially since all its archaeological proponents have good credentials. As for attacking people who don't believe, if Eugene Merrill, one of the worlds most renowned scholars in Old Testament scholarship, is somehow hilariously uncredible because he attacks people who don't believe, then guys like William Dever should have their name and quotations skewed from the current Wikipedia page for attacking people who don't believe -- both the latter and former are fundamentalism, just different ends of it. Needless to say, any attacks against Merrill that even conceive he is un-credible become wasted away and disappear. Funnily enough, when I was discussing Tall el-Hammam and its identification of Sodom with Doug Weller, Doug quoted Eugene Merrill of all people to try to rebut it! The only person on Earth who doesn't think Merrill is credible is Zero, any Old Testament scholar who walks into Merrill's office telling him anything similar to being uncredible will wake out humiliated. In other words, it is a fact that Petrovich's book has already been endorsed by one of the leading scholars, and is a credible work in the field. These findings will in fact be accepted, they have already been peer-reviewed and are being quickly distributed -- I hear that they may even be getting sold at universities from the publishers of the Petrovich's book. I'd recommend Zero do a bit of research before making conclusions about scholars like Merrill, at least a little more then a quick google search.

Again, as for Sarah K. Doherty -- it seems Zero has a much bigger problem here, considering he is dealing with a respected (but not exactly one of the "renowned") scholar who supports Petrovich. I could spend a bit of time naming her credentials -- but I think Zero understands at least the credentials of Doherty, even though he refuses to recognize a renowned expert like Merrill. Zero's only challenge for me is to quote Sarah K. Doherty endorsing Petrovich's work -- not only can I provide a quotation from her on her own endorsing his work, but she LITERALLY has wrote a small portion (very small, in the beginning) of Doug's book. What Zero needs to do to see it for himself is follow these instructions: 1) Go to academia.edu 2) Go to Douglas Petrovich's page 3) Scroll down to the frontmatter of the book he has released on his academia.edu page 4) Click on it for goodness sake 5) Scroll, read the part where it says in enormous letters "With a contribution by Sarah K. Doherty and Introduction by Eugene H. Merrill" 6) Keep scrolling down and go to the second last page in the frontmatter of Doug's book posted on his academia.edu page, and read Sarah's small blurb on the bottom of it, and 7) then realize that he is 104.9% wrong on the credibility of Doug's work

Tgeorg provides an at least understandable claim. Tgeorg mistakenly claims that "all evidence from scholarship today concludes" there is no evidence for the exodus, but this is obviously a nonsensical claim. Perhaps Tgeorg should get to reading some of the work in this field from James Hoffmeir or Joshua Berman. Very few scholars would so much as say that there is "not a shred of evidence", many scholars believe that the story is in fact based on an original, small coming out of Egypt by a small number of people, but not at 600,000 men. Regarding the 600,000 man thing however, scholarship has three views on this number. 1) It was really 600,000+ men, 2) There were no men, because it never happened, and 3) The Hebrew is NOT to be translated as "600 thousand" -- the Hebrew word translated as thousand is aleph, which can also mean family, troop, or unit. Abundant scholarly literature (which is miraculously missing in its entirety from this Exodus page) prefers such a translation of alpeh, as family/unit/troop, in accordance with the evidence. Deuteronomy 7:7 says that the Israelite's were the fewest of all the peoples, and Exodus 23:30 says that the Israelite's were so few after coming out of Egypt that they could only inherit the promised land little by little, because their population wasn't great enough to take it all at once. A few days ago, I read a paper on this that I'd recommend to anyone somehow confused by the 600,000+ number, because it seems to me that 99.999999999% of disssenters of the exodus found on Wikipedia have never even conceived the words I am saying here -- please read this paper (or another like it) http://www.jstor.org/stable/41062683?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents -- for at least an introduction. Miraculously, all this scholarly literature on the nature of Numbers 1:46 and the translation of 600,000 men is to be found nowhere in the current Exodus page, which is simply craziness.

Conclusion: William Dever's quote is madness, false, erroneous, and everything else (everyone seems to have suddenly stopped defending him, perhaps they have finally understood that, I will take to removing his name and quotation from the page), and scholarship has not concluded, nor allowed the conclusion of "no traces of Hebrews in Egypt".Korvex (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I already read all mentions of Sarah K. Doherty in the frontmatter that Petrovich has provided, before I wrote my comment. It doesn't mention her opinion of Petrovich's epigraphic claims. I also searched quite hard for any statement from her anywhere else about Petrovich's epigraphic claims, and came up blank. I conclude that you cannot refute what I wrote about her. Zero^talk 02:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL! There is a lot wrong with your post, with all due respect Zero. First of all, it seems that you have come silent after misrepresenting one of the most renowned scholars in Old Testament academia, Eugene H. Merrill. That on its own is enough to end all discussion here. As for Sarah K. Doherty -- Zero, I think you are being willfully errorful here. The fact that Sarah K. Doherty contributed to a book in which its sole thesis is that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew, means she agrees. You do not put your name on a book that you do not agree with, especially if it was fringe nonsense, because that would harm your career. If you were a biologist, and your name came up in a creationist journal, even if you nowhere in it actually advocated for creationism, your career would be hurt -- the fact that Sarah contributed to such a controversial book ensures she is putting here stake on it. How anyone can deny this is beyond me. Eugene Merrill and Sarah Doherty both endrose Petrovich's thesis -- fact. Petrovich's claims will be accepted in the next few years. If not, please go ahead and explain to me, yourself, how names only attested into the Hebrew language, like Ahisemech, exist in the proto-consonantal script. Christopher Rollston and Thomas Shneider -- both two respected scholars who tried to take shots at Petrovich's thesis on a blog (before Petrovich crushed their objections), seemed to have no idea how to get around this conundrum, of how names only attested to in the Hebrew language somehow appear in the proto-consontal script -- the only conclusion is that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew. I predict that Rollston and Shneider will be on Petrovich's side (along with the majority of academia) very soon. But my predictions are irrelevant -- however what is not irrelevant, is the fact that these findings will become mainstream and are already endorsed by Sarah K. Doherty and Eugene Merrill, and have been peer-reviewed and published.

