Talk:The Exodus/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sandbox draft

I created a sandbox version of the current page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Editors should make whatever changes they think are necessary, and try to refrain from deleting the work of others while we work for consensus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Normally such drafts are subpages of the article's talk page. I'm not sure how changes can be made without deleting the work of others, consensus isn't going to be reached like that. It would mean for instance accepting that everything now in the draft is correct. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Quark is genuinely trying to be helpful. Can his page be moved? PiCo (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It was moved back as a sub page of the mainspace. The fact that everyone is working extreamly courteously and without edit warring on that page brings my thoughts back to unlocking the main page. I would be willing to unlock it asap to prevent more histmerges then needed under a few conditions.

1. Everyone agrees to work under the 1RR for the next 2 months

   This is defined as one revert per day.

2. Everyone agrees to a one month memorandum on editing the article's lead and instead put their efforts into the body of the article.
3. Everyone agrees to read WP:NPOV,WP:DUE, WP:LEAD, Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Religion, and Wikipedia:Controversial articles again as a refresher.

The topic of this articles is contentious. It is closely related it Israel's dealings with the arab world and is a major part of the narrative of all three abrahamic religions. In addition, there is a strong body of scholarly research here. I think that these conditions will limit the amount of edit warring that got this article locked in the first place --Guerillero | My Talk 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess. You mean moratorium of course. What concerns me about that is that there is an effort to draw up guidelines for religiousa articles that restrict the lead so that is specifically is not a summary of the article but follow this definition:"The lede of an article on religion or religious subjects should be comprised entirely of an objective description of the religion/subject. It should not contain critiques or criticisms of the religion/subject, and it should not contain apologetics for the religion/subject. A critique, in this context, means stating that the religion/subject is false or mistaken." That's the sort of lead we now have. Would say changing the name Denver to the correct spelling Dever be a revert? Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Technically this is not a religious article. It is about the Exodus as an historical event. Wayne (talk) 01:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A wikiproject can't decide to overturn WP:LEAD. As for changing the spelling isn't a revert in my book, its a correction. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm happy with the current version of The Exodus/Draft. I agree to Guerillero's conditions, and in particular I think the idea of a one-month cooldown period before we resume work on the lead is a good one. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this page should be unlocked yet. What is going on below is productive. Given what went on in the past, I think these heated disagreements will start up again if the article is unlocked soon. Certain editors simply refuse recognize the legitimacy of most scholarly work on this topic, and as long as they continue to disallow such scholarly work from being included in the article (while trumping up fringe and irrelevant scholarship as "consensus"), it is hard to see how we can come to a consensus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What irrelevant scholarship (I won't get into a debate about 'fringe' as I don't see that as helpful). Being specific is really necessary if we are going to get very far. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What kind of "Exodus" is this?

Passover is around the corner (April 6th to April 14th, 2012) and imagine anyone online coming to this article to "understand" what that Jewish holiday is all about? Professors quoted and archaeologists quoted about this and that but not a single rabbi or classical religious source cited. Let's flip away from this channel and go someplace else online is what a reader will say. WP is now officially the anti-religion website! No one signs up for university course in what the Exodus is not -- people want to know what the Exodus is. This article does not read like an in-depth account of what Judaism and Christianity or Islam regard as a seminal event in their religions. Rather, this reads, like a rush to gather up every last professor's criticism of the Bible to "prove" that it "did not happen" and "could not be" be etc blah blah. The way the article stands it should be re-named "The Exodus according to secular academic scholarship" or "The Exodus according to Bible critics" or simply "The Exodus is a hoax" and should perhaps be banned per WP:HOAX because as far as the religions of Judaism and Christianity and Islam are concerned this is serious stuff and it's not in this article. See for example, the intro to the Crossing the Red Sea article that correctly states that "The Crossing of the Red Sea (Hebrew: קריעת ים סוף Kriat Yam Suph) is a passage in the Biblical narrative of the escape of the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians in the Book of Exodus 13:17–14:29. This story is also mentioned in the Qur'an in Surah 26: Al-Shu'ara' (The Poets) in verses 60-67. It marks the point in the Exodus at which the Israelites leave Egypt and enter into their wilderness wanderings." Better than in this article but still also soft-pedaling the fact that the Bible describes the 10 Plagues of Egypt that commences the REAL Exodus that and the BIRTH and freedom of the Israelites, put that in your pipes and smoke it (hey, it's all in the Bible, you just have to read it!) Some serious re-orientation is required and editors with a secular POV need to cool it and stop playing with people's heads. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you IZAK, but I do think you need to tell us just what you think needs to be done :) PiCo (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, you have demonstrated that you are not interested in improving the article beyond further reinforcing in it your minimalist bias.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, and the problem is certain editors (see the above discussion) whose view on the scholarly opinion is so skewed that they think this extreme skepticism isn't just common among scholars but close to consensus. They engage in original research by getting the article to report the position they think has the strongest evidence (biblical minimalism) rather than the range of common scholarly views. They view other opinions as illegitimate and so arguments for including these views go no where. This article is only going to improve if non-minimalists work together to correct the glaring problems in the article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:HOAX bans hoaxes, not Wikipedia articles about notable hoaxes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE

This article consistently uses BC to indicate dates, rather than BCE. Given that both terminologies are acceptable (per WP:BCE), and given that this is an article about specifically Jewish events, may I suggest that avoiding the specific Christ-reference of B(efore) C(hrist) by switching to BCE might be appropriate (much as both American and British English spellings are acceptable, but we avoid specifically-British spellings on America-related articles and vice versa.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Exodus qualifies as "specifically Jewish". It is in the Christian Bible just as much as in the Torah, and quite a few of the historians and theologians we cite come from a Christian background, not a Jewish one (Kitchen, for example). Huon (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly Christians who care about what happened there, but it's pretty obviously specifically about what happened to the Jews, what the Jews did. The reason to use dating terminology that puts this specifically and solely in a context relative to Christ eludes me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I see non faith-specific era-dating style as particularly desirable in discussing a topic of such cross-faith and universal interest. Per WP:ERA ("Do not arbitrarily change from one era style to the other on any given article. Instead, attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason"), we can consider making the changeover if there is a consensus here to do so (after allowing reasonable time for others to comment). Hertz1888 (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We should adopt the notation used by the preponderance of the sources: BC. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we'd have to change it as sources changed. Not a good idea. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Following Hertz1888's comment about desirability of non-faith-specific dating styles, I think BCE is much more appropriate. bobrayner (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only an impression, but I think the majority of scholarly sources use BCE. PiCo (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Checking the last 10 Bibliography items as a sample:

• Uses primarily BCE: Exodus, Canaan and Israel in antiquity, Oxford History, Images of Egypt, The Jewish Study Bible, The land that I will show you, Oxford handbook of biblical studies
• Uses primarily BC: Dictionary of the Old Testament, The face of Old Testament studies
• Not on Google Books: An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah

As such, even the "preponderance of sources" logic would seem to point to BCE. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Sandbox page

The following discussion pertains to the recently created sandbox draft. For the record, sandbox pages must be created in an alternate namespace, such as Talk: or User:, rather than in articlespace — that is, it should be a subpage of this talk page, not a subpage of the article. If it's in articlespace, then it has to be treated as a real article, including the possibility of both maintenance and deletion tagging — so such pages are properly created and belong in non-article namespace. Accordingly, I'm moving the draft page's talk page discussion here so that the draft page itself can be moved to Talk:The Exodus/Draft. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because: please see Talk:The Exodus, this draft is part of an ongoing dispute resolution process. --Cerebellum (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I created this page so the current dispute over the exodus (which has been locked over this dispute) can be resolved.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy deletion tag; it's obviously inappropriate. Huon (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Thanks Quark, this is a useful initiative. I'll set the ball rolling:

• Lead: I'm fine with those two paras as an interim measure. They can stay until we finish the body of the article, then we can come back and expand as necessary.

• Cultural significance: The topic is worth keeping, but there are better sources. In fact I thought I had one in the bibliography, from the JPS Torah, but I can't see it. I must have dropped it by accident. I'll look for it.

• Origins of the Exodus story: Far too long, and most of it isn't about that at all. I'd suggest the following:

• • Keep biblical background, it's a useful notice to those who aren't aware that the Exodus story isn't just in the book of Exodus, it's a major theme throughout the Old Testament;
  • Take out the heading "Secular academic theories" as these theories aren't secular and there's no reason to direct attention to the academic background of academic sources (it sort of stands to reason).
  • Remove the heading "Theories of Russell" as Russell is prominently tagged in the first line of the para; it's also tagged that this is just one man's theory, albeit Russell is the only person to have written a book anything like this in recent times. In other words, this para is about a recent attempt to investigate the origins of the Exodus story by reviewing all the mentions throughout the bible, and as such it's notable.
  • Take out the heading "Theories of William Denver" (sic - should be Dever). This is about archaeology, these aren't theories, and they have universal acceptance in archaeological circles. That said, we need to make sure the nuances are in there - Dever says there's room for a small group of immigrants from Egypt and many others take the same view.
  • Secular theories about how the story was written: This section could be reduced to a single sentence and put somewhere else.
  • Ongoing debate: Another editor has earlier made the point that the "Historicity" section (this one) is far too long, and I agree. This can be a short section in its own right, and much shorter than this.

