Talk:Book of Exodus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The census count

Douche, the counts given for each tribe in Numbers 1-2 cannot be interpretted in this fashion. They are given in units of "thousands", "hundreds" and "tens" and in addition the total is given. No interprettation of eleph except "thousand" makes sense in that case, so the difficulty remains.

They are given in terms of gene, oinkos and phratre. Elef means clan or group of kin. The census counts only fighting men, no women, no kids. In terms of Military organization each gene provides a squad of a families fighting men over 20 which is then combined into an oinkos, or platoon of the fighting men from a village combined again into an elef, or clan of several villages numbering in the hundreds which fights as a company in a phratre or battalion. To speculate that elef are thousands requires a population which wouldn't be supported by any archaeology or history of that region.

Example Numbers: 26 For the tribe of Reuban, 5 battalions plus commanders divide among them 43 elef numbering in total 730 men. In command of the tribe, phratre or brotherhood of 730 men including himself Reuban. At battallion in command of 146 men each 5 Clan chiefs Reuban, Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi. Each has one company themselves and one son running another company. At company in command of 73 men each Reuban, Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi, Pallu, Eliab, Nemeul, Dathan, Abrim, making 10 named captains. At platoon 20 platoon sergents. In total 30 officers and 700 enlisted 5 battalions, 10 companies, 20 platoons of 35 men each, each platoon divided into squads of fathers and sons

Even as late as Judges 4-5 the chariot battle at Megiddo involved 10,000 chariots which represent Hittites, the men of Kadesh, Canaanite, the Hapiru tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon, pretty much the entire population of the region. Rktect 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but the Hebrew Bible doesn't always use the same word in the same way, as it was redacted together from a number of different sources. So the previous reading does remain a possibility. RK 01:04, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that whoever wrote the tables of count in Numbers 1-2 obviously meant "thousands", so the large total of 603,550 remains a problem for those who can't accept that the Bible account might be wrong. Of course it remains possible that the author of Exodus meant "clans" rather than "thousands", but that would just create a contradiction between Exodus and Numbers which is even more of a problem for the literalist. I didn't try to write this opinion in the article, but it seems to me that the close similarity between the total in Exodus and the total in Numbers makes it most unlikely that anything except "thousands" is meant in Exodus either. --zero 01:49, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Understood. Of course, I think that when you read it carefully, and with an open mind, the entire book presents problems for the literalist! Which is why some of my co-religions have tounge-in-cheek accused me of worshipping the God of J, E, P and D, instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. :) RK 13:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The article, as now written, is obviously POV - as of a non-literalist who feels triumphant in believing that disputed figures prove that Exodus is a story. And, as usual, the term Fundamentalist (whether ignorantly or pejoratively) is used as a broad brush in separating Christians into just two groups. Fundamentalism is one of many movements within Christianity. The article has a ways to go to meet Wikipedia NPOV standards. Pollinator 14:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Why not just exchange Literalist for the term Fundamentalist? 13 July 04

My $0.02 answer: The terms Literalist and Fundamentalist are extremely weak. I suggest reference to methods of interpretation. For example: historical-critical or historical-grammatical.

An article already argues this 603,550 number to death The Exodus as opposed to Exodus.

The term contradiction seems to be used too carelessly. Why doesn't anybody use the term paradox? If the generation of Hezron makes it to Egypt with just 70 men, just three generations before an exodus of 603,550 begins, an explanation is for each man to have 20 kids per generation...unbelievable...but possible especially when Mosaic Laws aren't yet in place that prohibit more than one wife...not that the Mosaic Laws prevented multiple-wives from happening later on!...the next problem is Exodus 12:40 which describes 430 years for the three generations...--Ep9206 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Duh! What is the definition of an Israelite? When there is a count of 603,550, it counts people like Caleb, whose father was not an Israelite but a Kenezzite.Ep9206 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ramesses III/Ramesses IV and "non campus mentis"

I suspect that the Pharaoh mentioned in the Exodus is probably Ramesses III or IV, based on the following:

• Egypt dominated Canaan around this time period, up until around the end of Ramesses III's reign and the entirety of Ramesses IV's reign (such a hegemony has archaelogical evidence, at least in Egypt itself, concerning Tel Megiddo and other places)
• There was a massive famine in Egypt towards the tail end of Ramesses III's reign, apparently due to an eruption of Hekla in 1159 BCE
• Family politics during the reign of Ramesses III were rough (there was an assassination plot involving the harem of Ramesses III), which could give reason why a prince would want to get away from the royal house and Egypt altogether
• there was work going on at Pi-Ramesses (Exodus mentions "Pithom and Ramesses" during this time period
• There was an incursion of Sea Peoples during Ramesses the III's reign, which may have something to do with the legend of Moses parting waters of the sea
• Alternatively, Hekla, which likely generated a tsunami (but probably not one touching Egypt or the Levant), or some disaster much more ancient, could've given rise to the legend (such as Thera in the 1600s or 1400s BCE and/or reported meteorites hitting Arabia as far back as 2200-2400 BCE), along with reports of "pillars of cloud by day and towers of fire by night"
• Accounts of such disasters may have been embellished, stylized, and/or garbled up in a "non campus mentis" manner (people forgetting exactly how history happened and in exactly what order, but remembering the basics - it happens to high-school and undergrad students all the time and might also happen in oral traditions), thus explaining the misplacement of the fall of Jericho and other misplacements
• The journeys of the Sea Peoples themselves may have worked their way in during the retelling

In summation, the scholars involved in dating the events in the Book of Exodus (or the events that inspired the Book of Exodus) may have been looking a tad too early by suggesting Ramesses I and II. Furthermore, Ramesses the IV was a fourth or a fifth-born (I think), not a first-born, and the lack of a first-born in the royal house might've worked its way into the story of the 10 Plagues, along with the (obvious) Hekla-related "darkness" and possibly some biological problems related to that "darkness". 204.52.215.107 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Krakatoa, when it made its caldera-forming eruption, caused darkness and/or added a yellow-tinged sky to its immediate vicinity for a few days, extending over the isle of Java. Other parts of the world reported green and blue suns and brilliant sunsets; an earlier eruption, Tambora, is said to have caused the Year without a summer by adding particulates to the atmosphere. The 20-year event apparently related to Hekla was a time of stunted tree-ring growth, suggestive of even greater tampering with the atmosphere and/or climate. I suspect what the Egyptians likely experienced was something like a green (or yellow, or some other color) haze, or a slightly to somewhat darkened sky, along with cooler than usual temperatures. This period coincided with the end of Ramesses III's reign and all of Ramesses IV's reign. 204.52.215.107 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

See Dating of the ExodusRktect 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Theories

In one of the latest revisions, someone has put an additional section called alternative theories. I was wondering if the person who provided this new section provide links to source material and evidence. Also I want to ask for clearification about the first line of this paragraph where it says that the Exodus is only described in the Old Testament. What exactly was the author's intent with this sentence: does he mean that the Torah does not support the Great Exodus of Hebrews? And if so, could he again provide evidence because I was under the impression from some of the links to Jewish translations (at the bottom) that the Torah also gave evidence of this.

As I understand, there are some people who think that the Exodus actually never happened and should just be taken as a myth. They find support for their theory in the fact that there is no other document (besides from the Torah and the Old Testament of the Bible, which is obviously based on the first one) that narrates any of the events presented in the Torah/Bible. Many scrolls from Egypt have survived so far and there is no evidence there that

a) the Hebrews were taken as slaves

b) there was a big fire, locusts came and devoured everything, hailstones, flies, etc.

c) the waters of the sea opened to let the Hebrews pass and then closed again, making most of the Egyptians drown in the Red Sea.

Considering that Egyptian documents are quite detailed (they normally include information about workers, amount of collected food during the harvest (and how much was lost due to rains and dryness), information about won and lost combats (including number of deceased persons)) + the fact that there is still a great amount of documents referring to the same time of the Exodus, there are many people who don't take this Bible episode as granted and think that it possibly never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldera (talk • contribs) 13:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But we would need to source this to a reliable source == WP:RS. dougweller (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Red Sea

The article says 'who have by this point reached what is referred to as the 'Reed Sea' (often mistranslated as the Red Sea). Fortunately for the Israelites, they are divinely guarded, and are able to passage of Red Sea,'.

If it was really mistranslated as 'Red Sea' why is 'Red Sea' used in the next sentence? Also, where exactly is the 'Reed Sea'.--Jcvamp 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--the reed sea is a marshy wetland area just west of the red sea. It has since been mostly dried up (though it is now mainly just a large number of very small wet areas) since the building of the suez canal. Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• All of what follows we should either already know or be able to check in the references given.

• The crossing of the Red Sea brings Moses back to Horab where he tended the flocks of his father in law Jethro.

• We know for example that the word "Horab" is from hr ab, Egyptian (Gardiner p 582 hr(y)ib middle, N28 hr hill of the sunrise); (Gardiner F34 ib heart); ie; a mountain located at the heart or in the middle of the body. There is no semitic root hr but there is a triliteral root : rb. Using the definitive article ha you could refer to the place of a fight as ha rb. Central Semitic, to wage war, attack, smite. 1. mihrab, from Arabic mirb, recess, prayer niche, probably from Old South Arabian (Sabaean) mrb, part of a temple, from rb, to fight, to perform a certain ritual in a temple. 2. Central Semitic noun *arb-, dagger, sword, war. mojarra, from Arabic muarrab, sharpened, from arraba, to sharpen, denominative from arba, lance, spear. That meaning is appropriate in the sense of describing the battle with the Amalek at rephidim, but there is also the word hor which means cave as in Horite or cave dweller.