I also conclude that William Dever's quote is nonsensical insanity, false, and self-contradictory to Dever's own actions and exodus research after 2001. I also conclude that no one will ever be able to, in the reality of their lifetime, present a solid defense or any coherent reasons for maintaining Dever's quote, for it is nonsensical. I have already debunked the veracity of thsi quote beyond a reasonable doubt, by showing much, much research into the exodus after 2001, including from renowned scholars like Hoffmeir, Hess, Kitchen, Berman, etc, as well as many lesser scholars, as well as research into exodus from critics, as well as the fact that the very bibliography of the current Exodus wikipedia page is composed of many sources after 2001. Zero, your recent responses to me have been giving me the impressions you are not objective -- so in order to change my mind (my mind is hard to change), what you shall do is personally delete Dever's quotation. You will delete the entire part that says "So while a few scholars, notably Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier, continue to discuss the historicity, or at least plausibility, of the story, arguing that the Egyptian records have been lost or suppressed or that the fleeing Israelites left no archaeological trace or that the huge numbers are mistranslated, the majority have abandoned the investigation as "a fruitless pursuit" (Dever, 2001)" -- only then will I know that you are an objective editor when it comes to a religio-historical question like the Exodus.Korvex (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

When Sarah Doherty announces that she agrees with Petrovich's epigraphic claims, even though she is not an epigraphist, we will know her opinion on it. Until then, we won't know and you should stop claiming to know. There are thousands of books that contain sections written by someone who doesn't agree with the main thesis of the author. As for Petrovich, here is my offer: I have been an atheist for about 40 years but if Petrovich's claims about Hebrew are accepted by the mainstream of epigraphists I will start to believe in miracles. I'm pretty safe because no real scholars will ever take seriously claims by someone who believes that the Worldwide Flood really happened and that language differences originated at the Tower of Babel. Zero^talk 04:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Zero, you say you will literally believe in miracles if Petrovich's claims are true -- the debate is already over. I've already pointed you to names in the proto-consonantal script only attested to in the Hebrew language. Sarah Doherty has put her face in the contributions list in the first few pages of Petrovich's book. The idea that she somehow does not obviously agree seems amazingly far-fetched -- I am going to e-mail Sarah about this ASAP to show you are wrong. Regarding no one taking this seriously, this has already been lost as well with Merrill's obvious endorsement, Merrill being one of the worlds best Old Testament scholars. It's true Doherty isn't an epigraphist, but Doug's blurb above hers in the first few pages of the book clearly explains that her work and contributions to the book regard the dating of the proto-consonantal script inscriptions, not what they say. It is unprecedented to put your name on a paradigm-shifting book if you outright reject its very thesis, and therefore it is impossible for Doherty to disagree. Funny thing is, I was going around the website Quora, and I found a professor of ancient history (her name is Karen Carr, here Quora page here -- https://www.quora.com/profile/Karen-Carr-9) outright accepting Petrovich's book! So, the book was published for less than a month and we can already put Merrill, Doherty and Carr on the list. Again, I will try to e-mail Doherty and hopefully your confusion will be fixed very soon. Korvex (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Epigraphy is a very specialised subject with not very many experts compared to the large numbers that study other archaeological subjects such as pottery, metal, diet, etc. None of the people you claim support from is an epigraphist. The only professional epigraphist who we have commentary from so far is Rollston, who is one of the most famous epigraphists who every lived. As you know, Rollston considers Petrovich to be an ignoramus and said as much on his blog with detailed justifications. I can't find any mention of Petrovich in Karen Carr's answers on Quora. If you are referring to her answer to the question "Is there archaeological evidence of Hebrews in Egypt?" it does not mention Petrovich and does not support his claims. If that is not the question, which is it? Zero^talk 01:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

We can't use an email as a source, so I'm not sure what the point would be. Doug Weller talk 10:30, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

LOL -- Doug, I don't think you get the point of e-mailing Doherty. Zero has taken the literally mad view that Doherty, who has put her name on this very controversial study, actually doesn't agree with the conclusions, even though it could cost her a reputation if the view is wrong. If anyone seriously claims Doherty who has outright put a contribution into this book doesn't actually agree with it, they need to meet with a psychotherapist ASAP.