• Route and date: Far too long.
• Extra-biblical accounts: I have a soft spot for this, but perhaps also too long. A brief mention that these accounts exist would be in order, but no more.

PiCo (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

All right, I've done my best to clean up and condense the "Ongoing debate" section, but my personal bias is likely to have crept in so someone else should check to see if it is neutral or not. I also moved the "Extra-biblical accounts" section into the historicity section, since it seems to have some bearing on the historicity question, and I deleted a factually erroneous line about Jericho in the date section. I like how the date section gives the history of how ideas on the date have developed, could we do the same in the historicity question? We should probably at least mention pre-20th century views and perhaps Albright, though he is already discussed in the date section. PiCo, I disagree that the route and date section is too long - it seems fine to me. I also think we should expand the summary and cultural significance sections. --Cerebellum (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It may be tricky at first to make sure that the sections are balanced according to NPOV - I'm thinking here in terms of how much coverage is given to each section. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand the lead will be subject to change as the article texts develops but one point that is worth clarifying just now relates to the scope of the article. The text presently states: "Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure from Egypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequent law-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan described in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy". The books I have on Egyptology usually extend the scope to deal with the sojourn, albeit few go into the subject in any great depth. Presumably this is because if there is to be an output, i.e an Exodus, then any evidence relating to an input is relevant to weighing up the claims of the output. That being said I know people may be bored with a long articles whereas my bias goes in the opposite direction, so it's just a point to consider and not something I'm pushing, especially since I won't be contributing article text. Yt95 (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The Exodus and Judaism

• I have now added some important points of the practical significance of the Exodus to practicing Rabbinic Judaism to this day for over 2000 years, see Talk:The Exodus#Significance of the Exodus in Judaism. IZAK (talk) 10:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Historicity issues

It looks like much of the dispute here concerns the historicity issues (including archaeology, the plausibility of the exodus narratives, and pretty much any claim by any scholar, biblical or archaeological). We seem to be disagreeing about some basic issues, such as what scholars commonly agree and who to constitute in the definition of "scholar". I suggest that we put all of the historicity discussion in the historicity section, with a generic sentence on the topic in the lead (i.e. "The exact historicity of the exodus has been subject to vigorous academic debate for decades.") This would defuse much of the dispute here and let us move forward without that distraction.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we simply drop the "historicity" section - the article can do quite well without it. PiCo (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you tackle the 'historicity' issues then? What do you think about a separate article as suggested above? Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate articles would allow more evidential detail in this one and more beliefs detail in the new one. Wayne (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

If we want to drop the historicity section (and everything in it) that is fine. The material is discussed elsewhere and this would remove the major source of dispute.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the historicity section needs to be expanded by going into more detail. Wayne (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

That should be a no-brainer. There has been a lot written about the historicity issues, and Quark knows that. I don't know where else the history of the Exodus is discussed but to not discuss it here would be a flagrant violation of NPOV, although apparently it would please some editors. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The historical accuracy claim/concern can be reduced to a single sentence saying that there is scholarly consensus that the exodus as described in the bible could not and did not take place. For that we can choose from a whole raft of reliable sources. We then move straight on to a discussion of where the story had its roots (8th century prophetic tradition) and why and when it was written (as a national foundation myth in the exilic/Persian period). For this also there are ample reliable sources. The whole thing should take about 2 paragraphs. PiCo (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

No it can't be reduced to that sentence because your sentence is false. This is the exact problem: you want to put up non-facts as facts on this article, and the dispute will continue as long as you do this. You are redefining who counts as a "scholar" to exclude most scholars (as you admitted above). I wouldn't have a problem with this if we included your reasoning behind your statement (which you described above): some scholars think this, and others don't. Actually, the vast majority of scholars disagree with your claim above, though you conveniently don't count them as "scholars". Your claim of consensus is flatly wrong, even by your own admission above.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We will never get anywhere if, as PiCo correctly states his POV, and as basically supported by Dougweller (who are basically saying that whatever the Bible says is "trash" and "false", or what don't I get?): "The historical accuracy claim/concern can be reduced to a single sentence saying that there is scholarly consensus that the exodus as described in the bible could not and did not take place." While at the very same time classical Judaism, i.e. Rabbinic Judaism, especially the bulk of Orthodox Judaism traditional scholarship (meaning its millenia-old texts and commentaries STILL studied and disseminated today and easily accessible), maintains the EXACT OPPOSITE. Truth and falsehood cannot be joined in a happy marriage! Like trying to combine fire and water! It will never work. Unless of course all sides decide that all can have their say in a fair and logical way to reflect all sides of the case in question. It is like trying combine two POVs when each holds that the other side is promoting one big lie. So what it boils down to is who to believe or in other words who is the liar here and who is telling the truth in order to assume the required axioms and establish the facts? Otherwise this is like a case of the blind talking to the deaf or some such mix-up where it is impossible to bridge two diametrically opposed and rival Weltanschauungs, one rooted in the classical religions of Judaism and Christianity, the other rooted in modern day secular academic Biblical criticism (in WP-speak they'd all be classed as violators of WP:NOR and WP:NOTMADEUP but that is a discussion for another time) that has NOTHING to do with those religions and is in fact tied in to opposing and attacking them, as we see here tearing its sacred events to shreds. That is why I like the idea of an Exodus denial article that would be similar to the Holocaust denial one (itself a grand example of what we'd call around here a violation WP:HOAX unfortunately), where you have a glut of antisemites trying to disprove that The Holocaust "never" happened and that happened from 1939-1945 and not 3,000 years ago like the Exodus from ancient Pharaohnic Egypt. And then this could go on and on until all vestiges of the Bible and Jews and Judaism are wiped off the map. It's a slippery slope allright! While Classical Judaism would say that the secular academics are liars and frauds and that they have no way to disprove events that were witnessed by millions of Israelites/Children of Israel/Hebrews/Judeans/Pharisees/Jews and verified in the Torah and kept as a record for over 3,300 years and counting. That's the official rabbinic view by the way, not my "personal" one, FYI, and that's why "killing of the Exodus" is the moral and spiritual equivalent of "killing off what Jews and Judaism have always held sacred in the Bible" -- a kind of "intellectual genocide" even though Dougweller doesn't like the analogy but it is as much a threat to Jews and Judaism and Nazis and Nazi ideology was in its own hey-dey with its own false and lying professors of the Third Reich, on top of which Christianity subsequently adopted those Biblical events and teachings as recorded in the Bible. This is turning out to be a secular crusade against religion, something that WP is taking on a well-deserved reputation for. It's a shame really, because WP welcomes all POVs as long as they can follow the NPOV policies and WP editorial guidelines. IZAK (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