• The language used in Exodus draws on several different language groups suggesting multiple sources so it should be noted that semitic root may enrich the sense to the place of a cave or rock cut tomb in the mountains at which there was a fight. At any rate Horab is a mountain marking the boundaries between Midian, Edom and the land of the Amalek at Elat. To this day it marks the borders of israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

• The stations list which mentions Horab was originally its own book. The original story was told by people who had lived in Egypt for over four centuries and spoke Egyptian to people whao had never lived in Egypt and grown up speaking western semitic languages, Akkadian and Canaanite.

• Horab is definitively located by references to it in the stations list of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus and by references to it in the story. Its true that you don't get all the information from any one of the books which have been combined to form the Penteteuch, so it helps to take their lists and corelate their references to the places named, checking what language group they come from originally, and what date and place the primary source comes from.

• Its located in Midian because its where Moses tends the flocks of Jethro priest of Midian. There are several other references to Moses on Horab in association with Jethro and Midian in the stations list. Horab is the rock Moses strikes at Alush and its where he directs the battle against the Amalek at Rephidim. It probably shouldn;t be confused with Mt Hor where Aaron is buried because thats farther north at Petra. The list locates those places in and around Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.

• Midian is located as on the border of Edom in the stations list where it extend north up the Arabah through Petra to Moab
• Moab is located by references to Arnon, Dibon and the Medeba plateau.
• Edom is located by the stations list of the Exodus which circumavigate it.

• An important point about the stations list is that it can be broken down into sections which are either in Egypt, engaged in the passage of the Red Sea, in or around Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqabah or tracing the boundaries of Edom.

• In tracing those boundaries the primary references are at Elat, Timna, Kadesh Barnea, the brook of Egypt, the kings highway, the dead sea, Moab, and a return to Elat down the Araba through Petra. None of those places are in the Sinai. Its also important information that the time frame is the 18th dynasty of Egypt when the capital of Egypt is at Thebes and hatshepsut builds a fleet to engage in the Red Sea trade which supports the mortuary industry at Karnak.

• As the map illustrates, the list places its first six stations in Egypt.

• The story places the starting point near the capital of Egypt where there was an audience with Pharoah to say let my people go.
• The time frame of the story is specific four hundred and thirty years in Egypt from when Abraham first enters it to the Exodus and 480 more years to the construction of the temple in the fourth year of the reign of King Solomon.
• The Temple was built in the year 974 BC
• Semitic calendars are lunar calendars with years that are 11 days less than a solar calendar
• The story of Exodus places the start of the chapter of Exodus c 1438 BC
• Moses was born in a time of War and 80 years old at the time of the Exodus from Egypt c 1356 BC
• The Exodus occured in the Eighteenth Dynasty c.1550 - 1307 which was founded by Ahmose who was suceeded by a dynasty of kings who campaigned against the king of Kadesh along the northern border of Canaan in Lebanon and Syria.
• Judges IV contains a description of the battle of Meggiddo in which the king of Kadesh fights against the Egyptians.
• Campaigns continue through the reigns of Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III, Queen Hatshepsut, Amenhotep III, Akhenaten, Tutankhamun, Ay, and Horemheb into the Nineteenth dynasty where the battle of Kadesh is fought with Ramesses II c 1285 BC
• The Amarna letters and Egyptian campaign literature throughout this period document a period of unrest in the same places mentioned in Judges and Joshuah.
• This was Egypts period of greatest expansion and prosperity in which its kings were engaged for half a century in the expulsion of the Hykdos, campaigns in Canaan against the ha ibrw and the annexation of Kush or Nubia in the South. At Timnah near Elat there are Egyptian settlements where people were engaged in the manufacture of Egyptian faiance and Midian ware.
• Thebes (Luxor) was Egypts capital throughout this period and engaged in Red Sea Trade to supply Larnak with Francincence, Myrrh, Bitumen, Natron and copper amulets for which Hatshepsut built a Red Sea fleet to transport them across the Red Sea.

• From Thebes the capital of Egypt in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt the station list names the places encamped at by the sons of Israel.
• According to the stations list they head down the wadi Ham ma m3at from Etham toward Thebes Red Sea port at Elim where Hatshepsut kept her trading fleet.
• The fleet was used to bring mortuary materials from across the Red Sea at Elat to the temple of Karnak at Thebes.

• The list, or lists as there are variations in other books of the bible, contain several brief narrative fragments. For example "...And they came to Elim, where there were twelve wells of water, and seventy date-palms...".

• Viewed in the context of the conflict between Egypt and its rivals as mentioned in the Amarna Letters and in the context of the campaign reports of the 18th dynasty and the 19th dynasty The Exodus taken with Joshua and Judges places the participants in the midst of the conflict during one of the first major wars between empires.

• Station 7 is the crossing of the Red Sea.
• The 9th-13th stations are in and around Elat
• Station 12 refers to a dozen campsites in and around Timna in Modern Israel near Elat.

The Stations of the Exodus in Egypt

• 1. Thebes, Egypt - Ramesses Ex. 12:37; Nu. 33:3,5 the Rameses district was of the highest quality land in Egypt (Ge. 47:11)
• 2. Karnak/Sukkoth Ex. 12:37, 13:20; Nu. 33:5-6 The tombs of Karnak from which the bones of Joseph are retrieved across the Nile from Thebes
• 3. Etham Ex. 13:20; Nu. 33:6-8 "on the edge of the wilderness" The wadi Ham M3at leading from Thebes to the Red Sea
• 4. Pi-Hahiroth Ex. 14:2-3; Nu. 33:7-8 "between Migdol and the sea, opposite Ba'al-Zephon" (the god of the west wind) In Egyptian Pi-hahiroth means the place of "facing the fear of coming forth abroad as a fugitive"
• 5. Marah Ex. 15:23; Nu. 33:8-9 lit. 'bitterness' The outskirts of Thebes port of Elim
• 6. Elim Ex. 15:27, 16:1; Nu. 33:9-10 Had 12 wells and 70 palm trees Modern Thebes Port of Quasire

The 7th Station of the Exodus

• The 7th Station of the Exodus lies between Elim and Elat in the Red Sea which is an anglified version of the Greek name, the Erythrian Sea.

• 7. By the Red Sea Nu. 33:10-11 By the Erythrian Sea Thebes Port of Quasire

• The Passage of the Red Sea is described in the . Periplus of the Erythraean Sea. According to the story it is in the first month, the time of inundation that they leave from Thebes, but in the second month that they arrive off Sinai. The Gulf of Aqaba separates the kingdoms of the Araba or Arabia Petra from Egypt, just as Egypts province of Canaan separates Egypts vassals from the Hittites and their allies the Nahraim.

The Stations of the Exodus after reaching Sinai

• The 8th station reaches Sinai. None of the other atations on the kist except numbers 8 and 12 are actually in the Sinai

• 8. Wilderness of Sin Ex. 16:1, 17:1; Nu. 33:11-12 God supplies quail and manna, "Between Elim and Elat" Gulf of Aqaba

The Stations of the Exodus in and around Elat

• The 9th-13th stations are in and around Elat The stations list now refers to the stations or stopping point of the Sons of Israel in their Exodus after they have left Egypt and crossed the Red Sea.

• The list of the locations the Israelites stopped at after the Exodus from Egypt are taken from the locations mentioned in the Book of Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch. discuses reports of habiru from the Amarna letters which agree and are colaborated by Egyptian campaign reports and those places on the stations list which are also on the Kings Highway

• Station 12 refers to a dozen campsites in and around Timna in Modern Israel near Elat.

• 9. Dophkah Nu. 33:12-13 semitic dbq the Phoenician emporia at Timna an Egyptiam manufacturing suburb of ancient Elat
• 10. Alush Nu. 33:13-14 the summit of Horeb where the water flowed from the rock at modern Elat
• 11. Rephidim Ex. 17:1, 19:2; Nu. 33:14-15 near Mt. Horab at Elat Place of rhe First Contact with the Amalek and Rephidim of the Negev, Edom, and Canaan
• 12. Wilderness of Sin Ex. 19:1-2; Nu. 10:12, 33:15-16 A dozen sites with Egyptian artifacts have been found at Timnah near Elat
• 13. Kibroth_Hattaavah Taberah Nu. 11:1, Nu. 11:35, 33:16-17 lit. Graves of Longing or Graves of Lust The burials of those who fought the Amalek at Horab

The stations that follow the border of Edom

• Stations 14-21 follow the border of Edom heading North adjacent to the desert of Sn to the brook of Egypt or modern Gaza and then turn east back to Moab and Medeba which is a plateaus of cattle ranges in Jordan.

• The 14th-18th lead North up to Gaza following the western bound of Edom
• The 19th-21st lead East back to Moab following the northern bound of Edom

• 14. Hazeroth Nu. 11:35, 12:16, 33:17-18 Between Elat and Kadesh Barnea
• 15. Rithmah Nu. 33:18-19 Near Kadesh Barnea
• 16. Rimmon_Perez Nu. 33:19-20 Kadesh Barnea the Brook of Egypt
• 17. Libnah Nu. 33:20-21 The White land in the West, Libyan Frankincense emporia
• 18. Rissah Nu. 33:21-22 a fortified well on the Kings highway
• 19. Kehelathah Nu. 33:22-23 The place of gathering antimony on the Kings highway
• 20. Mount Shapher Nu. 33:23-24 from Arabic safarya, journey, from safar, departure
• 21. Haradah Nu. 33:24-25 the place of departure a place of fear between Mount Shapher and Makhelot near Moab

The Exodus reaches Moab and heads south toward Petra

• The 22nd-25th lead south to Petra following the eastern bound of Edom
• The 26th through 28th are in and around Petra.
• The 29th-32nd lead south from the cleft in the mountain at Petra back to Ezion Geber or Elat.