As for Zero again -- Zero tries to get around Carr's clear acceptance of the fact that the proto-consonantal script being Hebrew. She literally outright says that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew, and we know that Petrovich is the only person to have recently put forth this theory. Therefore, the probability that Carr accepts Petrovich's theory, considering the fact that she has outright agreed with the conclusion, is 100%. Carr agrees with it, Doherty VERY obviously does, and so does Merrill (a world renowned Old Testament scholar). Finally, we have Zero making a statement (I do not know if it was out of ignorance, or perhaps an intentional misstatement of the truth) that Rollston considers Petrovich is an "ignoramus" -- LOL! This statement is obvious nonsense because Rollston has no such view, and even responded to Petrovich twice. If Zero actually read both of Doug's responses to both of Rollston's blog posts, he'd realize that Rollston was literally crushed. I have not seen an academic knockout as badly what Petrovich did to Rollston in a long time. In fact, Rollston is probably reading Doug's book right now, and is probably just about to accept it, if he has not already accepted that Doug's theory is true. The reason why Rollston is probably on Doug's side by now is because it's obviously true -- the proto-consonantal script has names only attested to in the Hebrew language, it contains strictly Hebrew phrases in its full context, and Douglas Petrovich, with the view that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew, is literally the only scholar to have ever translated the proto-consonantal inscriptions. How the HECK is he translating an inscription if he has the wrong language? My idea is that Zero simply hasn't read Petrovich's responses to Rollston, because if he has, this discussion would already be over and Zero would already have accepted that Petrovich is right. But, Zero has specifically decided to put himself up with a position that will cause self-humiliation -- he has LITERALLY said that if the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew, he will actually begin believing miracles -- which is not surprising, because if the exodus story is literally proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, then there will be little room for atheism anyways. But Zero has directly put himself in front of the moving train, which is his greatest blunder. He should've gotten inside instead.Korvex (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Totally off-topic, nevertheless an answer to Korvex: even if everything written in the Bible would be historically accurate (including miracles and regardless of contradictions), it still does not follow that humans have to worship Jesus or the God of Israel. E.g., as Bart Ehrman said, after being crucified Jesus was exiled in the 12th dimension by the evil god Zulu, where Jesus is tormented further, but Zulu allowed Jesus to show himself to his disciples, but told him that if he reveals the truth about his situation, Zulu will double his eternal torments. This is a theological explanation which accounts for all events described in the Bible, but does not posit that Jesus would be the Son of God. It is futile to argue historically something which can only be answered theologically. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorg, you have utterly entered the recesses of fringe when you posit this Zulu-nonsense, and you have further sold yourself to pure fundamentalism when you actually posit that this explanation is more plausible than Christianity. As for "contradictions", the vast majority of these have been entirely solved and hardly worth addressing aside from the large amount of data published on the issue of these so-called contradictions. Bart Ehrman is a respected scholar, but he obviously spends a lot more time writing populist work then scholarly work. Seriously Tgeorg -- ask yourself this -- if "everything written in the Bible would be historically accurate (including miracles...)", would a rational person SERIOUSLY decide to, based on this premise, start worshipping Zulu rather than Jesus? This is utter nonsense -- these pseudo-explanations can be applied to salvage any very stupid idea. Evidence the Earth is round? No problem, it's all a hallucination on humans by Zulu! Evidence that the Earth is MORE then 6,000 years old? No problem, Zulu is tricking us from the 12th dimension! Do you see what you're getting yourself into? By positing that Zulu is a valid explanation to a situation where even all the miracles in the Bible have been proven true, you have opened up the recesses to every form of insanity one could even imagine. Anyways, it is ZERO that has put himself in this situation. I pointed out that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew (this does in fact prove the exodus without question), but Zero is apparently so confident against this position, regardless of its overwhelming evidence, that he has quite literally said he would abandon atheism if it were true! Zero is about to get a huge wake up call some time in the next few years, if not months, when this becomes the consensus position and I return to completely re-do half of the entire current Exodus page.