We will never get anywhere if IZAK and Quarkgluonsoup insist that this article be based on Biblical inerrancy. Falsly claiming a secular crusade with a comparison to antisemitism, Nazis and Nazi ideology is offensive and I ask you to keep such claims out of the discussion. BTW, even the word "secular" has no place in the article as the evidence that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible is also accepted by many Biblical scholars and Rabbis. Your POV is welcome as long as you can follow the NPOV policies and WP editorial guidelines. Please try to do so. Wayne (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayne: "evidence that the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible is also accepted by many Biblical scholars and Rabbis" obviously does not refer to people who respect the Bible and take it seriously. Sure, there are rabbis that eat pork and are atheists, and would not even be considered Jews in some cases as they are Reform converts not accepted by Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. They are called Reform rabbis mostly. There views can and should also be stated, but they were not the views of Judaism for 3,00 years either. That's a slippery slope. To attack and deny everything, or pick and choose, in the Bible, including the notion of God. Criticism and denial has its place but watch out for crossing red lines. That's how Holocaust denial mutates, and eventually The Holocaust "never happened". It's a perfect logical analogy not to mention that it revolves around the same set of people, the Jews/Israelites. Just take a few steps back, let the article unfold chronologically and there can be a section for how the Exodus was first resisted by Pharaoh and the ancient Egyptians and in modern times by those who want to promote Exodus denial (feel free to create a full-fledged article on that topic.) This article is about what the Exodus IS, and it's not about what it is "not"! IZAK (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, speaking of what the Exodus is: a mythical event which was told as if it were history. I think it is clear that among professional historians (i.e. academics teaching empirical science at reputable universities) the consensus is that there is no evidence that the Exodus ever took place. As shown above, even those who find the Exodus story plausible recognize this lack of evidence. Empirical science works with evidence, if there is no evidence we cannot simply say that a historical event happened. Bible itself cannot be taken at face value, this is a view which is 300 year old among scholars who study it professionally (see John Mill (theologian) for details). So, the Bible itself cannot be used as reliable source in order to say that the Exodus took place. Only historians have the right to decide upon historical facts, and we render their consensus as fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Next Friday and Saturday nights I will conduct a Passover Seder with my family in which we will recount the story of the Exodus, stating the we were slaves in Egypt, describing the ten plagues of Egypt that were inflicted on Pharaoh and describe how the Jews were led out of Egypt by Moses. While I believe this story to be literally true, I recognize that there are many who don't. The question is how do we describe an event for which we have no definitive agreement on its occurrence, where there are two (if not more) conflicting sides with opinions on the issue that are completely different from each other. As I see it, we need to express the various opinions, using appropriate sources. The Biblical story and its summarization in the Haggadah of Pesach, along with rabbinic exegesis of the story over the thousands of years since the events described are said to have taken place, would represent one side of the story. Various interpretations of what could have taken place (a naturalistic interpretation of what are described in the Bible as miracles) is one direction, while discussions of how the events depicted could not have taken place as described, with regard to archaeological and other evidence, would be another direction. To a large extent, this is how the current article is laid out. As always, Wikipedia is not about determining truth; it's about providing neutral descriptions of viewpoints using appropriate sources. Whether the article is about The Exodus, or the Book of Mormon or Scientology (or Black helicopters or UFOs, etc.), there are going to be beliefs that some hold as literally true, some hold as metaphoric and others believe are patently false. Articles on these underlying subjects should neutrally describe the views of believers in neutral fashion, without passing judgment on such views, while providing balance from those who are of the opinion that these beliefs and belief systems are false. The decision as to which side to choose should be left up to the reader, without having a decision made by Wikipedia editors. In essence, this (and other such articles) should be laying out the evidence, while the verdict on truthfulness is made by the readers, not by Wikipedia and its editors. Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we already have WP:RNPOV which says that rendering the scientific consensus as fact in respect to religious matters is no violation of NPOV. See e.g. Jesus#Historical views. As Bart Ehrman puts it on Facebook, "The reality is, whatever else you may think about Jesus, he certainly did exist." So, this is rendered as the view of the majority of scientists upon the real existence of Jesus. But many other events traditionally ascribed to Jesus are disbelieved by the majority of historians, e.g. his miracles (as Ehrman put it, historians could never affirm that a miracle has happened, since history does not work the same way as physics; historians say what has probably happened in the past, and the most improbable event cannot be the most likely event.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Tg: No one is denying historians the right to have their day in court, but that does not mean that they get to have a "veto" over theologians and the long-held millennia-old religious views that predates the modern historians. Kindly note, that pure history concerns itself with the written records of human beings and nothing else and is therefore not older than about 5000+ years and not more. And simply put, the Bible and the age old commentaries or rabbis and clergy are in many ways the best historical records as starting points. For example that is why the writings of Josephus are so important as well, even though he wrote 2000 years ago, he does not contradict the accounts of the Jewish sages at the time. The POVs of latter-day historians are just POV's and they can have their sections at the ends of articles or as full articles, but they cannot and should not be the ones to have the last or "only" over-riding word on WP. It is not WP's job to cherry-pick what it likes and does not like based *only* on historians. WP is conceptually greater than that and is therefore much broader because it can and does accommodate the widest scope of legitimate POVs both religious and secular as long as they are stated in NPOV terms. The objective of WP editors should be how to lay that out and not to create a "cultural war" in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND but to strive to record all the schools of thought chronologically, systematically, logically and factually in peace and harmony in a clear well-written manner. Another example would be that Christian interpretations should not overwhelm the original Judaic Biblical ones and that is also a job for WP editors to sort out quite often. As much as editors coming from a more religious background need to adapt to this all-encompassing work atmosphere on WP, likewise editors with a purely secular and academic education, who have never been to a religious school and studied its texts from traditional perspectives also need to show tolerance and flexibility for the greater good of transforming WP into a reflection of all POVs throughout all the ages and eras of history in complex articles. Thank you for your understanding. IZAK (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia should not be a battle ground for different Weltanschauungs. But in this matter historians decide what counts as fact, what counts as fact is a matter of scientific research and theologians/rabbis could only provide us with their own opinion (opinion as contrasted to fact). As D.P. Moynihan put it, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Of course, we do render notable opinions as opinions and facts as facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Article outline:Cultural significance

In the thread immediately above, we sort of agreed on an outline of the structure of the article. I think everyone is happy with the existing section summarising the Exodus story. For the following section, "Cultural significance", here's a book which can be useful - the Jewish Study Bible's entry for Exodus. (See esp. pages 106-107). Unless there are strong objections I'll start drafting something using this as a basis - it can be aded to later. PiCo (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi PiCo: Thanks for your efforts. In light of the fact that Passover is exactly one week away (from Friday Night April 6, 2012 to Saturday night April 14, 2012) and that that, plus observance of the eight day holiday itself is an overwhelmingly personally busy time for essentially almost all Jewish editors, therefore, in keeping with WP:AGF and WP:CONSENSUS, that no real changes be made and no major decisions made about this topic so central to Passover, Judaism and all the Jewish holidays until after April 15, 2012. Thanks again for your kind understanding. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 03:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's fine Izak, see you after Passover. PiCo (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes IZAK is right.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Significance of the Exodus in Judaism

So far there is a glaring omission. This section will have to be inserted either in this improved version. More material and sub-sections and additional references to be added Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC):

==The Exodus and Judaism==

The Exodus, and belief in the events of the Exodus as described in the Torah, has a central position in classical Rabbinic Judaism. Together with the narrative of Creation as stated in the first chapters of Genesis, the Exodus is cited in Jewish payers and prayer books and in the writings of Torah and rabbinic scholars considered authoritative in Judaism. The Exodus and Creation are cited in the payers and texts for over 2000 years as literal proofs for the intervention of God in the affairs of mankind. By observant Jews being required by Jewish law to recite the blessings and prayers mentioning both Creation and the Exodus they are thereby affirming and attesting that those events revealed God's powers and that therefore there is an obligation to have faith in God and in His existence. The following demonstrate the practical implications and application of this in some of Judaism's rituals:

===Daily prayers===

Main articles: Song of the sea, Crossing the Red Sea, Shacharit, and Siddur

The "Song of the Sea" (שירת הים, Shirat HaYam, also known as Az Yashir Moshe) is a poem that appears in the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible, at Exodus 15:1–18. It is followed in verses 20 and 21 by a much shorter song sung by Miriam and the other women. The Song of the Sea was reputedly sung by the Israelites after they crossed the Red Sea in safety, and celebrates the destruction of the Egyptian army during the crossing, and looks forward to their future conquest of Canaan. The poem is included in Jewish prayer books, and recited daily in the morning shacharit services.

===The Exodus and the Sabbath===

Main articles: Shabbat and Kiddush

The Friday night Kiddush consists of various blessings prior to partaking of the first Shabbat meal on every Friday night. Both Creation and the Exodus are cited in the blessings. In the Hebrew text of Friday night kiddush|second half of the blessing, the Exodus is cited directly: "Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us with His commandments, and hoped for us, and with love and intent invested us with His sacred Sabbath, as a memorial to the deed of Creation. It is the first amongst the holy festivals, commemorating the exodus from Egypt (זֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם). For You chose us, and sanctified us, out of all nations, and with love and intent You invested us with Your Holy Sabbath."

The Hebrew phrase זֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם is also translatable as "A memorial of the Exodus from Egypt." The ArtScroll prayer book provides this commentary: "Ramban explains that the Sabbath and the Exodus are intertwined. The Sabbath is symbolic of God's creation; the Exodus was His demonstration to humanity that He controls nature and manipulates it as His will sees fit. In turn, the events of the Exodus bear witness to God's creation - and hence, His mastery - of the Universe. The Sabbath on the other hand, is the backdrop of the Exodus, because the concept it represents explains how the events of the Exodus were possible."

===The Exodus and the Jewish Holidays===

Main articles: Jewish holiday, Three Pilgrimage Festivals, Passover, [[:Shavuot]Sukkot]], and Kiddush § Holiday eve kiddush

Similar to the observance of the Sabbath, in the course of the observance of the main Biblically mandated Jewish holiday particularly the שלוש רגלים Three Pilgrimage Festivals, explicit mention and recital of the Exodus and Creation is stressed for the same reason described for the Sabbath. The traditional wording of the evening Kiddush#English translation of holiday eve kiddush includes: "...And You gave us, Lord our God, with love, [Sabbaths for rest and] festivals for happiness, holidays and times for joy, this day [of Shabbat and this day of]...[With love], a holy convocation, a remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt (זֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם). Because You chose us, and sanctified us from all the nations, [and Shabbat] and Your holy festivals..."