• Station 33 goes back North to Kadesh
• Station 34 goes back East to Mt Hor at Petra.

• The 35th -37th lead north along the kings highway and the border of Moab to Mt Nebo.

• Station 38 is Mount Nebo
• Station 39 is Dibon the capital of Moab.
• Stations 40-42 are in Moab near Mt Nebo.

• 22. Makheloth Nu. 33:25-26 A place dedicated to Moloch Near Moab
• 23. Tahath Nu. 33:26-27 Egyptian for the land of gardens on the borders of Moab and Edom nabatea
• 24. Tarah Nu. 33:27-28 Ta Ra The land of the Egyptians On the borders of Moab and Edom
• 25. Mithcah Nu. 33:28-29 associated with Petra on the borders of Moab and Edom near Petra.
• 26. Hashmonah Nu. 33:29-30 Ha Shmona Kiryat Shmona South
• 27. Moseroth Nu. 33:30-31 The place where Aaron died at the foor of Mt Hor (Petra)
• 28. Bene Jaakan Nu. 33:31-32 the wells of Jaakan Near Mt Hor (Petra)
• 29. Hor Haggidgad - Petra Nu. 33:32-33 The cleft in the mountain -the entrance to Petra
• 30. Jotbathah Nu. 33:33-34 Between Petra and Elat
• 31. Abronah Nu. 33:34-35 Near Ezion Geber industrial suburb north of the port of Elat
• 32. Ezion-Geber Nu. 33:35-36 Elat Near northern tip of Gulf of Aqaba
• 33. Kadesh Nu. 20:1,22, 33:36-37 Located in the Wilderness of Zin Miriam's burial place

Kadesh Barnea, the southern Border of Israel at the Brook of Egypt

• 34. Mount Hor (Petra) Nu. 20:22, 21:4, 33:37-41 On the border of Moab and Edom Aaron 's burial place
• 35. Zalmonah Nu. 33:41-42 where the manna was delivered textual artifact al mon = manna
• 36. Punon Nu. 33:42-43 A place without mannah where the sons of Israel complained of hunger and were attacked by snakes
• 37. Oboth Nu. 21:10-11, 33:43-44 adjacent to Mt Nebo Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, and the Philistines
• 38. Iye Abarim - Abarim Ruins Nu. 21:11, 33:44-45 Israelites encamped beneath Mount Nebo Jordan

at the ruins

• 39. Dhiban- Dibon Gad Nu. 33:45-46 Dhiban was the capital of Moab in Jordan east of the Dead Sea south of Amman
• 40. Almon Diblathaim Nu. 33:46-47 where the manna was delivered by the west wind Phillistine Athaim, a town in Moab
• 41. Abarim -Abarim Mountains Nu. 33:13-14 Israelites encamped beneath Mount Nebo in Jordan
• 42. Moab - Moab Plains Nu. 22:1, 33:48-50 Israelites encamped on the Jordan River from Beith Hayishimoth to Aveil Hashittim Occupied most of the Trans-Jordan region

The stations list was originally a distinct and separate source text. A slightly variant version of the list appears in full at Numbers 33

• Nelson GlueckRivers in the Desert. HUC. 1959.Discusses The evidence for the Exodus in the Negev
• William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1962. Discusses the evidence for Habiru and hapitu in Canaan
• Andrew George, The Epic of Gillgamesh. Penguin. 2000. ISBN No14-044721-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) Includes toponyms for Canaan
• James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1968. Jerusalim, siege and fall
• Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem, Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad. 1990.
• Michael RoafCultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6.
• Gerard HermThe Phoenicians. William *Morrow^ Co. Inc. 1975. ISBN 0-688-02908-6.Jerusalim pp 33,84-106 passim, 123,125,126,145,149,150,154
• Lionel CassonThe Ancient Mariners. PUP. 1991. ISBN 06910147879. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• George BassA History of Seafaring. Walker and Company. 2004. ISBN 08027-0-3909.

The Bible, Numbers 33,

The stages of the Exodus from Thebes Egypt to the Red Sea

33:5 And the children of Israel removed from Rameses, and pitched in Succoth.

P33:6 And they departed from Succoth, and pitched in Etham, which is in the edge of the wilderness.

33:7 And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pihahiroth, which is before Baalzephon: and they pitched before Migdol.

P33:8 And they departed from before Pihahiroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days' journey in the wilderness of Etham, and pitched in Marah.

33:9 And they removed from Marah, and came unto Elim: and in Elim were twelve fountains of water, and threescore and ten palm trees; and they pitched there.

33:10 And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea.

The crossing of the Red Sea

33:11 And they removed from the Red sea, and encamped in the wilderness of Sin.

The encampments in and around Mt Horab and Elat

33:12 And they took their journey out of the wilderness of Sin, and encamped in Dophkah.

33:13 And they departed from Dophkah, and encamped in Alush.

33:14 And they removed from Alush, and encamped at Rephidim, where was no water for the people to drink.

33:15 And they departed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinai.

33:16 And they removed from the desert of Sinai, and pitched at Kibrothhattaavah.

33:17 And they departed from Kibrothhattaavah, and encamped at Hazeroth.

The encampments bordering Edom

33:18 And they departed from Hazeroth, and pitched in Rithmah.

33:19 And they departed from Rithmah, and pitched at Rimmonparez.

33:20 And they departed from Rimmonparez, and pitched in Libnah.

33:21 And they removed from Libnah, and pitched at Rissah.

33:22 And they journeyed from Rissah, and pitched in Kehelathah.

33:23 And they went from Kehelathah, and pitched in mount Shapher.

33:24 And they removed from mount Shapher, and encamped in Haradah.

The encampments in and around Moab

33:25 And they removed from Haradah, and pitched in Makheloth.

33:26 And they removed from Makheloth, and encamped at Tahath.

33:27 And they departed from Tahath, and pitched at Tarah.

33:28 And they removed from Tarah, and pitched in Mithcah.

33:29 And they went from Mithcah, and pitched in Hashmonah.

33:30 And they departed from Hashmonah, and encamped at Moseroth.

The encampements in and around Pella

33:31 And they departed from Moseroth, and pitched in Benejaakan.

33:32 And they removed from Benejaakan, and encamped at Horhagidgad.

33:33 And they went from Horhagidgad, and pitched in Jotbathah.

33:34 And they removed from Jotbathah, and encamped at Ebronah.

The return to Elat and Kadesh Barnea

33:35 And they departed from Ebronah, and encamped at Eziongaber.

33:36 And they removed from Eziongaber, and pitched in the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh.

33:37 And they removed from Kadesh, and pitched in mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.

The return to Pella

33:41 And they departed from mount Hor, and pitched in Zalmonah.

33:42 And they departed from Zalmonah, and pitched in Punon.

The return to Moab

33:43 And they departed from Punon, and pitched in Oboth.

33:44 And they departed from Oboth, and pitched in Ijeabarim, in the border of Moab.

33:45 And they departed from Iim, and pitched in Dibongad.

33:46 And they removed from Dibongad, and encamped in Almondiblathaim.

33:47 And they removed from Almondiblathaim, and pitched in the mountains of Abarim, before Nebo.

33:48 And they departed from the mountains of Abarim, and pitched in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho.

33:49 And they pitched by Jordan', from Bethjesimoth even unto Abelshittim in the plains of Moab.

• The location of Elat is referenced in Nelson Glueks "Rivers in the Desert", Nayeems the pre and proto history of the Arabian Penninsula, The Periplus of the Erythrian Sea and is a well researched modern city Rktect (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge

The article on Pharaoh of the Exodus is short and is duplicated in this article. Merge Zargulon 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge Merge the article Pharaoh of the Exodus in this article, unless the article is expanded. --RebSkii 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

pharaoh did not drown

According to the bible, pharaoh did not drown. He was the sole survivor of the army who chased the Jews in the sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.128.151 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Miraculous Signs

Some count two miraculous signs showing Moses' authority (water into blood, staff into snake), others also include Moses' hand becoming leprous as another indication of his authority. To sidestep this debate about the Bible, I've replaced "three miraculous signs" with just "miraculous signs" Ijkopl 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Dating of the Exodus

I added this over in the book of Joshua section and it has relavence here: There is now a theory postulated by Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma and Dr. Emmanuel Anati that states the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites occurred prior to the late Bronze Age as had been originally theorized. Doctors Aardsma and Anati say they have found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the early Bronze Age at around 2200-2500 B.C. They state that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the biblical city of “Ai” and the city of Jericho were destroyed in this time frame and that both sites had defensive walls at this time. In addition, it was found the city of “Ai” was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, it has been found that at this time the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology. Dr. Aardsma argues the Old Testament chronology must be an incorrect recording of the original chronological information.