BY THE WAY, IT LOOKS LIKE I'VE FORGOTTEN to point out that Dever's quote still needs removal. Tgeorg, we've both seen Dever's quote contradicts literally the entire reality of modern academia on the exodus, so I request of you to delete Dever's quote, which needs a reality check, from the exodus page.Korvex (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There weren't any Christians who believed in the existence of Zulu, but there were Christians who believed in the existence of Yaldabaoth. I laughed a lot, seriously, theology is about making positive affirmations about stuff that cannot be known, it can merely be believed (such as the existence of God or gods). So every in regard to facts, any purely theological view is as good as any other, or perhaps positing absurdities like the Trinity should be avoided. Anyway, Wikipedia should not be turned into a WP:BATTLEGROUND of different theological options, we merely render scholarship. Dever's view should not be deleted because it is notable and describes the sentiment prevailing among mainstream scholars. I agree that it is not the ultimate truth in this matter, so it should be rendered with attribution (i.e. as majority view at the present time, namely that most archaeologists have lost every hope of recovering a historical Exodus, exegetical acrobatics excepted). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What Korvex claims of Karen Carr: "She literally outright says that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew". What Karen Carr actually wrote: "here were people who spoke proto-Hebrew or proto-Cananite ... These people seem to have invented the ancestor of today’s alphabet (the Hebrew alphabet, but that’s the ancestor of the Arabic, Greek, Russian, and Latin alphabets too). More here: Proto-Sinaitic script." First, Petrovich's big claim is that the language is Hebrew, not merely the alphabet. Carr explicitly disagrees: "proto-Hebrew or proto-Cananite" does not imply Hebrew. Second, Carr refers us to a Wikipedia article for more explanation about the alphabet. From all this you can see that Carr is reporting the common mainstream opinion that the proto-Sinaitic alphabet was the ancestor of the Hebrew alphabet and not the fringe opinion about the language that Petrovich hadn't even announced yet. It is about time an end was put to this nonsense. Zero^talk 07:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Zero continues trying to find a way to somehow try to label Petrovich's work as "fringe" -- Carr explicitly states it is either proto-Hebrew or proto-Canaanite, and Zero points out she is metioning the mainstream -- in other words, Zero's own interpretation points out that the mainstream view is that the proto-consonantal script is proto-Hebrew or proto-Canaanite -- Carr clearly agrees here. By the way, Carr's comment was written in January/February, whereas Petrovich announced this sometime in November. It's almost too funny that what Zero labels as fringe, actual professors are discussing as a potential probability. How can there be such a distance between them? Zero clearly knows little to nothing about the proto-consonantal script, but it's good he finally stopped denying the obvious and may now finally concede Doherty accepts this. Finally, Zero is STILL not addressing the fact that Petrovich first announced this work, not by contacting Fox News, but by presenting it in a paper to the American Schools of Oriental Research! HOW can something so fringe get a presentation at ASOR? It's impossible, but it happened precisely because Petrovich is espousing nothing less then fact. Zero will never explain to us why the proto-consonantal script has names only attested to in the Hebrew language, Zero will never explain to us why the proto-consonantal script only has phrases that are coherent when read in Hebrew, nor will he ever explain to us why Petrovich, with a Hebrew reading of the script, has been the only man to ever successfully translate the script. We can see Zero's contention that this is fringe, aside from it denying the obvious, fails for many reasons, 1) Petrovich's work is peer-reviewed, 2) Petrovich's work was presented at ASOR, and 3) Petrovich's work is fully accepted by Doherty and Merrill, and as far we're concerned, is at least taken highly seriously by Carr for her to mention it as one of the only two options (alongside proto-Canaanite) to be the actual language of the script. Zero may be doing this for some agenda-related-reason, but I doubt that, he is more likely doing this because he has betted his atheism against it, which was a huge mistake. Zero is trying to hold on to his atheism while he still has the chance.Korvex (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Karen Carr's comment has the date Jul 25, 2016 on it. The rest of your comment is just as accurate and frankly not worth replying to. Zero^talk 23:51, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of other points about Carr's comments. One is that Korvex didn't mention that she's using us as a source, specifically Proto-Sinaitic script, so anything she says about script is based on an unreliable source, us. She makes an interesting point when she says "When the New Kingdom collapsed, about the 1100s BCE, Egypt lost control of Israel, and the Hebrews may have considered themselves to be free again. By the time they were writing down their stories, in the 500s BCE, they didn’t understand that Egypt had once been bigger, so they imagined that they themselves must have lived along the Nile River, where Egypt was in their own time." But of course her comments there aren't a reliable source either although they might be elsewhere.

Are we now going to be told that the majority opinion is that there were Hebrews( a word with a number of definitions) in Egypt? And @Korvex:, please don't claim that the book has been published, it hasn't. The publishing date on Amazon.com is now March 30th, so no one has responded to it yet. I knew that it wasn't being discussed where I know it will be discussed but hadn't checked until just now. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

References

LOL. Doug, the book has been published. It was published in January. Do you seriously think I have not checked Amazon yet? I have a thousand times, and Amazon is simply listing when available copies will be sold through Amazon -- this is because Carta (publishers of Doug's book) initially printed 1,000 copies of the book, but they were all sold before the book hit Amazon on February 28th (which was the initial release on Amazon). So it was pushed back to March 30th to get more copies to sell on Amazon. The book was published in January. I have personally talked to someone online who has told me they received their copy of Doug's book, and that conversation happened over a week ago. Considering the thesis of Doug's book is factually correct, and the proto-consonantal script is in fact proto-Hebrew language, that establishes beyond any possible archaeological doubt that there were Hebrews in Egypt. If we literally found a letter dating to the reign of Amenhotep II in Egypt saying "Hello, we Hebrews are currently being enslaved by the Egyptians, signed Moses" -- we still would not have better confirmation than the results given from Petrovich's book. The exodus happened, end of discussion. I wouldn't say the majority yet accept it, considering the book was just published 1-2 weeks ago, so it would not be really possible for it to circulate that fast yet. I'd give it a few months before the evangelical scholars start going crazy and Israel Finkelstein starts trying to ensure us that this doesn't actually change much anyways. It's a damn good life being on the conservative side of biblical archaeology, Doug.Korvex (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Korvex, this is another reminder that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Talk discussion pages are places to discuss improving the article in terms of information about present mainstream scholarly views. They are not places for us to speculate about what is going to happen in scholarly circles over the next few months. Alephb (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering the thesis of Doug's book is factually correct, and the proto-consonantal script is in fact proto-Hebrew language, that establishes beyond any possible archaeological doubt that there were Hebrews in Egypt. This sentence starts with a false assertion and ends with a non-sequitur. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm wrong because Amazon was wrong and Korvex originally thought it hadn't been published and didn't make it clear that it was, I accept that. Meanwhile, @Korvex:, please stop calling us both Doug. I don't mind being called Doug but I do mind being confused with Petrovich because of your inconsistency. Just use his surname. And stop using this page as a forum, eg "The exodus happened, end of discussion." It would also help if you didn't use the word 'Hebrews' which seems to have a variety of meanings, and I have literally no idea what you mean when you use the word. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It's good you have agreed with me that the book has in fact been published (but Amazon is not wrong, Amazon accurately states that there are no available copies to sell through Amazon right now). I'll try to reference Petrovich by the name Petrovich too. As for the word Hebrew having a "variety" of meanings, I have no clue what you mean when you say this. Because it can only possible denote two meanings, 1) the language or 2) the Hebrew peoples -- the Hebrews speak Hebrew. When I point out that the "Hebrews were in Egypt", it necessarily means definition 2.Korvex (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Doug Weller is right. The term "Hebrews" is ambiguous. Did you just assume he was making stuff up? The good news is, if you want to learn why the word is ambiguous, there's a handy Wikipedia page that explains how the word is used without a single clear definition: Hebrews. If you mean "Hebrew-speakers," you can say "Hebrew-speakers." But "Hebrews" does not simply mean "Hebrew-speakers" in a clear way. Alephb (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The other issue of course is what is meant by "Hebrew" when applied to a language. Biblical Hebrew (as opposed to modern day Hebrew) is a language we say was "a Canaanite Semitic language spoken by the Israelites in the area known as Israel, roughly west of the Jordan River and east of the Mediterranean" - "attested to about the 10th century BCE". Of course we know that there were Canaanites speaking a Semitic language in Egypt, after all Canaan was part of Egypt for some time. Doug Weller talk 21:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I read some of the Wiki on the Hebrews, there seems to not be much ambiguity, most of the "definitions" are basically the same thing rephrased a different way. For example, Hebrew "could" be used to refer to 1) A Jew, 2) An Israeli Jew, 3) Someone living in ancient Israel, 4) Someone of the Hebrew race (for all practical purposes, is probably a Jew). So it's not exactly "unambiguous", because all of those basically mean the same thing. In fact, it's rather obvious as to what Hebrews mean, and when the proto-consonantal script (proto-Hebrew) is attested to in Egypt, it means Hebrews were in Egypt. As for the difference between biblical Hebrew and modern Hebrew, they aren't exactly the same but I have heard that a modern-day speaker of Hebrew would be able to hold up a conversation with someone speaking in biblical Hebrew. I don't seem to think there's much to disagree on here.Korvex (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