The phrase זֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם can also translated as "in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt." The Hebrew Publishing Company's version of the Machzor holiday prayer book (translated and annoted by Philip Birnbaum) states that: "זֵכֶר לִיצִיאַת מִצְרָיִם ("in remembrance of the Exodus from Egypt") refers to Pesah, Shavuoth and Sukkoth, directly connected with the Exodus from Egypt. The same phrase is elsewhere applied to the Sabbath on the basis of Deuteronomy 5:15 'Remember that you were once a slave in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out from there by a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; hence the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day."

---

My only comment at the moment is that the use of italics for 'belief' and the bold text are both inappropriate as I understand MOS:TEXT. Hm, just previewed and notice that you want to add more. In that case, there may be a balance issue in the article. Perhaps the subject needs its own article with a summary here. Dougweller (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Far, far far too much. PiCo (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller. A new article, perhaps called The Biblical Exodus, with the above "Exodus in Judaism" as a section would be an appropriate way of handling the religious viewpoint. Wayne (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wayne. How would that work? The Biblical Exodus versus The Bible criticism Exodus or The atheists Exodus or how about The Pharaohs Exodus? May as well start a series of articles about competing "Exoduses" unless we can all agree that there was only one Exodus and it is known from the Pentateuch, a fine historical record if ever there was one that has outlasted all its enemies and critics. As for Dougweller's objections, they are not justified. Let's not forget that the Exodus was and remains a topic related to Jews and Judaism as recorded in the Torah (i.e. the Jewish Hebrew Bible) first and foremost because first of all the events of the Exodus took place about 3,3000 years ago and until the advent of Christianity about 2,000 years it was an exclusively Judaism topic. Then Christianity came along and "adopted" it, and similarly about 1,500 years ago Islam came along and adopted it. The secular Bible critics scpepics, atheists and agnostics and academics are johnny-come-letelies that arrive on the scene, starting with the German proto-intellectual Nazi and Exodus and general Bible denier Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) who was at the helm of negating, trashing and attacking the authenticity and historicity of the Bible, building on the tend of attacking the 3,300+ year old historical strengths of the Jews that the likes of Arnold Toynbee (1852-1883) delighted in because the slanted and jaundiced "Wellhausen-Toynbee" POV is just a minor blip on the 3,300 year old history and validity of the Exodus. So please let's get some perspective and a sense of balance. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How about dropping these comparisons with Nazis? Your whole approach seems to be that you are right, others are atheists or maybe Nazis, and now balance should be to claim that there is a 3300+ history which outweighs = I'm not sure what. Ah, are you really saying that those who disagree with you have a "Wellhausen-Toynbee" pov? Dougweller (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply to IZAK. It is clear that this article primarily deals with the academic research and consensus regarding an alleged historical event. A separate article would serve to allow the religious aspect to be dealt with in detail while keeping "criticism" to a section. That way everyone gets what they want without compromising either article. Wikipedia already does this for some topics such as Historicity of Jesus (disputes regarding the existence of Jesus), Historical Jesus (scholarly reconstruction), Jesus (Biblical Jesus) and even Jesus myth theory (Jesus is fictional). Wayne (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting idea. Would not a separate article constitute at WP:POVFORK, which is frowned upon? --Cerebellum (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It is indisputable that both would have enough material for dedicated articles and we would have two legitimate articles. One where the "historicity" is the major theme (and it's links to the Biblical exodus) and one where the Biblical exodus is the theme (and it's links to history). As such, neither would have a criticism section but a "reception" section, ie: I believe most Biblical scholars are open to an archaeological interpretation and academia is open to the Biblical connections. I think that the last paragraph of WP:POVFORK justifies the split and I sincerely doubt that a single article can do justice to both views without getting confusing and unwieldy. Wayne (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

About those 3300 years: it begs the question of the Exodus story being that ancient. About "a minor blip", it depends upon whether you consider the apparition of empirical science as a significant development, so there there are two epochs: "before empirical science" and "after empirical science". As far Wikipedia is concerned, the apparition of empirical science is a significant development and Wikipedia definitely sides with the views which belong to the spirit of the "after empirical science" epoch. In respect to the historical consensus, i.e. counting or not counting certain people as scholars: what would be taught as historical fact (opposed to as theology) at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard? If it is taught there as fact, it is a fact for Wikipedia. As simple as that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If the minor blip argument would hold, we should present flat Earth as fact and Earth being a planet as just a modern theory of secular scholars. But that does not work, since astronomers decide what counts as fact about the Earth. The same way, historians decide what counts as fact about the past. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

References

Edit request on 6 April 2012

remove "Theories of William Denver and others"

replace with "Theories of William Dever and others"

Susanewoodward (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)susanewoodward aka Susan E. Woodward

DeNver is just a typo. The scholar's name Dever is correctly spelled elsewhere in this article.

Done by User:Dougweller. — Bility (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 Apr 2012

Since I am not an admin, and thus lack edit ability here, may I request a kind admin to add a nonbreaking-space (id est,  ) between the year and era of the dates in this article (except for bare wikilinks) per WP:MOS date formatting?

Also, I noticed there is a mixture between the CE/BCE system and the christian system. It would be nice if someone could adjust the eras within the article to be consistent with each other. (If consensus is still be looked for concerning which era to use, I would vote for the CE/BCE system due to its NPOV attribute). Many thanks. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kitchen reference #33

The statement that this reference is used to support "Albright's theory enjoyed popularity around the middle of the 20th century, but has now been generally abandoned in scholarship" is highly misleading. This gives the impression that the generic "late" Exodus in the 13th century BCE is without scholarly support. However, Kitchen is firmly in support of a Ramesside Exodus, which is at most a minor modification of Albright's date, not wholesale rejection. Either the sentence needs to be modified, or the Kitchen reference needs to be removed and replaced with a reference that actually supports the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.40.41 (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing on pages 309-310 of Kitchens "Reliability" that mentions Albright. (I.e., you're right). PiCo (talk) 10:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Article outline

Current article outline looks like this (not counting lead):

1. 1 Summary (Meaning a summary of the bible-story)
2. 2 Cultural significance (Exodus in modern Judaism)
3. 3 Origins of the Exodus story
4. 3.1 Biblical background
5. 3.2 Secular academic theories
6. 3.2.1 Theories of Stephen C. Russell
7. 3.2.2 Theories of William Denver and others
8. 3.3 Secular theories about how the story was written
9. 3.4 Ongoing debate (Means "Historicity")
10. 3.5 Numbers and logistics
11. 3.6 Secular point of view
12. 3.7 Archaeology
13. 3.8 Anachronisms
14. 3.9 Chronology
15. 4 Route and date
16. 4.1 Route
17. 4.2 Date
18. 5 Extra-Biblical accounts

That's not a very good structure. I'd suggest something like this:

1. 1 Summary (Same as at present)
2. 2 Cultural significance (Good subject but needs far better sources)
3. 3 Origins (How the exodus story came to be written, and why)

That's all that's needed really. Some existing material can be rearranged within this framework. The entire article can be about a quarter the present length. PiCo (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest to remove. Just the section headers, or content? Surely we should discuss historicity, archaeology, etc.? I agree that the "route" subsection could be merged with "numbers and logistics", and "date" can find a place within the "origins" section, too. I don't see why the extra-Biblical accounts should be removed or how they would fit into your remaining structure, though. I'd suggest something along these lines:

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

The historicity section could probably do with subsections for archaeology and proposed dates, among others. We might break out the detailed coverage of historicity into a separate article with just a short summary here, but I don't think wholesale deletion is the way to go. Huon (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the structure rather than the content. However, I do think that this long discussion of historicity is a bit superfluous - the overwhelming consensus is that the exodus story in the bible is a deliberate work of art, not a record of events, and that its purpose was to create a unifying mythic history for what was essentially a new political and social entity, the Jewish temple-state of the Persian period. It's also pretty much agreed that this was't just created out of thin air, but that there were traditions dating back to at least the 8th century and probably earlier that involved salvation from the Egyptians, a prophet named Moses, and the theophany at Sinai. All this is fascinating, far more so than talking about the historicity of the story.