This argument has a profound effect on dating the exodus since it would mean the Israelites would have left for Palestine just after the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, maybe even during its downfall. It would also push the age of the patriarchs back to about 2800-3000 B.C. which would mean any evidence of Joseph would need to be found in the Early Dynastic Period. I referenced Anati's article and Aardsman book over in the book of Joshua section. Last time I checked Anati's article was free to peruse online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.140.137 (talk • contribs)

I edited the Book of Joshua edition to reflect only Anati's work. He is a reliable source by his credentials and publications, but Aardsma is not. Anati is a recognized expert in prehistoric religions according to his biography [1], while Aardsma is a physicist who, in this subject area, has only self-published and Creationist credits. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. The edit cleaned things up and I hadn't known Aardsma was a non reliable source. I've been looking into this and it seems Anati made the first theory (along with another archaeologist who says that he doesn't think it was the Israelites) and Aardsma has used the theory since then, I would have edited the book of Joseph part myself because of this because Anati deserves the credit.

I added a page Dating of the Exodus with a couple dozen different theories. Anati is a source worth reading but he's contraversial (Dating of the Conguest to 2500 BC) and has a distinct POV. Eventually we should get all authors who have contributed a perspective on the page. One good place to start looking at the different expeditions which have investigated the various sites would be the BAR Rktect 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Section title change from "Authorship" to "Composition"

I made this change because I believe the section needs to talk about more than just who wrote Exodus - it needs to touch also on the structure of the book, especially the "chiastic pattern" in the second half (it's important!) and things such as the Song of the Sea. Hope other editors can accept this. PiCo 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Composition"

I've rewritten this section, making it much longer and giving it a somewhat differeent orientation. Originally it was simply a brief description of the documentary hypothesis; I felt that we needed to take into account all the more recent work which has been done on Pentateuchal origins - Wellhausen, after all, is well over a century old, and a lot of scholars have written since his time. I've tried to write it from a NPOV perspective, but adding an indication of what are mainsrteam views and what are not. The final subsection, on biblical minimalism, in incomplete - I'll get back to it. For consideration, but especially, I'd be grateful if other editors could add cite-needed tags wherever they see this as necessary. PiCo 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's document dissent from DH, but let's not get in the reader's way. The reader needs a nice, clear answer to who wrote Exodus when and where. Once we get across the basic, scholarly opinion, we can also address religious and dissenting scholarly opinions. Leadwind 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== historicity ==--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is largely unsourced, and it's got a main article to do the heavy lifting. Can we just trim this down to one useful paragraph? Leadwind (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - but the material in the section is only a part of what needs to be covered - it represents popular thinking on the subject, which is based on the preconception that the account is historical: no attempt is made to canvas the evidence. It needs to cover the scholarly side of things, from the pro camp (basically Kitchen and Hoffmeier) to the no camp (everyone else). Even the popular material could be usefully recast to focus on the various popular tv documentaries and give an assessment of their accuracy (very low). PiCo (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of this section, what's this about?

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho.

The part I've placed in bold sounds suspiciously like a personal opinion. Where's the proof? --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It's two days later, and no one has substantiated the claim with any evidence, so I have removed it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I redid the summary to make it a bit more complete - tried to keep to the text, with some footnotes on strictly textual matters, no interpretation. Any comments? PiCo (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Textual matters: The location of Mt. Horab (Not Mt. Sinai, there is no Mt. Sinai in the story)

The Location of Horab is given in Deuteronomy 1:1 "In the wilderness, in the arabah, facing suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. It is eleven days march from Horab by way of Mt Seir to Kadesh Barnea. The location of the sea of suph is given in 1 Kings 9:26 And a navy hath king Solomon made in Ezion-Geber, that is beside Eloth, on the edge of the Sea of Suph, in the land of Edom. Mt Seir or Mt Hor is where Aaron is buried, north of Elat on the way through Petra to Moab. Paran is a wadi in the Sinai to the west leading to a city Feran and Tophel is modern et-tafeleh, 15 miles Southeast of the Dead Sea, on the caravan road from Petra to Kerak.

As in the Song of the Sea what is crossed is a sea, not a marsh; the parting of the waters allowing the Sons of Israel to cross dryshod is accomplished with the hull of a boat.

Horab is Egyptian for the place that the heart is in the midst of the body. In the story of Exodus Mt. Horab is the place where Moses tends the flocks of his father in Law Jethro. Its where he strikes the rock of Mt. Horeb to produce water and where after having crossed the Red Sea he is rejoined with Jethro and fights the Amalek. Its located at Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba at the southern end of the Arabah which serves as the border between Midian and Edom running north from Elat up to Moab. The 9th through 13th stations of the Exodus are in and around Elat and Mt. Horab.

Exodus 16:16 But lift thou up thy rod

(mast), and stretch out thine hand

(yardarm) over the sea

, and divide it: and the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea.

Rktect (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is all original research. Not permitted in Wikipedia. PiCo (talk) 11:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• How is citing the story of Exodus as to the location of Horab original research?
• If the story says its located at Elat at the head of the Gulf of Arabah between Edom and Midian, then the crossing of the Red Sea includes the Gulf of Aqaba.

A Brief Response to the Alternate View Placing Mount Horeb in Midian] by William D. Barrick, Th.D. The Master’s Seminary Sun Valley, CA Mount Horeb in Midian

• If its published how can you call it original research? Rktect (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

For a start, where was it published? His website doesn't count as publishing. dougweller (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

His bibliography lists 57 published sources with discussion about how the mistaken selection of Mt. Sinai made its way into the literature; and then how that idea came to be refuted.

(Removed material that says copyright on the bottom, and is getting close to soapboxing) dougweller (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen and other sources

• Beitzel, Barry J. 1991 The Via Maris in Literary and Cartographic Sources. Biblical Archaeologist 54: 65–75.

• Blum, Howard 1998 The Gold of Exodus. New York: Simon and Schuster.

• Franz, Gordon 2000 Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia? Bible and Spade 13: 101–13.

• Gardiner, Alan 1920 The Ancient Military Road Between Egypt and Palestine. Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6: 99–116

• Hoffmeier, James K. 1997 Israel in Egypt. New York: Oxford University. 2004 The North Sinai Archaeological Project’s Excavations at Tell el-Borg (Sinai): An Example of the “New” Biblical Archaeology? Pp. 53–66 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans. 2005 Ancient Israel in Sinai. New York: Oxford University.

• Huddlestun, John R. 1992 Red Sea, Old Testament. Pp. 633–42 in the Anchor Bible Dictionary 5, ed. David N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.

• Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2003 On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans.

• Scolnic, Benjamin E. 2004 A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol. Pp. 91–120 in The Future of Biblical Archaeology, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans.

• Shea, William H. 1990 Leaving Egypt. Archaeology and Biblical Research 3: 98–111.

• Wood, Bryant G. 2000 Beneath the Surface: An Editorial Comment. Bible and Spade 13: 98–99. 2004 The Royal Precinct at Rameses. Bible and Spade 17: 45–51.

Addendum: Prof. K.A. Kitchen addresses the possible routes of the Exodus and the overwhelming evidence that the traditional location at the South end of the Sinai Peninsula is correct. See his new book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2003. See especially pages 241-274. Route Maps, from K.A. Kitchen. Another Traditional route map with major place names. (added 3/18/04).

Kitchen is a distinguished Egyptologist, but his ideas about the historicity of the Bible are not mainstream among Biblical scholars and archaeologists. Wiki must quote/reflect the mainstream, not push a minority view which you personally favour. PiCo (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kitchen is a dinosaur, and he is an evangelical christian, which rules him out as a reliable archeologist when it comes to issues related to biblical narratives. Cush (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Kitchen is outside the mainstream, but disagree that that precludes him from being a source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia rules specifically call for balance, which means that views like those Kitchen expresses (or the views of whichever scholar on a controversial subject) have a place at the table, especially when as well researched and referenced as Kitchen's are. However, it would be appropriate to list his views second, with a caveat that his position is an alternative, less-well-accepted postition.

Cush's suggestion that a person's worldview disqualifies him for commenting on a subject would exclude the vast majority of (otherwise well-respected) sources. If a Christian is expected to be biased when judging Biblical reliability, an athiest would be equally expected to be biased, just in the other direction. As an example on the other side from Kitchen, Bill Dever is decidedly anti-Biblical in his worldview, and his conclusions reflect his starting point; but he is a renowned ancient-Near East scholar whose views deserve a place in Wikipedia. DoctorEric (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(The following apparently added by Rktect - and this explanatory note added by me, PiCo)

Sinai-Related Links

The Exodus and Related Satellite Imagery, (Tom Pickett)

The Riddle of Mount Sinai: Archaeological Discoveries at Har Karkom, (Prof. Emmanuel Anati)

Is Mt. Sinai in Arabia? Gary Byers, Bryant G. Wood, Associates for Biblical Research (ABR)

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) Entries for Mt. Sinai

W. M. Flinders Petrie, Researches in Sinai (Excerpts)

The Mountain of Moses (and St. Catherine's Monastery Tour)