About the only thing we agree on, or that probably most scholars agree on, is that the term Hebrew is not unambiguous. Life's too short too comment on the rest of your post. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Life's too short" - Amen.Korvex (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

The future discovery prediction

This is not a new argument, but it is my view of what is wrong with Korvex's edits: Korvex makes a prediction based upon an assumption, namely that the Exodus will soon come to pass the test of historicity with flying colors. The problem with this is precisely that it is a prediction, which at the present time is neither true, nor false. If his prediction will come true, Wikipedia will report the change in the academic consensus, but it will report it after it happens, not before it happens. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

E.g. if someone predicts that Obama will be killed soon, how can this be true or false at the present moment? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

History as a scholarly discipline doesn't usually conform to the norms of science in terms of theories needing to be falsifiable, and testing them by trying to prove them wrong. That being said, History does work much like a civil law case; with the 'winning' theory being the one which establishes the preponderance of evidence. In this case, the fact that no evidence of the Exodus has been found to date is, itself a powerful and compelling datum of evidence against the theory that the Exodus actually happened. We have very good reason to believe that it didn't, and no evidence outside of a single (I believe the Exodus is described in a single work and merely attested in others, but I may be wrong) assertion. The assumption that it will be shown to be accurate at some point in the future is quite fallacious.

Your link to the Wikispace page is also very apt. We don't stay on the bleeding edge of scholarly thought: We trail behind, safe and sound in our major consensuses. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir simply blunders by claiming that there is "no evidence" for the exodus. Without even discussing the findings of Petrovich (which I have ceased doing on my own account for now though it's obviously correct, however I have no current motive to add it to the Exodus page so the addition of this section was rather useless), there is obviously evidence for the exodus. If Mjolnir wants to complain about the fact that we haven't found literal remains of a small semi-nomadic group after 3,000 years of the shifting Egyptian desert sands and erosion, then perhaps he should direct his attention to the fact that there are no archaeological remains of the migration of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs in Greece or Arameans across the Levant. The pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II, and during the reign of Amenhotep II, the entire city of Avaris (a major Egyptian city with a population of around 25,000) was entirely abandoned. Is it not wonderfully coincidental that during the reign of the exodus-pharaoh, the entire city of Avaris (later renamed Ramesses when it was rebuilt, cough cough) was just abandoned? Aside from that -- perhaps Mjolnir would like to explain to us why the Book of Exodus is seemingly ridiculously well acquainted with Egyptian geography, Egyptian customs and Egyptian literature of the Late Bronze Age (time of the exodus). Anyways, the fact that Petrovich found that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew really ends the exodus debate, which is only attested to (found) in Egyptian sites (Serabit el-Khadim, Wadi el-Hol) between the 19th-15th centuries BC, in other words establishing that the Hebrews were in fact in Egypt in the specific time that the exodus tells us they were, simply ends the debate about the exodus. I have more to go through, but the addition of this section is rather useless as the last time I was discussing it, it was in the context of owning Zero.Korvex (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Petrovich is a fringe scholar and a biblical literalist. His 'findings' aren't worth discussing. Also, I didn't limit the scope of evidence to archeological evidence. There's plenty of anthropological, linguistic and textual evidence to support the Celtic settlement of Eastern Europe, and the Arameans arose in the Levant during the bronze age collapse, they didn't migrate there.