I'm not sure that a separate article on the historicity of the exodus would fly - I think it would be seen as a pov fork. If editors do want to go into detail on this question, so be it, but do it here. PiCo (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as you continue to say that the consensus among scholars is that the exodus didn't happen or didn't happen on the scale suggested in the exodus narratives, this dispute will continue because that statement is flatly wrong even by your own admission above. You can't simply redefine "scholar" to exclude most scholars, then refuse to include any mention of this exclusion from the article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

We reflect the views of reliable sources, giving the consensus when there is one, or due weight to major and minor points of view where there is not. The first step is to gather our sources: perhaps you'd like to make a start by reviewing the sources in the existing bibliography and seeing if, in your opinion, they are contemporary and reliable. Then we can weed out the eak ones and possibly, if it's needed, look for further ones. PiCo (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You are engaging in sophistry. I have been through this with you several times already: you have no interest whatsoever in including sources that say anything other than that your view is right. I have already given you long lists of sources that say what the scholarly view is. Many of these sources you even said were reliable. You even said above that I am right about the scholarly view, only you denigrate scholars who don't agree with your view as "scholar-theologians" (even though most of their scholarly work is historical and not theological) and so claim that their views simply aren't legitimate on historical issues. As most scholars fall into this group, your bias makes the article extremely misleading on what the "scholarly view" is. What you have shown is that when I find any number of sources which show that the scholarly view is not what you say it is, you A) reject many of the sources I come up with, and B) don't even allow the sources you do agree with. If you wanted to differentiate between liberal and conservative scholars (which is what this is ultimately about) that would be fine, and we could include whatever views you wanted. I wouldn't even press the issue of mentioning that the liberal group is in the distinctive minority. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I repeat myself, but what would be taught as historical fact (opposed to as theology) at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard? If it is taught there as fact, it is a fact for Wikipedia. As simple as that. The consensus of historians is the consensus as rendered by the full professors of history at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: Wikipedia is not "defined" or "limited" by what professors at one or two colleges think or say, Wikipedia is all inclusive provided all of WP's editorial guidelines are met. While their views are important and welcome, they are not the "only" views particularly when it comes to subject matter that still has its own vital and vigorous methods and schools of their own scholarships which is particularly true of any religion. Thus what the Jewish rabbis and Christian theologians and Islamic Imams teach and hold sacred is just as crucial as what the merry professors in their gilded ivory towers are pontificating about. That is why it is critical that an article like this that has wide interest should include all historical and theological POV in the most NPOV manner. Thus, 1 the Jewish Torah view comes first simply because it is the original and oldest record of the Exodus going back over 3,300 years. 2 Then comes the Christian POV that starts about 2,000 years ago. 3 The Islamic POV commences with the rise of Islam about 1,500 years ago, and then 4 finally what secular scholars may think it's all about, starting from only about 150 years ago, can come as a last section. This is the best from a logical, historical, chronological and factual perspective. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Babylonian mythology and Babylonian religion is even older than the Bible, does it mean that Babylonian authors are better source about the history of their land than contemporary academic professors? Not necessarily, though their texts are suirely a wonderful primary source which is the material a historian or an archeologist can work on. This is completely unimportant who was first or who was out there for the longest time. Historical and archeological record analysis is the best way to prove the facts. Possibly there was Israelite Exodus from Egypt, why not? Anyway, the Bible is quite an extant and large source of chronicles and many of them were proven to contain at least a grain of truth (eg. the descriptions of Babylonian Captivity, which is so detailed that even look of some Babylonian officials was described correctly, or the existence of Solomon Temple). And no, this doesn't prove any "miraculous" or "supernatural" events. However, it's up to academic scholars, mainly historians and archeologists, not up to Christian, Jewish or Muslim clergy to find the facts. Of course, a clergyman or a clergywoman may fully participate in academic proceedings, however this is possible only if he/she observes the academic methods of investigation (aka "scientific method" in history) and not the tenets of one's faith.

Critto (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 0:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we need to represent all points of view in this article. Restricting ourselves to the opinions of a closed group of western academics of the past 30 years is not an acceptable way to go. --Cerebellum (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The Torah story of the exodus is what the article is about - we can summarise it, and in fact we do.

Jewish, Christian and Islamic theologians have valid viewpoints on the meaning of the exodus story for their own religious life, and I want to to see that included, but they're not historians and don't claim to be.

Exactly. And to claim academic scholars work to be merely an "opinion" is denigerating their hard work. It's not merely "opinion", it's an INVESTIGATION that one may agree or disagree with, however it has at least traces of finding out the truth. Critto (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Scientific biblical scholarship as developed over the last 200 years (not 30), and scientific archaeology (not Ron Wyatt-style adventurers) have developed the best insights currently available on the origins and original meaning of the exodus story, and for this reason have to go first in the article. PiCo (talk) 00:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

"Scientific scholarship"? What physicist is conducting biblical scholarship? Your attempt to de-legitimize views that are not your own is quite sad really. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholarship is scientific when it defines questions (e.g. How did the biblical story of the exodus come to be written? What were the authors' purposes? What real events might lie behind it?), examines evidence (e.g. the structure of the narrative, comparisons with other mentions of the exodus in the biblical literature, archaeological findings), and proposes theories which can then be tested by other scholars. Scholarship is not scientific when it relies on tradition for its explanations ("the exodus is a true story because Christians and Jews have always believed it to be a true story"), as traditions can't be tested. (That archaeology is a science goes without saying). PiCo (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I dunno whether "scientific" is the best word here (being non-native speaker of English I'm not sure whether "science" relates only to the disciplines like Maths, Physics or Chemistry, or also to the domains like History, Archeology, etc), but "academic" surely is. As someone said, academic historians are the ones who decide what is historical and what is not; similiarly, academic geologists decide what is an academic view about origins of continents (ie. plate tectonics v. now obsolete sunken contintent theory). Views based on religion, personal worldview etc. are of course tolerated and acceptable, but they should be presented in the correct place, not as competing with academic scholars. Academic scholarship about the historicity of Bible isn't meant to promote atheist/agnostic viewpoint as someone suggested; it is meant to investigate the historicity of EVENTS, nothing more and nothing less. This onslaught of religious activists and apologetes in the Internet quite makes me anxious about the future of academic investigation and the enlightened status of scholarship. Critto (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking up the suggestion of Huon, how about this for the article structure (the change I've made is to move textual history before historicity, and a slightly stronger move to merge extra-biblical accounts with textual history):

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

I think that gives a manageable range of topics to cover. ("Cultural significance" would cover the points raised by Izak). PiCo (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but there still seems to be a major issue about significance of various views that may be a problem for us in resolving balance in the article. Izak seems to be arguing that significance is determined by time depth, which if applied to our articles would greatly distort, for instance, many of our scientific articles, medicine, etc. And "closed group of Western academics of the last thirty years"? Where is the evidence for a closed group? Are Israeli academics western? And why thirty years? Challenges to the historicity of the Exodus, or at least doubts about it, are much older than that as I recall. I'd like a reply from you on this, Cerebellum. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Finally found a google books version of Coogan's Oxford History of the Biblical World! This is the work Quark keeps going on about - turns out it's actually Redmount's Bitter Lives - Coogan is only the editor - and we already had it in the bibliography! PiCo (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, as long as you continue to insist that we say that the scholarly "consensus" is what it is not, this dispute will continue. The issue with the format of the article is secondary, and not the source of the dispute. You can't simply redefine a common term (use "scholar" to refer to an extremely small group of liberal scholars) and then demand that we accept this regardless of how misleading it is. Why not redefine "Moses" to refer to Charlemagne?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

If this is "extremely small group of liberal scholars", then please list us the names of both sides, ie. this "small" group of scholars v. the others. A lot of academic sources and names have been provided in the section about historical dispute, so if you think they don't represent majority of scholars, please provide some other names and books. As far as I am concerned, critical analysis of Old Testament events is common in the academia today (regardless if such stance is historically true or not). All this talking about majorities, minorities, etc make me disappointed with Wikipedia to the extent I contribute only scarcely. Why not simply state which scholars say what, instead of quarreling about which side has more support?? Critto (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here "scholar" means a historian who lives by "publish or perish" and is considered worthy of being read and quoted by other professional historians. History is an empirical science, so bashing empirical science as "closed group of Western academics of the last thirty years" is a sign that you do not understand what history is and how history works. That's why I mentioned Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard: they are a sample of universities which gives us an idea of what is seen as historical consensus and who counts as a historian. These institutions have no particular liberal bias, e.g. Harvard is known for being the university educating the American elite. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one thing POV-pushing fideists will never understand. They simply assume all views are equal, regardless of their merits (such as academic rigor v. religious fideism). If there was such an "equality" eg. in natural sciences, we would have neither aeroplanes nor computers. Also, they can't accept nobody is attacking the historical veracity of Biblical accounts here; what is criticised is the way of "proving" them by belief instead of historical analysis. The Bible has proven to be useful source to historians for many times, however it was up to academics, and not to priests or theologians to decide WHAT is true and what is not. Critto (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Harvard has no official alignment, nor is there any predominant leaning that would create substantial peer pressure one way or another, as long as it is based on well thought-out and logically defensible positions. The Harvard community is hard, however, on those holding superstitious, arbitrary, and illogical positions, so if you believe Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs around the garden of Eden, you wouldn't be too happy there.