Jebel Musa

Egypt Travel: Sinai and St. Catherine's Monastery

Peakware World Mountain Encyclopedia

Catholic Encyclopedia: Mt. Sinai

Hormuz - Satellite Images - Sinai and the Red Sea

Places of Peace and Power

Rktect (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Timna

Below a map showing the distribution of "Midianite Pottery" also called "Al-Qurayya ware," after a site by that name in NW Saudi Arabia, petrographic analysis confirming this site is the source of the clays used in the making of this ware. Professor Beno Rothenberg found this ware in association with Egyptian votive items at the Hathor shine located at Har Timna (Arabic: Gebel Mene'iyeh), in the southern Arabah, dating it to the reigns of pharaohs Ramesses II through Ramesses V, Dynasties 19 and 20 based on cartouches; For the below map cf. p. 70, Beno Rothenberg & Jonathan Glass. "The Midianite Pottery." pp. 65-128, in John F. A. Sawyer & David J. A. Clines, editors. Midian, Moab and Edom, The History and Archaeology of Late Bronze and Iron Age Jordan and North-West Arabia. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series No. 24. Sheffield, England. Sheffield University Press. 1983 ISBN 0-905774-48-5)Rktect (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter how many sources a self-published source uses, we still can't use it. And this stuff about Midianite pottery is supposed to do what? Convince us that you are doing original research? dougweller (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any of the published sources (see ISBN above) locating Horab at Elat on the border between Edom and Midian at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba including the cites from Exodus, Deuteronomy, and 1 Kings suffices to locate Horab. There should be no question as to the point of the discussion which is that Mt. Sinai is an obsolete and inappropriate attempt to locate Mt. Horab elsewhere than where the story places it. What I was providing is a little background for those who may be unfamiliar with the archaeology that backs the story up. I repeat the question. How does citing published sources equate to WP:OR? I presume you have read and are familiar with the scientific archaeology published since 1980 that addresses this. Can you explain why you think Exodus, Deuteronomy and 1 Kings are in error about the location of Horab? Rktect (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All of this stems from the rubbish by Ron Wyatt, which has been debunked so many times and so thoroughly that reiterating it ain't even funny any more.
And what's with the hieroglyphs?? There are no Egyptian sources about the Exodus whatsoever, there are not even sources of Israelites in Egypt (at least not in the conventional chronology). Cush (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are Egyptian sources about the Exodus. The Papyrus Anastasi I, The Amarna letters, the Egyptian campaign accounts; you might want to refer to Bimson, Kitchen, Dever, Dothans, the BAR which brings them up for discussion on a month by month basis. The Penteteuch contains a number of Egyptian toponyms; try looking at Strongs concordance; or a lexicon for the roots.

Rktect, your sources are a mix of self-published, outdated, and unidentified. You are using them in a highly selective manner to push a personal point of view. Wiki has to reflect the mainstream - these views are not mainstream. PiCo (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My sources are published, and can be found on Amazon or in the Library of Congress or even online by refering to their ISBN. They are both mainstream and reasonably current. This has little to do with my personal point of view other than that it seems wrong to add easily refutable outdated information to an encyclopedia.

If you allow that by the ninth station of the Exodus the people are at Horab, at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba then its pretty hard to get them there from any part of Egypt by any means other than by ship. I have seen any number of people ignore the date given in the story cause that doesn't work for them, ignore the number of people involved, the rate of march and the known water holes and settlements so all I'm asking for is a rational agreement either with what the story says or with the facts on the ground. I respectfully submit that Egypt is engaged in trade by ship across the Red Sea from Elim to Elat from the Fourth dynasty of Egypt onward.

The only place where there is hard on the ground evidence of the Exodus is at Timnah and the wadi Hammamat, the route between Thebes and Elim.

The main discoveries around Timna were made in the 1980's so thats where my sources reported their information. If you have more recent verions of those sources you want to include feel free. Most of the Exodus takes place near Horab the mountian of god which is located in the Arabah at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba between Edom and Midian.

As to your concerns about Ron Wyatt I consider him a quack and have little use for him.

My sources do include a number of people to whom it has occured that there are no settlements or habitantions or sources of water in the Sinai other than Serabi el Khadim and Paran which are too far apart to support a route. They also include a number of people who realize that a dating for the Exodus anywhere in the Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt or the Nineteenth dynasty of Egypt has it occuring when the Capital of Egypt is at Thebes and all conversations with him occur there. Thats where the Exodus begins, not in Avaris which is destroyed by Kamose at the end of the Seventeenth dynasty of Egypt.

The reason there are no Israelites in Egypt is that they have become Egyptians. There is evidence of semitic Hyksos entering Egypt in the beni Hasan tomb painting which dates to the 12th dynasty. Their four room houses have been discovered near Thebes, and there are also grafiti from people calle ha ibrw or ha apiru in the wadi Hammamat which leads from Thebes to its port at Elim.

If you look at Strongs concordance you will find most of the references to Horab are internally consistant in having no reference to the Sinai. Re the Egyptian hieroglyphs, according to the story the people of the Exodus had lived in Egypt for 430 years. For almost half a millenia it had been their home. They spoke the Egyptian language, had assimilated its culture attitudes and values and thought of themselves as Egyptians. Even that part of them who were of semitic origins like the priest Aaron worshipped Egyptian gods and built their ark and sactuary in the Egyptian manner. Hebrew didn't exist as a language yet so their history and its idioms, proper names, phrases and toponyms would have been in Egyptian. Only later were they translated into Greek and Hebrew.

Cites referring to Horeb and its location between Edom and Midian

• Exd 3:1 Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.
• Exd 17:6 Behold, I will stand before you there on the rock in Horeb; and you shall strike the rock, and water will come out of it, that the people may drink." And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel.
• Exd 33:6 So the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments by Mount Horeb.

Deu 1:1 These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan--that is, in the Arabah--opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab.

• Deu 1:2 It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by way of Mount Seir to Kadesh Barnea.
• Deu 1:6 "The LORD our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: 'You have dwelt long enough at this mountain.
• Deu 2:8 So we went on past our brothers the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir. We turned from the Arabah road, which comes up from Elath and Ezion Geber, and traveled along the desert road of Moab.
• Deu 1:19 "So we departed from Horeb, and went through all that great and terrible wilderness which you saw on the way to the mountains of the Amorites, as the LORD our God had commanded us. Then we came to Kadesh Barnea.
• Deu 4:10 [especially concerning] the day you stood before the LORD your God in Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Gather the people to Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and [that] they may teach their children.'
• Deu 4:15 "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
• Deu 5:2 The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
• Deu 9:8 Also in Horeb you provoked the LORD to wrath, so that the LORD was angry [enough] with you to have destroyed you.
• Deu 18:16 according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.'
• Deu 29:1 These are the words of the covenant which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.
• 1Ki 8:9 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.
• 1Ki 19:8 So he arose, and ate and drank; and he went in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights as far as Horeb, the mountain of God.

1Ki 9:26 King Solomon also built ships at Ezion Geber, which is near Elath in Edom, on the shore of the Red Sea.*

• 2Ch 5:10 Nothing was in the ark except the two tablets which Moses put [there] at Horeb, when the LORD made [a covenant] with the children of Israel, when they had come out of Egypt.

Psa 106:19 They made a calf in Horeb, And worshiped the molded image.

• Mal 4:4 "Remember the Law of Moses, My servant, Which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel, [With] [the] statutes and judgments.

Rktect (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Find someone serious and reliable who wrote about that stuff and then give a short summary. Your own OR is leading nowhere and this is no discussion page on the subject matter. Cush (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The short summary is that there is a discrepancy in Biblical references to the "mountain of god." Some bibles use Sinai, some use Horeb. Horeb is an Egyptian word hr(y)ib = middle. Gardiner Egyptian Grammar p 582. There is no such mountain that agrees with the details of the location other than Horeb at Elat, in the middle between Edom and Midian, where the bulk of the story of Exodus occurs after the crossing of the Red Sea. Several encyclopedias have attempted to explain this by 1.) claiming the words Sinai and Horeb can be used interchangably, they refer to the same thing. 2.) claiming one refers to a mountain range and the other to a specific mountain, perhaps jebal mussah or jebal lawrence (both in the wrong place making the discrepancy worse) 3.) claiming Horeb is at Elat in the Arabah at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba between Edom and Midian but trying to get there with a treck across the Sinai. 4.) written before 1980 and the discovery of Timna so unaware there are Egyptian artifacts in association with Midian ware at a dozen campsites assciate with copper mining at Elat. Rktect (talk) 20:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

However, Horeb at Elat does not fit into the itinerary of the Exodus. I see that you have maps of the Exodus starting at Thebes on your user page. They represent a rather misguided fringe opinion, but maybe that's the reason why you are so confused. If you want to incorporate this opinion, then add it to The Exodus article in a separate section, but don't clutter up this article about the biblical book. Find someone serious and reliable who wrote about that stuff and then give a short summary. Cush (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Stations 9,10,11,12 and 13 are at Horeb, mentioning it by name. Many of the important events of Exodus occur at Horeb, again mentioning it by name. The passeges are listed above. You need to take your beef up with the people who wrote the book.Rktect (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That still is OR by yourself. Find reliable sources that critically analyze the biblical passages and then write your summary of those (including references) and put it in a separate section (perhaps under Route of the Exodus). Cush (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What's your objection to this one? Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem, Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad. 1990.

You don't consider Strongs concordance and lexicon a reliable source for analysing Nible passages?

How about I add a map?Rktect (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you didn't, as I'd have to revert it. Rktect, you haven't grasped what Wikipedia is all about: not truth, but opinion. And not your opinion, either. It's about the opinions of leading contemporary scholars in the field. Which your sources aren't. PiCo (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia its based on providing a general overview of a topic, issues that have been raised by scholars researching it, appropriate graphics that illustrate the overview or issues, and references to reliable srcondary sources.