Actually, to be honest, there's archeological evidence of both of those. But even if there wasn't, there's still plenty of evidence.

Also, Avaris wasn't abandoned. In fact, it's still populated today, and known as Tell El-Dab'a. It was largely depopulated during the 18th dynasty when the capital was located at Thebes, sure. But it wasn't ever entirely abandoned. However, you've got the wrong pharaoh, too. It was Ahmose I, the first pharaoh of the 18th dynasty, not Amenhotep II, who was the seventh (and reigned over a hundred and twenty years later) who sacked the city. There probably weren't many people living there for a bit afterwords, I'll give you that. However, since that's a century before the earliest plausible date of the Exodus, and since we know what actually happened, I don't find it coincidental at all. It's like suggesting that the Declaration of Independence was a reaction to the fifth cholera pandemic.

So... Yeah. You're just completely wrong about pretty much every claim of fact in that whole post. I would strongly suggest you stop reading works of biblical archeology and start reading works of secular history (they don't have to be written by secular historians, so long as they're not starting from an immutable conclusion of biblical inerrancy and trying to find evidence to support it). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir, you say I am completely wrong on "pretty much every claim of fact in that whole past", however counting your errors is not an easy task. Aside from the fact that both links you gave me for the Arameans and Celts yielded no archaeological evidence for their migrations, you almost too easily establish my point when you say "There's plenty of anthropological, linguistic and textual evidence" to support these movements, and therefore just as Joshua Berman points out “But now let’s consider the absence of specifically archaeological evidence of the exodus. In fact, many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible. The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greecre, Arameans across the Levant—all described in written sources—have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic” -- in other words, just as you describe, there is no archaeological evidence for these movements, the only evidence we have for them is textual. And likewise, even if we assume there's not one archaeological strand of evidence for the exodus, what we have for it is textual evidence -- which is quite literally the exact same thing we have for the aforementioned movements. And as I have described earlier, the Book of Exodus is extraordinarily well acquainted with Egyptian geography, Egyptian customs and Egyptian writing styles.

Regarding the abandonment of Avaris, you reject this because you say Avaris is "still populated today" -- you seem to somehow think that if there is modern population in a region today (Tell el-Daba, a place I'm quite familiar with), then that must mean there was continuous population 3,400 years ago! Indeed, this logic you exercise is questionable at best. You then make another error, and equate my reference of the abandonment of Avaris under Amenhotep II with the "depopulation" you refer to of when Ahmose I invaded the Hyksos capital of Avaris. However, this is simply an error you have made -- it looks as if the only event you're aware of regarding Avaris is when Ahmose I invaded it, and thus went on to conclude that this must be the "abandonment" I'm talking about. You need to familiarize yourself with Manfred Bietak's excavations at Tell el-Dab'a (Avaris), which have shown an abandonment of Avaris which Bietak dated to the transition between Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV -- but was subsequently shown by scholars to actually indeed date to Amenhotep II's reign, not the tiny period of transition between him and Thutmose IV.

As for Petrovich, you call him a "fringe scholar". I do not usually accuse people of slander, but if you do not retract this statement by your next response, I will make this accusation. Petrovich has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology from the University of Toronto and is a professor of Ancient Egypt at Wilfrid Laurier University. He has published a number of times into many credible journals, including the Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections and Palestinian Exploration Quarterly. Regarding his book on Hebrew as the language of the proto-consonantal script in specific, this has been peer-reviewed, presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research and already endorsed by the world-renowned Old Testament Scholar Eugene Merrill, as well as having accepted by Sarah Doherty, another good archaeologist in the field (and it was just published two weeks ago). Once you actually peel away your ideology that every biblical literalist is "fringe", and actually take a look at the free literature Petrovich has given from his book on his academia.edu page, as well as his crushing of Shneider and Rollston's objections, you yourself will be utterly convinced that Hebrew is in fact the language of the proto-consonantal script. The debate ends with this fact, the exodus happened. Plain and simple. I have numerous other evidences for the exodus, but this one alone saves me a lot of time.Korvex (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, those links show photographs of artifacts from those cultures, at that location, from that time period. For you to sit here and say it contained "no archeological evidence" is as bald-faced a lie as any I've ever seen. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Tgeorg's legal threat links keeps me from accusing Mjolnir of slander (otherwise, I would have made the accusation for he has not yet retracted his statements), however I do not think I made making a legal threat. Slander means "Another important matter is the stratigraphy, which shows the abandonment of the site of Tell el-Daba/Ezbet Helmy after the reign of Amenhotep II and its reactivation in the late Eighteenth Dynasty." -- I am not saying I will actually take Mjolnir to court. But I wont do it anyways to keep on the safe side -- thanks for the heads up. However, Mjolnir comes for another round to challenge me.

Going back through my last two responses, there were several points of contention I noted. 1) The Book of Exodus is highly acquainted with Egyptian geography, Egyptian customs and Egyptian literature, 2) Avaris was abandoned during the reign of Amenhotep II, who was the exodus-pharaoh, 3) Petrovich HAS shown that the proto-consonantal script is Hebrew and 4) There are no remains of the migrations of nomadic groups including that of the Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs in Greece and Arameans across the Levant. Mjolnir is shown to be wrong on ALL of these, except for 4), where he continues challenging me. Mjolnir should have simply admitted he was wrong on those earlier points instead of pretending like the rest of the conversation never happened. That would make things a lot more easy, and perhaps he can finally admit that the evidence IS in favor of the exodus.