— Your sisters cute friend, answerbag.com

I agree with PiCo's and Huon's 5-point outline. As it stands now, the article is over-heavy on Histriocity – certainly the views of these various scholars could be condensed and combined for the sake of readability? The placement of "Route" and "Dates" at the end of the page reads like an afterthought; these should be moved up after the Summary to continue the narrative line. Yoninah (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller: "Closed group of western academics" was in response to the statement that "The consensus of historians is the consensus as rendered by the full professors of history at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard", and "last thirty years" was an arbitrary and probably incorrect number intended to point out that ideas on the historicity of the exodus have changed over time; it was not too long ago that Albright thought it "quite unreasonable to deny" the "substantial accuracy" of the Exodus narrative (source). However, I agree that my statement was needlessly inflammatory and I am happy to retract it.

Frankly I'm not sure what we're arguing about here. Don't we all agree that while the majority view is that the exodus didn't happen as described, we need to also include the significant minority view that it did? For what it's worth, I also agree with PiCo's outline. Maybe we could condense and merge the route stuff to "summary", and condense and merge the date stuff to "historicity." --Cerebellum (talk) 21:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cerebellum, even though I guess I'm agreeing with someone who agrees with me (sort of narcissistic). Your point about the route (and date?) material is well taken. I think the minority view, expressed by Hoffmeier and Kitchen (reputable scholars) is that the exodus narrative is "plausible" - Hoffmeier I think uses that phrase. Maybe the historicity section should be a discussion of the spectrum of current scholarly discussion, from, say, Lemche to Hoffmeier/Kitchem with Redmount/Killebrew in the middle? PiCo (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Izak asked me to comment. I'm sure he knows my personal view about what did and did not happen in reality is likely to be quite the opposite of his. But this does not matter for the article. I think we both agree that the biblical history as it stands is the basis of a large part of the civilizations of Europe and Western Asia, as well as being instructive for whatever light it may throw on the actual history of the near East.

The basis of discussion must therefore be the biblical account as it stands. there is no possible way of understanding the historical or religious or literary criticism of it without first knowing it; there is no possible way of understanding the Jewish religion and its derivatives-- the Christian and Islamic religions and contemporary Western secular culture-- without knowing it as it was written. There is no way of knowing the impact on history and civilization without knowing first what it is. The first step is to read it, and the second is to learn the historical meaning as it developed. Only after that can it be understood how it fitted into history.

I agree. Article on each book should begin with its summary, then the synopsis; only later there is a place for interpretation. Anyway, I definitely oppose splitting one article into two. There are too many articles on the same topic on wikipedia for now. See for example articles about Yahweh, Epic of Gilgamesh or some other topics. Our Readers deserve to have the whole picture of the topic when they open the article. Only some extra details can be put to other articles and even this isn't necessarily good. So my proposal is:

1. summary

2. synopsis

3. cultural and religious significance (in Judaism, Christianity, popular culture, etc)

4. textual criticism (analysis of the text, comparison with other, non-biblical sources, etc)

5. historical and archeological analysis and investigation (question of historicity, etc)

And all of this in ONE article, not two or more. Critto (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This for some people, including myself, means the suspension of disbelief intrinsic to reading fiction. You first have to understand the fiction in its own terms. Then you can learn the context, and re-read and interpret. The =article should be organized in that fashion. It can be and should be written not the way I have just summarized it, but as an account of what was written and believed, initially, and then how it was subsequently interpreted.

I agree. Ancient sources, especially of such importance as The Bible, Atra Hasis etc. need a lot of respect for their content. Accounts, narratives and myths should be described as they are, and their interpretation should be of secondary meaning. However this doesn't justify presenting non-academic views on par with academic ones in the investigation about historicity. Surely, they should be shown, as they are out there, but not on the same terms as academic investigation.

The various medieval and early modern interpretations based upon the assumption of the veracity of the biblical record are interesting, but of secondary interest; the main foci of the article will be the traditional account on the one hand, and the 20th/21st century interpretations. (I'd avoid the term "historicity": it can mean either whether there is any historical basis at all for the Biblical account, or whether the historical basis is substantially the same as the Bible.)

In discussing the modern views, no one view has priority, and there is no point in cherry-picking quotations. Various scholars have said completely contradictory things in the most absolute of terms. Sometimes they acknowledge the possibility of other valid views; sometimes they do not even do that. For every view, the ratio of interpretation to evidence is very great, As usual with primary sources, the monuments and documents that do survive outside the Bible are not self-interpreting, and require interpretation about just what groups are involved that can radically change the conclusions--especially with respect to the proper English language equivalents of ancient terms. I doubt any serious scholar would say any English version of anything from the period can ever be certain and I doubt very much anyone on or off Wikipedia has the basis to say they have a perfect understanding of all the relevant languages. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For me, the best thing would be to present views of various scholars, especially if no definite consensus has been reached. Even if it has, it would be useful to point out the names and views of academics (and some non-academics, too, though the latter should be of lesser importance), so that a reader would be able to check their works - this would lean much more credibility to Wikipedia, which is considered by many to be a creative work of the editors, loosely based on the facts. For me, whole discussion should focus on presenting various viewpoints, since pre-modern till contemporary times. Critto (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC) 00:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I see above the efforts to reach a definitive summary: there is no definitive summary, and I think it folly to try to synthesize one, and almost equal folly to say what is likely. This is not like the discussions of pseudoscience, where some views are clearly aberrant. I do not see how anyone can imagine that the academic discussion is finished, for there is no reason to think we have the entire potentially recoverable archeological record. Everything about this topic beyond the text itself and the few relevant writings and monuments is opinion; and not opinion based upon neutral preconceptions, but rather based on a particular world-view. The secular world-view is not privileged. Some actual thing must have happened in history, but the only people who can even to themselves be sure of what it is are those who think it literal revelation, and they have no means of convincing anyone else of their position. The approach that has to be taken is that this is a body of legends that some believe true: It must first be read, and then seen how people understood it; we cannot assume it must be false, before we understand it on its own terms. fortunately, we are under no obligation to construct a summary of our own views on it, though I see that people are trying. Topics like this is why we have the principle of relying of a NPOV presentation of outside sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) [1]

Thank you for your considered and level-headed comments DGG.

"Summary", as used in the outline of the article structure, means a summary of the plot of the four books Exodus to Deuteronomy. We already have this in the article and it seems to be accepted by all sides - no one has suggested changing it.

I think it might be useful now to move on to "Cultural significance". Izak has made a draft of his idea for this, but I think it's far too long and not adequately sourced. I'll have a go at doing something myself that serve as the basis for discussion. PiCo (talk) 04:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have said, we really need two articles or this one will be far too large and confusing. We can probably all agree that we would have readers interested mainly in the Biblical exodus who are not that interested in the historical Exodus while conversly we have readers interested in the historical Exodus who only need the background of the Biblical exodus for context. Wayne (talk) 06:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If I understand, you want to have a separate and quite detailed article on "did the exodus really happen?" _ is that right? PiCo (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is clearly a notable topic in its own right, correct? It would pass our notability criteria easily. It would still need a summary in this article but only if it has its own article could it be given the attention it deserves given the amount of literature on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, although I would never consider it an article on "did the exodus really happen?" as scholars only have limited information available, but rather one where what is known is discussed. This article could be easily expanded to cover the historicity as the foundations are already here while a new article would be needed for the detail neccessary to cover the Biblical Exodus. Wayne (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a separate article on "Did the Exodus really happen?" Otherwise a reader who is looking for information on the Biblical Exodus and why people do believe it will come away from this article without a clear picture. Yoninah (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree, as long as certain editors continue to insist that the belief that the exodus didn't occur (or nothing like it occurred) is "consensus" among scholars, this dispute will grow over into that article as well.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I agree myself (sounds like a pov fork, or the opportunity for one), but the body of opinion among editors seems to be heavily in favour. I suggest calling it "The Exodus (historicity debate)". This article could be retitled "The Exodus (Biblical narrative)", and of course we already have an article on the the book and also on various movies and books. There could be a disambiguation page. PiCo (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that a separate historicity article is warranted. The problems some folks above have with this article can be rectified by the removal of a double standard of presentation. For a couple of examples:

1. Under "Date" is the line "Modern theories on the date - ***ALL*** of them popular . . .", which references a crank chronology (Rohl) that was excluded by radiocarbon dating even before it was published, a documentary that misused more archaeological data than it properly used (Exodus Decoded), and a single book by a geologist that is primarily concerned with a naturalistic explanation of the plagues. Nary a mention of Kitchen. Or Hoffmeier. Or Malamat. All practicing (and publishing) archaeologists - not amateurs. All of whom argue for the historicity of the core of the Exodus story. Two of these authors are quoted elsewhere in the article; Kitchen (incorrectly used to dismiss Albright's 13th century exodus) and Hoffmeier (re: Jebel Musa). Yet, when it comes to the historicity of the event itself, the article is oddly silent on their contributions. One can hardly have actually read the quoted works without understanding that the authors argue quite vehemently for the historicity of the Exodus.