I have provided you the general overview, the biblical verses its based on, the commentaries on them by reliable theological sources, the archaeology relevent to the various references to sites in the commentaries by reliable archaeological sources, the history of those places relevent to the commentary and the archaeology.

Now I'm proposing that it might be helpful to provide a map that locates the names of the places we are talking about. The discussion of the list of stations of the Exodus is a fairly common part of stories of the Exodus, so are the inclusions of a map so there are a lot of maps to chose from. Most of them either focus on a regional view which lacks a lot of detail about individual places, or they focus on one place to the exclusion of other places.

Why not provide information we have good sources for? Why would you not want to use a published map or maps from a reputable source? A map that breaks the Exodus up into sections adressing where we are talking about in Egypt, where the Red Sea is crossed, where the events at Horeb and Midion occur ought to be useful. Where the text talks about a line from Horeb, through Mt Seir, and Kadesh Barnea to the Brook of Egypt (Deu 1:2 ([There are] eleven days [journey] from Horeb by the way of mount Seir unto Kadeshbarnea), those are all faily well known places why not see them on the map? Rktect (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are in the wrong article. This article is about the book of the bible, not a possible event in history with its particulars. For the possible historic event, its textual sources and archeological analyses please go to The Exodus. Cush (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to WP:OWN... The article about the book in the Bible already had some corespondences to real historical events, (Thats why Bible scholars like to study it). I added references to studies pertaining to the story and keyed them in along with the comments which were already in the article but not properly referenced. Rktect (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not an issue of ownership. I've followed this entire conversation, and haven't joined because Cush and Pico are doing a fine job. And I've certainly seen no reason to come to your defence. Go to the policy pages and familiarize yourself with the concepts of original research, reliable sources, and undue weight. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In what way is including a published map WP:OR? Why wouldn't providing a published map with the names of the places on the stations list of Exodus be gernmane to the discussion? How is the WP:POV that the Pentateuch of the Bible, (Torah and Koran) is not a possible event in history arrived at? Rktect (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

{undent) A map of the route of the exodus would be inappropriate to this article because this article is about the book, the second book of the Pentateuch. It isn't about the exodus, the event, itself. We can't cram everything about the event into the article about the book. It would be unwieldy. We just can't have that much detail in this article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian Night

Can someone work Egyptian Night into this article so that we can remove the orphan tag from Egyptian Night? Kingturtle (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Far better to delete Egyptian Night. PiCo (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Cush (talk) 12:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect's recent edits

Loads of OR -- 'this story is similar to that of Sinhue', "<refAccording to a tradition not based on anything in the story, Exodus and the other four books of the Penteteuch were written by Moses in the latter half of the 2nd millennium BC. Modern biblical scholarship sees it reaching its final textual form around 450 BC.</ref", etc. etc.. This might be fine in an essay, but not here. dougweller (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'this story is similar to that of Sinhue', I can source that if you would like Doug, but maybe the simplest solution is to hold off charging something is original research until you have at least googled for it...Also, can you show me where the claim that Moses wrote the Penteteuch is referenced in the story? My understanding is that it goes to some length to show that Moses who has spent his life tending the flocks of Jethro is illiterate, and that he needs to depend on Aaron to speak for him. The reason is that the authors wish to show the commandments have a different composer. I have previously suggested the use of Strongs concordance and lexicon. Have you checked that source out yet?

• PDF] Moses and the Egyptian Tale of SinuheFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

impression that the similarities between Exodus and Sinuhe are substantial and. warrant a reassessment of the literary conventions that governed Exodus. ... reformedperspectives.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/ric_pratt.Sinuhe.pdf - Similar pages

• [DOC] Moses and the Egyptian Tale of SinuheFile Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML

Jan 8, 2008 ... Third, are there enough similarities between Exodus and Sinuhe to warrant the suggestion that the basic historical truths about Moses are ... thirdmill.org/newfiles/ric_pratt/ric_pratt.Sinuhe.doc - Similar pages Historicity, Exodus, and the Tale of Sinuhe « In Thy LightA couple interesting short reads on the historicity of Exodus: ... left with the impression that the similarities between Exodus and Sinuhe are substantial ... inthylight.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/historicity-exodus-and-the-tale-of-sinuhe/ - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

• PTET - Exploring the Exodus mythOct 8, 2003 ... "Sinuhe flees Egypt on hearing of the death of King Amenemhet I... and becomes ... His path of flight may have been similar to the Exodus, ...

ptet.dubar.com/myth-exodus.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages Tempest & Exodus: The Biblical Exodus Inscribed on an Ancient ... - Google Books Resultby Ralph *Ellis - 2001 - Religion - 269 pages The Biblical Exodus Inscribed on an Ancient Egyptian Stele many a pharaoh imprisoned or exterminated any pretenders to the throne, so Sinuhe made a quick ... books.google.com/books?isbn=0953191389...

• [PDF] Exodus, Historiography, and Some Theological Reflections<a href ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML

Sinuhe, that bear similarities to biblical texts—not simply those that speak to a generally. plausible historical context for Exodus. In addition to Sinuhe, ... peterennsonline.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/exodus-and-the-problem-of-historiography-rr-new-version-final-dec-05.pdf - Similar pages

• Kemetic History of Afrika * Blue Lotus: The Tale of SinuheThe Tale of Sinuhe. I was a henchman who followed his lord, ..... Something similar to a wire leads to asmall box on which the air god is kneeling. ...

kemetichistoryofafrikabluelotus.blogspot.com/2008/11/tale-of-sinuhe.html - 199k - Cached - Similar pages

• Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus ... - Google Books Resultby James *Karl Hoffmeier - 1999 - Religion - 280 pages

These striking similarities between the main elements in the stories of ... the general outline of the Sinuhe narrative structure in Exodus 2 through 5.96 ... books.google.com/books?isbn=019513088X...

• Historical Discovery - Biblical Studies - The ExodusSome scholars have compared this event with the Egyptian tale of Sinuhe. ... While Moses’ exile might be similar to this tale of Sinhue, ...

www.beavervalleysoftware.com/historysources/historycontent.aspx?product...The%20Exodus&user=&email= - 432k - Cached - Similar pages

• Magic City Morning Star: Egyptian and Israelite StoriesDec 22, 2008 ... After a long time, Sinuhe longs for Egypt and his family there. ... go back to Egypt to rescue/evacuate/exodus those in the endangered area, ...

www.magic-city-news.com/R_P_BenDedek_33/Egyptian_and_Israelite_Stories11259.shtml - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

You have your facts wrong again Doug.

When did it become Wikipedia policy to delete first and talk later? As this is not the first time you have been mistaken in your assumptions, maybe you need to make less of them... Rktect (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not mistaken in my assumptions that the material was unsourced and thus could be OR. It needs sourcing, full stop. And your response above concerns me because your sources are indiscriminate. The idea of using Ralph Ellis as a source is mind-boggling. The blogs, etc. are bad enough. If you don't want material to be removed, source it. About 4 lines before where I am writing it says 'Encyclopedic content must be WP:verifiable and the link makes it clear that the threshold for inclusion is "whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, " That does not mean readers should have to Google, it means that your sources should be provided and readers should be able to verify them. Without sources it is original research and/or WP:synthesis, and how often does someone complain about your original research? Your talk page shows someone mentioning some OR of yours in another article just 3 days ago. Hm, what have you done with your archives? You keep archiving warnings of various sorts, not a good sign. I know a number of people, not just me, have complained about your OR. Do you really think they are all wrong? dougweller (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

strongs cincordance

I don't know Doug, I use Strongs concordance for some things, you apparently don't. I make a statement and give it a reference I think is valid (Gardiner "Egyptian Grammar") You claim its wrong. I add a cite from Strong's concordance. Do you think you have been wrong in some of your recent claims of WP:OR?

He isn't wrong. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongs concordance is wrong? Rktect (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong's Concordance, in this instance, is irrelevant. What's relevant is your WP:OR. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see Strong's concordance as that useful myself. And I note the warning in our article "Since Strong's Concordance identifies the original words in Hebrew and Greek, Strong's Numbers are sometimes misinterpreted by those without adequate training to change the Bible from its accurate meaning simply by taking the words out of cultural context. The use of Strong's numbers does not consider figures of speech, metaphors, idioms, common phrases, cultural references, references to historical events, or alternate meanings used by those of the time period to express their thoughts in their own language at the time. As such, professionals and amateurs alike must consult a number of contextual tools to reconstruct these cultural backgrounds." You can write 'S'sC' says thus and such, but you can't then draw implications or conclusions from that or lead the reader to do so as that is OR -- to be precise, synthesis. dougweller (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have looked at your block log. Several blocks for OR, including a month's block last September. And you've been banned apparently permanently from articles about weights and measures in an ArbCom case. dougweller (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was blocked on the 27th over a side issue that came up in an ANI thread regarding his or her possible wikistalking by 209.244.42.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), which seems to have been going to a lot of effort to revert Rktect on a range of ancient history articles and to nominate articles Rktect had written for speedy deletion. Whether or not the IP was acting in good faith was not resolved. However, in the course of looking for anything to provide background for the IP's behavior, I ran across an Arbcom case from 2005 (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rktect) which had resulted in Rktect being "banned indefinitely from all articles which relate to weights and measures (metrology)."