Mjolnir tells me that his Wikipedia links show proof of migrational remains from the Celts and Arameans -- except they don't. They show the archaeological remains of the settlements of these groups -- as in, the settlements that were conducted by these groups after they finished their migrations. As Joshua Berman points out, a respected archaeologist in the field and whom I quoted in my last response to Mjolnir, nomadic migrations including the migrations of Celts, Slavs, Arameans AND ISRAELITE'S do NOT leave remains, because they are NOMADIC migrations! But, even if none of what I said is true (all of it actually is true), it changes NOTHING, because points 1, 2 and 3 clearly establish the exodus, ESPECIALLY Petrovich's identification of the proto-consonantal script as Hebrew. The first time I met with Mjolnir on a Talk Page, he utterly corrected me and I admitted I was wrong. It is his turn to admit he is wrong. Maybe then, once he admits he is wrong, I will share even more exodus-evidence with him and he can join my side instead.Korvex (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is all WP:OR, since you cannot substitute your opinion for the majority opinion of the academic community. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You keep personalizing everything by constantly referring to me by name, and insisting that I've been proven wrong (despite not offering a single shred of evidence). Are you even aware of how that comes across to others? That is not how civil discourse is done. You are attempting to turn this discussion into just another internet argument, which is highly unproductive and has the most likely end result of you facing sanctions.

Maybe then, once he admits he is wrong, I will share even more exodus-evidence with him and he can join my side instead. ROFMLAO!!!!! That's priceless. I'm sorry, normally I wouldn't respond with something as hyperbolic as this, but this claim is so over-the-top in terms of arrogance and ignorance that it's hard not to share my amusement that someone would actually make it. But I'm not here to engage in hyperbole, so let me explain exactly what's so unbelievably wrong about this.

1. There is no quid-pro-quo or tit-for-tat relationship to being wrong. You can certainly be wrong about one subject, then wrong about another. When the thing that makes you wrong (a lack of understanding of WP policy governing the use of sources) about the first subject plays a large role in the second subject, most reasonable observers would expect you to be wrong about that, as well.
2. If you continue to assume that I'm wrong in order to argue that I'm wrong, you will, ironically enough, continue to be wrong.
3. The presentation of evidence is generally considered part of the process of convincing someone, not some kind of reward for being convinced.
4. If you think anything you've said here construes evidence in even the loosest sense, you are sorely mistaken.
5. You've tried to make several other points which ignore principles of basic logic (and I don't mean formal logic or argumentation, I mean common sense), such as:
   1. implying that we would need to find something like a trail of worn-out shoes to archeologically evince a migration. We would not. Given that migrations happen over the course of a few decades, it would be surprising to find the sort of archeological evidence you suggest. However, we can look at artifacts from two different areas, over the course of a period of time and see evidence of a migration. How does that work, you ask? Simple. If you find artifacts associated with group A in region X over the early parts of this period, and observe that the number of artifacts decreases over this period, you can reasonably conclude that the population of group A in region X decreased over time. If you then find artifacts associated with group A in region Y over the latter parts of this period, and observe that the number of artifacts increased over the period, you can reasonably conclude that the population of group A in region Y increased over time. When you have two disparate regions in which the population of a specific group is inversely proportional to each other over such a period of time, the only reasonable conclusion is a migration.
   2. Archeological evidence of Hebrew people in Egypt would be given greater weight in supporting a literalist view of the Exodus than evidence of a Hebrew migration. This evidence is sorely lacking.
   3. Your claim that nomadic people don't leave archeological evidence is rather bizarre, because even the Biblical Archaeology Society admits that they do. And they're not the only ones.
   4. The Ophel inscription does nothing to establish the historicity of the Exodus. No-one but biblical literalists have ever made any such claim. At best, the Ophel inscription describes the contents of the jar, it does not -for example- relate a first-hand account of a 50-year-old individual who left slavery in Egypt at age 10 and settled in Israel (after 'conquering' the Canaanites, no less) right before the inscription was made.
   5. Your claims about Exodus being "highly acquainted with" Egyptian geography and culture is both entirely without evidence as well as a red herring: the educated people who wrote these books would almost certainly have had access to maps and Egyptians.

I don't know why you think you will succeed in anything when you don't engage with the others commenting here or fact-check yourself before making sweeping claims of fact. I'll not speculate on why that may be. But I can tell you with perfect confidence that you're not making headway, and why: Your arguments do not hold up to even cursory scrutiny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Mjolnir, referring to you by your username does not make anything "personal", that's simply how I refer to people. Perhaps my grammar is also racist! Kidding, but seriously -- you make another set of errors that are in immediate need of my help.

Aside from calling me arrogant, falsely accusing me of circular reasoning and a bunch of other irrelevant stuff to the discussion, let's skip over this and address some other claims of yours, so I can finally return to my initial 4 points. First, you say that the Ophel Inscription shows no evidence for the exodus -- NO ONE said it does, LOL. I have literally not mentioned the Ophel Inscription a single time in this entire conversation. I can only consider this claim as a strawman. No one, not me, Petrovich, Isaac Newton or the purple monster at the bottom of the sea have made any such claim. I precisely said that the fact that Avaris was entirely abandoned in the reign of Amenhotep II is evidence for the exodus. As for your links of the "admitting" that nomads leave behind remains -- you once AGAIN mix up reality. If a single nomadic group stays living in a certain region for have a millennium, perhaps we will find something. But what we're talking about here is a nomadic migration, and as we've seen, the archaeological remains of all nomadic migrations are non-existent. In their entirety. Simple. End. So as we have seen time and time again, point 4 of mine is correct.