2. Under "Numbers and logistics", the almost trivial objection to the traditional size of the Exodus is extolled, but no mention of the complex etymology associated with the Hebrew 'lp (alternately "clan", "family", "head of cattle", "thousand", and perhaps other uses) which is a plausible source for mistranslation. (Hebrew was entirely consonantal until ~9th century BCE, and 'lp represented at least two different spoken words, each with multiple meanings. Nor is this an unattested problem; there are several instances of differing translation of "thousand" vs. "clans" in modern translations.) This problem has been in the published literature since Petrie in 1906, and has been analyzed and expanded by Mendenhall and others. Humphreys in 1998 (expanded in 1999) demonstrated a completely self-consistent interpretation, that works for both the exodus and Conquest/Judges periods (and possibly has applicability down to Davidic times). These works (and there are many) give a more reasonable size of ~20,000 to 40,000, which answers the logistical problem. This is not mentioned. The only implied answer left by this section is that the Exodus is ahistorical, not that the numbers are plausibly (and likely) a misunderstanding of an ancient and complex consonantal Hebrew word. If textual criticism can be portrayed as a reliable and scientific indicator of historicity (i.e., documentary and fragmentary hypotheses and their variants), then there is absolutely no excuse for language study to be omitted. The article has no problem headlining the "Secular Point of View" topic with a theory of the numbers being a gematria, but oddly fails to comment on a much more reasonable solution.

3. Under "Anachronisms", the article notes updates to points on the Exodus route, but fails to mention that names such as "Pi-Ramesses" are 12th century markers (and there is almost no chance that 1st millenium scribes could have found a reference unless it was already part of an older story). Place-name updates are common in the Near East (cf. the Egyptian Execration Texts) and cannot be used to determine composition dates (see Kitchen's Reliability for a ton of examples and primary references).

4. There is no fair discussion in "Secular theories about how the story was written". The only POV presented is the textual criticism POV, and the archaeological objections to a 6th - 7th century composition are ignored (cf. Hittite treaty corpus and the covenant presentation, esp. in Judges 24, and the presence of the Deuteronomistic theological cycle in Mari texts back to the 18th century BCE). The archaic nature of the covenant format has been known (with numerous updates and clarifications) since Mendenhall in the 1950's. There is considerable debate on the equivocation of the covenant and treaty formats, so the issue is not resolved. Not to present this, however, is biased and irresponsible.

In short, there is still much *scholarly* debate on the historicity of this event. This is not, however, the impression the article gives. This ought to be corrected.208.100.40.41 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 Aug 2012

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. When the author speaks for "The modern scholarly consensus" he should include the results of a scientific poll or at least many references. One reference can not be sufficient. Similarly, phrases like "consensus among biblical scholars today", "This theory dominated biblical scholarship" and "Some scholars have rationalized" must be associated with references that clearly list what specific "scholars" or "scholarship" the author is referring to. "A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists" can not be summarized by one reference. Generally, the requirement to document these blanket statements referring to unnumbered and unspecific groups of people makes it difficult to use these phrases. An edit to remove these unspecific references would address much of the "talk".Jkzv (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually one reference can be sufficient to back up a statement on the scholarly consensus if it doesn't just make the point but explicitly comments on the scholarly consensus; see WP:RS/AC. I don't have access to the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, but I expect it to do just that. Are there specific instances where the sources to not support the statements we cite them for? Huon (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Under the heading “a secular point of view”, the phrase “The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship” is used. One reference is provided [16, Meyers]. Meyers makes essentially the same statement but without reference. Your reference would support “the view of Meyers is…”. Under the heading “Archaeology”, the phrase “ A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists” is used. The reference is the same as above (16, Meyers) this time there is a reference to Weinstein. Weinstein, page 87 makes a similar claim based on his research, but provides no long list of references, sufficient to come close to the amount of published work on this topic over the past 100 years. The references would support “Research by Weinstein…” Under the heading “Archaeology”, the phrase “most archaeologists” is used. The reference is to [19 Dever]. The reference is not specific to page. Dever includes no bibliography, but does list five general references that support his conclusions. Dever also references earlier works by himself. The reference would support a phrase “at least 6 archaeologists”. Under the heading “Date”, fifth paragraph you include the phrase “Modern theories on the date - all of them popular rather than scholarly”. No reference is given, but anyone who has published a theory regarding the date of a possible Exodus event is condemned as unscholarly without reference. The article does reference 3 specific articles, but calls these “major candidates”, not a complete list of the “Modern Theories” that are condemned. In the second bullet under after the “Modern theories…” phrase referenced above, you include the phrase “failed to find support among most scholars in his field”. The reference is to Bennett [41]. Once again there is no scientific poll in Bennett. Would it not be better to note the objection that Bennett raises concerning this theory rather that to speak for “most scholars” on this issue? Then of course there is the phrase “The consensus among biblical scholars today” that appears right under the warning about the neutrality of this article. The reference is to [6] Walton, page 258. Walton seems to have no trouble speaking for all of archaeology on page 258, but wholly without reference. He does reference specific articles that he takes issue with and references some others for the reasons he takes issue with those specific points. However, there is no reference to any poll or document of agreement signed by all or even most archeologists that would confirm his ability to speak for all archaeology. Jkzv (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's try to get this a little better ordered:

• Section "Secular point of view", "The view of mainstream modern biblical scholarship is...": For all I can tell Meyer indeed does not comment on mainstream Biblical scholarship; that's her personal scholarly opinion, not necessarily consensus.
• Section "Archaeology", "A century of research...": That's precisely what Meyer says, and since she's an expert on the field who published with a reputable academic publisher, that's good enough for us.
• Section "Archaeology", same sentence, the Dever referece: There we have the wrong reference. It gives a page number, but is to the wrong work; it should be to p. 99 of Dever (2001), where Dever states: "[...] archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit." In fact, that implies that all archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus; we're conservative by saying only that most archaeologists have abandoned it. Again, Dever, an expert on the field, says so; that's good eough for us to repeat it.
• Section "Date", fifth paragraph: While I agree that the wording isn't great, I read that line differently: We provide specific examples of non-scholarly theories such as those promoted by the History Channel documentary. These theories aren't scholarly, and they focus on pre-1440 BC dates, but I don't think we intend to say anything on the existence (or lack thereof) of scholarly theories on the date. Hoffmeier, for example, presents a scholarly theory that is as "modern" as the examples given.
• Section "Date", second example: Bennett says of Rohl's theories, especially those regarding Moses and the Exodus: "Sensational claims such as these drive professional Egyptologists crazy." While that's hyperbole, I think we can take it as a rejection of Rohl's theory (at least in so far as it's relevant to the Exodus) by mainstream scholarship.
• Section "Ongoing debate": As I said I cannot access Walton, but if he speaks for all of archaeology, he's enough of an expert for us to accept his take on the scholarly consensus.

In summary, we should attribute the first Meyer line to her, we should correct the Dever reference, and we should probably clarify that sentence about "non-scholarly modern theories", but other than that, the sources do seem to support what we cite them for. We need not recursively ask for our sources' references and their references' references; it's sufficient that experts summarize the state of the art and publish their summary. If there were some contention and some other scholar declared something else to be the consensus (or declared no consensus to exist), matters would be different, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Huon (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are now defending the use of irrelevant appeals to authority (http://www.skepdic.com/authorty.html) which have no place in an encyclopedia article on any topic.Jkzv (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS/AC disagrees with you on that. Huon (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it about time this article was unlocked? PiCo (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have asked the protecting admin to consider unprotection. Huon (talk) 11:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've carried out an overall edit that shortens the article by removing repetitions. PiCo (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Major changes

PiCo just made a lot of major changes, basically deleting the old article and writing an entirely new one. He did this without consulting the other editors involved in the long dispute on this (nor even alerting them that the article had been unlocked). He turned he article into something not about the exodus but about his own skeptical higher critical view on it. We have to discuss here what to change about it before making such major changes.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's too big a reversion. No one has to tell you the article was unlocked. This sort of major revert isn't justified. Dougweller (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not the one making too drastic of a change, it is PiCo. You can't just come in and do that to a disputed article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

And how does a new editor suddenly arrive and revert twice? I believe in AGF. but it's a bit hard to see this as a coincidence.