I had seen in an earlier, cursory look at Rktect's contribs that he had been active at Squaring the circle, mentioned specifically in the Arbcom case; had created the article Time of Day; and had been keeping in his userspace what were either preferred versions of articles he would be banned from editing in mainspace, or extremely coherent and organized notes (e.g., User:Rktect/cubit).

I had watchlisted Rktect's Talk page when I left him an There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. , and I saw today that he had posted a response claiming that he had been improperly blocked and that his Arbcom sanction hadn't been interpreted correctly. He says that he was banned only from articles having to do with the discipline of metrology (the science of weights and measures), and not universally from articles having to do with the mathematics of measurement. That seems kind of like denial and bargaining to me, but Arbcom seems to have gone out of its way to specify metrology as the domain of the ban.

I'm not sure how finely Arbcom splits hairs in situations like this, so someone more experienced in such matters might do well to give a second opinion on this and perhaps give an authoritative answer to the rather long apologia Rktect has written on his or her Talk page. --Dynaflow babble 03:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Arguing "measures" versus "weights and measures" is such an absurd example of wikilawyering that I had to read it twice to convince myself that he really meant to say that. But apparently he did. If this diff doesn't deal with "weights and measures" I need a new dictionary. Raymond Arritt 04:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC) That was my initial impression as well. Rktect is correct, though, in pointing out that the incidental discovery of his or her Arbcom violation derailed any effort to look closely at the activities of the Anon who was reverting and speedy-nominating a large proportion of Rktect's contributions to articles he or she actually was allowed to edit. My familiarity with ancient history is such (sorry, Econ major) that I can't be sure whether the Anon was legitimately reverting fringey, weird, OR stuff; or whether it was just being a dick. --Dynaflow babble 04:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article I'm banned indefinitely from is weights and measures (metrology) a single article in which I set someone off because I had the temerity to point out that Herodotus had written a passage in Book II of his history that documented the Egyptians had accurate values for a degree of the Earth's circumference before Eratosthenes. They claimed that was OR and yet its really just a cite to a source from classical antiquity. There are many more such that back it up. I have collected some of them on my user page for when the indefinite ban is lifted which the editor above found

(The original article no longer exists and has been entirely replaced with something else I have never edited)

extremely coherent and organized notes (e.g., User:Rktect/cubit). and for which wikipedia has said it has an urgent need.

The most recent ban was for a month for editing the stations list, apparently because I had attempted to restore content 209.244.42.97 had blanked. It doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the process here. Rktect (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They were right. What you did in that article was WP:OR. You're doing it again here. Please don't. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Avaris

Wow. THAT is what I call expert spamming. Rktect is trying to force an interpretation of the biblical Exodus that lacks every historical and archeological substance. The Exodus simply did not start out at Thebes but at Avaris/Pi-Ramesses in the Delta (in every applicable chronology btw). Every subsequent piece of the biblical narrative gets twisted by Rktect to fit the itinerary from Thebes directly eastwards to the Red Sea cost (see maps above, route through wadi hammamat???). This is plain nonsense and must not clutter up an article about the biblical book, and also not the main article about the Exodus event. This is not even fringe, this is insubstantial. Cush (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, Avaris is destroyed by Kamos c 1550 BC, and uninhabited through the 18th dynasty of Egypt. The 18th dynasty of Egypt is established by Ahmose c 1550 BC with its capital at Thebes, c 1453 BC Hatshepsut builds her Red Sea fleet in support of the Mortuary trade between Thebes Red Sea port of Elim, (modern Quasir) and Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba where the story places Horeb.

The story places the Exodus c 1450 BC in a time of war when a new pharoah knows Joseph not, Some equate this with the Hyksos, hence like to posit it starts at the Hyksos capital Avaris. You (and Ken Kitchen for that matter) like the idea that its in the time of Ramesses II about two and a half centuries later. All of that period the capital of Egypt is at Thebes and Avaris is uninhabited.

Kitchen has Ramesses II chasing the Israelite slaves, (600,000 of them ?) with their herds, flocks, armies, a treasure that amounts to several tons of gold, women, children, elderly; from Ramesses and Pithom, (the remains of a brick canal excavated by Neville in 1896 and the capital of the 8th Egyptian nome) across the Yam Suph or reed sea, the marsh of the bitter lakes where the Egyptians all drown in a foot of water, avoiding the way of the Phillistines (or the chain of fortified and garrisoned wells leading north along the kings highway) to cross the Sinai desert 250 miles without water to Mount Sinai at the tip of the Sinai penninsula and then another 150 miles to Elat in six marches of more than 60 miles a day between camps.

Put aside the difficulties of the march, (sure, they complained, the cloud they were following didn't listen and besides there was all kind of vulcanism going on from the eruption of santorini c 1628 BC) its a miracle but they make it.

Leaving the Hyksos city of Avaris chased by Rameses II and making their way across the Sinai to Elat they eventually arrive in Canaan where there is no 13th century BC evidence of Josuah destroying the cities Josua claims to have destroyed, just a bunch of ruins from the Egyptian campaigns back in the 18th dynasty

Clearly it would be foolish to try and get the two stories to agree, there is no evidence of habitation in the Sinai desert just a few cult sites along the Gulf of Aqaba and in the Arabah at Timnah up by Elat and even those date centuries before Ramesses.

Why would I foolishly want to have the story make sense, its a miracle lets leave it at that... Theres no point in looking at the stations list and identifying the places they actually did camp after crossing the Red Sea in a ship like Hatshepsut did.

Rktect (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, what you need are reliable sources. That's what you need. What you've written here is WP:OR, and in any case it constitutes using Wikipedia as a forum (Wikipedia is not a forum). Just find reliable sources to support your edit, and do it over. If you can't find reliable sources to support your edit, there may be a significant reason why (see WP:NOTE and WP:FRINGE). --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And it isn't just here, it seems to be at most articles he edits.

dougweller (talk) 08:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Doug thats totally false. I consistently wikify to links with solid, reputable archaeological, historical, biblical and linguistic references. I add in cites with book and page. Where are your references?

I admit that occasionally I'll use something from the BAR and I even like the methodology of Kenneth Kitchens "Patriarchal Age which was published there but I won't use him without checking what he's said first with some other sources. Sometimes he runs with things I consider speculative; if he did it here I'd call it WP:OR. All archaeologists do that when they are hyping their sites ad trying to raise money for digs.

Do you really think the things you are saying are sensible? When I give you references I don't get reponses that are well referenced so I can rspond or know where you are coming from. Whats up with that? I mention that the story of Sinhue is often compared to the Exodus of Moses, you call that statement OR. I tell you Moses is an Egyptian name. You contradict me. I back it up with Gardiner and Strongs concordance. These statements you keep making indicate a lack of familiarity with the topic. Maybe you need to go read the story of Sinhue, or better learn to read the language its witten in; Please go buy a couple of books and check out some of the references I give you and tell me why you don't think the story of Sinhue relates to Exodus.

The main reference for what I wrote above regarding Avaris, Pithom and Pi Rameses is

• Bains and Ma'lek "Atlas of Ancient Egypt" p 175.

Kitchen is only off by the two and a half centuries after the destruction of Avaris before anything else is built there, the fact that the Exodus dates itself to 1450 BC when the captal of Egypt is at Thebes and remains there until Rameses II puts an administrative branch in the delta to deal with the incursians of the Hittites, Haibrw, Peleset, Tjekr, Shashu and others.

If you need references for the Red Sea trade between Elim and Elat from the fourth dynasty

• Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem, Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad. 1990.

References for the Egyptian campaigns in Canaan

• William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1962. Discusses the evidence for Habiru and hapitu in Canaan
• Andrew George, The Epic of Gillgamesh. Penguin. 2000. ISBN No14-044721-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) Includes toponyms for Canaan
• James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1968.
• Michael RoafCultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6.
• Linguistic references
• GardinerEgyptian Grammar. Griffith Institute. 1990. ISBN 0900416351.
• Antonio Loprieno Ancient Egyptian. CUP. 1995. ISBN 0-5.... {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
• Michael RiceEgypt's Making. Routledge. 1990. ISBN 0-415-06454-6.
• Marie-Loise Thomsen, Mesopotamia 10 The Sumerian Language. Academic Press. 1984. ISBN 87-500-3654-8.
• Silvia LuraghiOld Hittite Sentence Structure. Routledge. 1990. ISBN 0415047358.
• Anne H. GrotonFrom Alpha to Omega. Focus Information group. 1995. ISBN 0941051382.
• Geographical References
• Claudias PtolemyThe Geography. Dover. 1991. ISBN 048626896. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
• HerodotusThe History. William Brown. 1952.
• Greek emporia
• Michael GrantThe Rise of the Greeks. Charles Scribners Sons. 1987.