So, let's go back to my four points. 1) The Book of Exodus is HIGHLY acquainted with Egyptian geography, Egyptian customs and Egyptian literature. You attempt to derail this point by saying that the author of Exodus was highly educated and would have "had Egyptian maps" anyways, and therefore show you have no understanding of the Egyptian geography, customs and literature reflected in the Book of Exodus that I'm talking about -- a "map" wouldn't help anyone here. On the Book of Exodus, the world-renowned Old Testament scholar Richard Hess points out "Although many of these names remained in use later as well, some of them, such as Pinḥas, show an explicit connection with Egyptian personal names at the period in question, and a few, including Ḥevron (Exodus 6:18) and Puah (Exodus 1:15), are attested as personal names only in the mid-second millennium (that is, the 18th to the 13th centuries BCE). The use of other Egyptian words found in the early chapters of Exodus but nowhere else in the Bible similarly supports the view of a connection with Egypt in the same period. Such pieces of incidental information, which would not have been known to a later scribe, point to an antiquity and authenticity in the Exodus account that is difficult to explain otherwise" -- so, one fact is that the Book of Exodus has strictly Egyptian names attested in it, that are ONLY attested to in Egypt between the 18th - 13th centuries BC. As Hess rightfully points out, a "later scribe" would have been clueless regarding Egyptian names in mid-second millennium BC Egypt. Maps are helping no one here.

My second point was that Avaris was abandoned during the reign of Amenhotep II -- this is a fact that you didn't even try to rebut in your latest response, especially when you were shown to have confused Ahmose I's invasion of the Hyksos capital Avaris around 1550 BC with this abandonment that took place over a century later. My third point was that the proto-consonantal script IS Hebrew as Petrovich's study has shown, and again, no response to this -- and remember, this point establishes the exodus in its entirety. Perhaps something that you're not familiar with is that the proto-consonantal script is only attested to between 1840 - 1446 BC in Egyptian sites like Serabit el-Khadim and Wadi el-Hol -- now that the proto-consonantal script has been proven to be Hebrew, we have actual Hebrew writing in Egyptian sites all the way until 1446 BC. The fact that Hebrew writing existed in Egyptian sites ends all debate regarding whether or not there were Hebrews in Egypt. Which means there was an exodus. In other words, considering points 1, 2 and 3, we can see that the evidence for the historicity of the exodus (we're just scratching the surface), especially considering the findings of Petrovich, is virtually unquestionable and the exodus should be considered just as historical as the Bar-Khoba Revolt or something like that. The evidence I've provided will not be undermined by Mjolnir's appeal to maps. Mjolnir still REFUSES to retract his statements against the great scholar Petrovich.Korvex (talk) 22:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a reminder that it doesn't matter, at all, for Wikipedia's purposes whether any particular editor considers Petrovich's findings "virtually unquestionable." When the reviews come out in the appropriate publications, then we will know how scholars receive Petrovich's views. If no reviews come out in the appropriate publications, that will be an even stronger statement about how scholars receive Petrovich's views. Until then, these extended discussions by User:Korvex about why Korvex thinks Petrovich is a "great scholar" and so on are not suitable for talk discussions on a Wikipedia page. This space is supposed to be reserved for conversations about how to improve the Wikipedia article, and that's something that needs to be done within the limits of policies like WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. If you want to discuss your personal opinions about Petrovich, perhaps you could start a blog and start assembling your case. But this talk page is not the place for it. Alephb (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks as if everything Aleph said is right -- just one correction, though. Petrovich's work has already, as I've noted many numerous times, been peer-reviewed, presented to the American Schools of Oriental Research, and accepted by the world renowned Old Testament scholar Eugene Merrill as well as Sarah Doherty, another very good scholar. If Mjolnir wants to keep questioning my statements of reality, he'll have to take it to my Talk Page as I will no longer debate this issue on the Talk Page of the Exodus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korvex (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I will no longer debate this issue on the Talk Page of the Exodus. Approved ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Korvex has repeated again at WP:ANI his claim that Petrovich is a professor. Here is what I wrote there: "I didn't want to get involved in the Petrovich stuff any more, but I am tired of being told that he is a Professor at Wilfrid Laurier. Yes, he manages to get called this in the media, but he isn't one. His academic.edu site[3] calls him an adjunct teaching Ancient Egypt(something I've told Korvex before), and the University doesn't call him professor. See this and scroll down to HI299E: ANCIENT EGYPT (WINTER) where is is given no title. But at HI121: ANCIENT HISTORY IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT (WINTER) you'll see a real professor with the title. And the course he is teaching is not a standard part of the curriculum. Note its number if HI299E, and "Courses carrying special numbers (HI299, HI346, HI496) are established when a faculty member has an interest in pursuing a topic of study that is not part of our regular course offerings." Yes, Petrovich was one of many ASOR members giving presentations. Any member may present a paper, presentation doesn't mean approval.[4] He seems to be one of about 233 particpants giving 20 minute presentations.[5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been told by a Canadian who work in academia that "Adjunct Professor" is a title given to the lowest-level instructors in their universities. It doesn't mean "Professor w/o tenure" the way it often does here in the States or in the UK. That would jive with everything I know about Petrovich. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)