Are you going to make any specific complaints? Dougweller (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in methodology. The entire article was disputed, and PiCo deleted the old one and wrote a new one. If he wants to change something, he has to discuss it here. Consensus is necessary to make major changes.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Doug Weller, Huon and I agree that my version is good; also my version is thoroughly sourced; also my version is in line with current scholarship. So let's take it as the starting point. PiCo (talk) 05:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Since Gluon feels we need discussion, let's discuss. This is the first sentence, defining the article:

• "The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan."

The source is Redmount (can be found and checked via the bibliography). Now, does anyone dispute this first sentence - too short, too long, not accurate, not soundly sourced? PiCo (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lets get to the heart of the matter. You are putting up a skeptical school of protestant scholarship as "current scholarship". This is simply false.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Redmount is a Protestant? I have no idea, nor do I care, nor, I think, does religious affiliation matter. What matters is that we use reliable sources (and preferably recent ones in view of the fact that scholarly views change, and preferably ones that reflect the scholarly mainstream, if we can work out where that lies). Anyway, back to the first sentence, which defines the topic: do you feel it's lacking, or will you accept it as adequate? PiCo (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been through this with you many times: the sources that contradict you, no matter how reputably the scholar or the publication, are removed by you without discussion. You even misquote your own sources, take their claims out of context, and make claims that they don't support. It is obvious that you aren't willing to be halfway reasonable.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Since we don't seem able to agree on this, I think the best thing now is to take it to the dispute process. I think what we should ask is which of the two versions, the one you favour or the one I made, should be treated as the basis for further work. (Note that I'm not trying to have my version adopted as the final and definitive one, I'm asking for it to be critiqued by interested editors). The problem I see with yours is that it's simply too thin - too few sources, insufficient coverage of the topic. How do you feel about that idea? PiCo (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I am not unbiased, and neither are you. I agree that the version I restored needs quite a lot of work. I really want to be able to work with you, but find it very difficult, which makes it very frustrating. Did you want to get the dispute process started?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know how. Doug Weller might be able to advise. PiCo (talk) 06:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Nice old revert war there between PiCo and Quarkgluonsoup. No comments on the contents, other than that reverting while discussing is really not a great strategy, and PiCo's last edit (slapping tags on everything, shouty capitalised changes to captions) is a violation of WP:POINT. How about we play nicely and have a constructive chat for the three days that I've protected the article? JFW | T@lk 07:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough :)

The "shouty capitalised" captions were a result of unfamiliarity with captions, not a wish to shout - sorry. PiCo (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

About PiCo's version

Wow, PiCo... While you are on my list of favourite editors (having gotten there initially on your apparent fair-mindedness), I have to say I'm not exactly a fan of your proposed rewrite. To me, it looks like you have declared a winner in the Exodus debate whilst also declaring them to be the majority view. This is almost "This is NPOV because there are no other views" to paraphrase a number of phrases used in China, North Korean, and early Soviet Russia. I might sound harsh, but it's because there is so much to point at that I am not sure where to even begin listing issues. This may have been easier if this eas done more incrementally, such as section-by-section spread over a week or so. This would give more time for other editors to digest the changes and point out issues without being overwhelmed. That's my current 2 pesos.

Side comment to the contents of the changes: Thanks PiCo for being bold. The previous article needed some work, and you have stepped boldly into it. :) If I recall, you did something similar a couple years ago on the Yahweh article, and we ended up with a dramatically improved article afterwards. — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. What I didn't like was the massive revert as there seemed to be quite a few non-contentious edits, and Pico at least was generally using edit summaries acceptably. I don't know if we can easily separate those out so that they can be replaced quickly - not everything needs discussion, and it really is up to people to keep track of an article, that's why we have watch lists. And if people don't edit regularly, than they just have to accept that when they do edit they shouldn't mass revert but start a discussion about their concerns. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave Gluon's version there since he objects so strongly, but I suggest he does consider going through my proposed changes one by one and seeing if can live with them. Start with the proposed new first line/definition - unlike the existing one, it's sourced, and I think it's pretty unprovocative really (see the section here in Talk, about two threads up). PiCo (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I just had a look at all of PiCo's changes and found most of them entirely unproblematic. For example, Quarkgluonsoup claimed PiCo removed sources without discussion to promote a "skeptical protestant" point of view; but I don't think most of the sourced content he did remove was all that relevant. He did get rid of the Merneptah Stele which was used to claim that the Exodus must predate the Stele; I have read scholars (Hoffmeier or Kitchen? Would have to search for it) argue otherwise. He also got rid of the traditional Jewish date for the Exodus based on the Seder Olam Rabbah, and while that might indeed be relevant information, I don't see how removing yet another proposed date would enhance the skeptical POV. He also removed the "modern non-scholarly theories" we discussed immediately before the article was unprotected; while they themselves were sourced, the summary was not, and that part of the article to me looked like somebody watching a History Channel documentary and reporting on it - but surely the scholarly sources we have and the scholarly theories they advance are much more significant than that. Finally he removed a couple of unused books, but unless I'm mistaken, those books weren't in use before he began his edits, either - he didn't orphan them in order to get rid of them.

The expanded lead was definitely an improvement, although I'm not sure his latest version was better than the one before this change: The latest version to me seems to be worse at summarizing the article's content.

Another minor quibble: PiCo removed the mention of "600,000 men" when we first discuss the size of the exodus, only giving the implied number of 2.5 million people in total. But later we speak of scholars proposing 600 families instead of 600,000 men; that now seems to lack context. I would therefore suggest re-adding them to the implied number.

The vast majority of the other changes consisted of shifting sentences and paragraphs without adding or removing any content; there PiCo has done a very good job, and the article in his latest version was much closer to a comprehensive whole than the disjointed, disorganized collection he started with.

What might be seen as problematic is that any mention of academic dissent has been lost in the process; the most obvious would be the statement that "the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention". While that was unsourced, it should be easy to find references for a significant minority of scholars disagreeing with the mainstream position on the historicity of the Exodus. Similarly, Albright's "late Exodus" theories have been lost in the editing; while they may have been discarded by modern scholarship, I would still say we can mention them as a significant (and once widely popular) attempt to resolve dating inconsistencies. In short, the Exodus was long held to be historical fact, and some people (including some scholars) still cling to that notion; we should mention it. That could be done with another paragraph or two in PiCo's "myth or history" section. Huon (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Most scholars still believe that in one form or another, the exodus was historical fact (and most of them are quite literal). The problem is that PiCo has redefined "scholar" to refer to a small fraction of all scholars on this topic (those who just so happen to agree with him). Claiming that most scholars don't hold this view is simply claiming something that is not true, and easily disproven were it not for PiCo's habit of deleting all contrary views and sources. You are right that the PiCo's lead was quite bad, as it discussed only a tiny part of the entire exodus topic. Outside of PiCo's habit of claiming that "most" scholars think something most do not, his new version was completely devoid of the cultural and historical dimensions of the exodus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Most scholars still believe that in one form or another, the exodus was historical fact". Not quite. Most scholrs believe that some historical facts must lie behind the exodus story - my version says that, and it's sourced. "[M]ost of them are quite literal". Not at all - even Kenneth Kitchen doesn't believe that the exodus story should be taken literally (he believes that something happened, but that it was a much smaller event than the bible says). "PiCo has redefined "scholar" to refer to a small fraction of all scholars on this topic". Nope - all the works I quote or reference are by important contemporary scholars, and I could even quote Kitchen without changing anything much (see above). "PiCo's habit of deleting all contrary views and sources..." Who, exactly, do you think is not represented? "PiCo's habit of claiming that "most" scholars think something..." Not my habit at all, as whenever I say "most scholars" it's a quote from a source (i.e., it's not me saying it). "His new version was completely devoid of the cultural and historical dimensions of the exodus." And what are/were those cultural/historical dimensions? Sources please. PiCo (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have been through this with you time and time again. It is not hard at all to find sources that say the exact opposite of what you are saying, but each time in the past I have done that you invent some reason why their views don't count. Even when they specifically say "Scholars generally think..." you still invent reasons why they can't be cited or their words included, even when their words are about the views of scholars generally rather than their own views. You certainly have redefined "scholar".Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you point to an example of PiCo deleting a contrary view and source, in particular a source saying that most scholars support a literal reading of the Exodus? I don't think we had that before PiCo began his edits. Also, I'd ask you not to misrepresent my views quite as boldly; I called PiCo's lead an improvement, not "quite bad". Both his latest version and the one I might prefer are much better than the short lead we're currently stuck with. In particular, both versions do mention the significance of the Exodus to Jewish culture. Huon (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)