Rktect (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT THE **** do you think you are doing here? This is no forum. Cush (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What is really funny is that he listed Ralph Ellis as a reference -- Ellis's latest self-published book claims "King Jesus of Judaea was King Arthur of England.". And he misses the point entirely. A footnote just saying that one story resembles another without a reference is not what this article needs (or any article). All it needs is one reliable source, but readers do need to be able to verify the claim and they can't without that. Nor did I say Moses wasn't an Egyptian name - just that I think where there is controversy we should be showing all significant views (and I wonder if it matters in this article anyway, that should be covered in the Moses article). dougweller (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No Doug, what I gave you was just the first page of a Google search for mentions of Sinhue being compared to Exodus to make the simple point that its a fairly common comparison. Please stop these personal attacks on me. Address what I did give you as references. Try and keep the discussion on the topic of Exodus. Rktect (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is what you were doing, a simple link inside [] would have been much better than spilling out all that confusion on teh talk page. I am saying that some of your edits are OR. Others have said the same. If you consider such comments a personal attack rather than something to to be discussed, sobeit. I will discuss references if you point out a specific one you plan to use for a specific claim, not a hodgepodge of references for I'm not sure what. Remember, you can't put together statements from various sources to make a specific argument none of the sources make. Of course, I think part of the problem is that there was no Exodus and Conquest, so it's not surprising if there are problems with the archaeology, etc. dougweller (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You don't think there was an Exodus. I expect thats a position thats easy enough to give references for. Suppose we debate it with references and see if we can find some things we agree on. For starters I propose that we allow that the story places itself c 1450 BC (480 years before the temple built c 970 BC, 430 years in Egypt from Abraham);

According to Judg. 11:26, Israel had occupied Canaan for 300 years before the judgeship of Jephthah, which is dated between 1100 and 1050. This dates Joshua's conquest between 1400 and 1350. Adding Israel's 40 years in the desert puts the Exodus between 1440 and 1390

Lets allow that in that 18th dynasty time frame the capital of Egypt is at Thebes and see what there is for and against an Exodus at that time. Rktect (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All these years here and you still don't understand that talk pages aren't a place to debate subjects. It doesn't matter what we think, what matters is that we only report what reliable sources have to say, and don't try and put their arguments together to form a conclusion. dougweller (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would like to submit some references for the positions you take; report what your reliable sources have to say. I see lots and lots of posts by you requesting that others add references; how about dipping into your library and producing citesRktect (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to change the subject. If I decide to edit the article, it is then that I will provide sources. Right now we are discussing your OR and using talkpages as a forum. I may not be around much for a few days anyway. dougweller (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Missouri, Doug Rktect (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Is that an excuse or explanation for your behavior?? Just stop spamming. Cush (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Article missing some sections?

The article consists of just a summery of the book of Exodus plus a discussion of theories abt composition. It needs extra sections on themes and later developments, and possibly more. PiCo (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing up my initial effort. Obviously it needs more, but those are the only things I have at home with any real info on the book. And what did you have in mind for a "later developments" section? carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have been talking about stabilizing the article by agreeing on an outline, restoring the references, editing according to the Wikipedia manual of style and then making a to do list for things like grammar, spelling, flow, format Wikification and links. At least one user has suggested adding a section of RohlRktect (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rktect, the article already is stable, it's you who wants to destabilise it, and the articles on all the five books already have an agreed outline - it goes:

• 1 Title
• 2 Summary
• 3 Structure and composition
• 4 Themes
• 5 Later tradition
• 6 See also
• 7 References
• 8 External links (versions and translations)

Carl, the "later tradition" section deals with the way the book has been developed by later Jews and Christians - the development of the shema out of Deuteronomy, for example, and the imposition of Christology onto all the books. PiCo (talk) 05:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As we discussed I referenced all the books into the articles text. Many of them address issues of dating, chronology, history, archaeology, geography, classical scholars that were not in the article. The intent is to incorporate the disipline of Wikipedias Manual of Style consistently for all ANE articles and to focus more on editing for references to the topic, grammar, spelling punctuation, and format than has been the case in the past. The focus you have on its structure and composition is great but all of the people who have famously or infamously mentioned or discussed Exodus in their various different academic disciplines should be referenced into the article. Other books of the Pentateuch that reference Exodus should probably have their own sub sections. Rktect (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I think I'm going to revert tect's latest change. It flies in the face of something he and I discussed earlier on his own talk page. And I don't think I get what you're saying, still; cuz that sounds like things that would belong in Deuteronomy or Pentateuch, or something of the like. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you reverted already, thanks. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 05:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Carl, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was giving examples taken from the Deuteronomy article of the kind of thing that goes in the "later traditions" sections of articles for these five books. Deuteronomy is a good example because there are 2 themes taken from that book that are given very distinctive twists subsequent to the book's first appearance - for sure the shema wasn't originally put in there as a credo for Judaism, it got that role later, and Christianity's overturning of the Law while retaining the book itself is one of the more important milepegs in the history of Christianity. What similar things come out of Exodus I'm not sure - Exodus and Passover perhaps, or the subsequent history of the Tabernacle...I don't have definite ideas. PiCo (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See, I thought about talking about Passover some, but it seemed to me like that would be more appropriate in The Exodus or Passover. I can't really think of anything at the moment to add in here, but if I do, I'll work on it. carl.bunderson (talk) (contributions) 07:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think one improvement would be to split the Structure and Composition section, keeping that title for portions specifically dedicated to the writing styles, etc., and putting the portion about the archeaological evidence (with improvements/expansion) under the title of "Historicity" or something similar. DoctorEric (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Section split, as proposed. There are several gramatical/flow problems which I will address in the future, as well themes (already considered briefly) that should be expanded. DoctorEric (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC).

Style of the article

I suggest that the article is not to mimic the biblical text, and that certain words and phrases should be replaced by neutral expressions. E.g. God's People should be replaced with the Israelites, and Pharaoh should be replaced with the pharaoh. Etc. Cush (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

They weren't Israelites, they were Hebrews. Israelites didn't exist until much later. Let's get this right please. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they were Hebrews. Israelites are a subset of Hebrews. Israelites are those Hebrews who descend from Jacob/Israel and who went to Egypt. The whole story from Joseph to Moses is about Israelites, although the Egyptians would of course still call them Hebrews. Hebrews are also those who remained in the Levant and whom the Israelites later attack and even later hire as mercenaries (cf. David). Cush (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. They were Hebrews, so let's call them Hebrews. They were not 'Israelites' (a term never used to describe them here). The whole story from Joseph to Moses is the story of the Hebrews. Those Hebrews who were descendants of Jacob/Israel were still called 'Hebrews', or 'children of Israel', not 'Israelites'. The term 'Israelite' wasn't even coined until much later. It's as inaccurate here as calling them 'Israelis'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

However, the Bible only presents the Israelites' perspective and not that of Hebrews in general. Israelites are the descendants of Jacob/Israel of which the Bible narrates exclusively disregarding other Hebrews who are not descended from Jacob. (cf. Exodus 1:9) Cush (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the Bible only presents the perspective of this group of Hebrews, not Hebrews in general. This doesn't change the fact that they were Hebrews, not Israelites. The term 'Israelites' wasn't in usage until the monarchic era. You are using a term which is not used to refer to this group of people, throughout the entire text. They are called 'Hebrews' because they were 'Hebrews'. The later term 'Israelites' didn't mean 'descendants of Jacob/Israel'. It meant 'members of the nation of Israel'. The term 'children of Israel' was used to describe Hebrews who were descendants of Jacob/Israel. Throughout Genesis to Deuteronomy these people are called 'Hebrews', or 'the children of Israel'. They are not called 'Israelites'. If you're going to be anachronistic, you might as well call them 'Israelis'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We should use the terms used in the book of Exodus, since this section is a summary of that book. PiCo (talk) 05:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That term is 'Hebrews'. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do the honours. PiCo (talk) 09:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just make clear in the article that not all Hebrews lived in Egypt, and that there is a difference between Hebrews in general (and in a real historical context, cf. Apiru) and biblical Israelites (the the offspring of Jacob/Israel) about whom the Exodus text was later written. Cush (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Bible itself is far from neutral - the Israelites are, indeed, God's people (or Yahweh's), as it states many times. As for the pharaoh/Pharaoh, I can't see the difference.PiCo (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Israelites are not God's People. The bible only claims they were. Israelites is a neutral term, God's People is not, and using the latter in the article outside of quoted text implies that the article presents the biblical claim as true. This is an article about the biblical text and it should avoid judgment by using its phrases that require a certain supposition or even belief. Using "the pharaoh" is equal to using "the king". It's just a title. That the bible uses it in the style of a proper name somehow should not be transferred into the article by (ab)using it the same way. As I said, the style of the article must not mimic the style of the narrative. This article is an encyclopedic text, not a sermon. Cush (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "God's people" should be replaced by Israelites. I could go either way in Pharoah vs. the pharoah. It's so minor, and doesn't really carry any POV baggage in the way that "God's people" does, that I don't care that much. Slight preference for "Pharoah", just cuz I don't see any harm in it. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Using "Pharaoh" instead of "the pharaoh" is like using any other royal title like a proper name. You surely can tell the difference between "The prime minister was invited by Queen for dinner." and "The prime minister was invited by the queen for dinner." ? Cush (talk) 19:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

But no-one calls, for example, QEII "Queen". Books would refer to her as Elizabeth II, Queen Elizabeth II, Elizabeth, Her Majesty, etc. "Queen" isn't what she's called, the way the pharaoh in Exodus is called "Pharaoh. But again, I could go either way on this point. If you want to change it, I'm not going to complain. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Surely this is a matter of context. "Elizabeth II is a queen of England"; whereas "The Queen is Elizabeth II". When referring to "queens" (or kings or pharaohs) in general, it is uncapitalised. When referring to a specific ruler, it is capitalised. Just my understanding of the situation. I wont argue if you disagree.--FimusTauri (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the manual of style supports my view: Wikipedia:Manual of Style #Titles of people--FimusTauri (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Show me any text that uses "Queen" without article as a reference to the queen. A sentence would go "The queen said this and that" and not "Queen said this and that". Are you with me? Or "The Prime Minister had an appointment with the queen" and not "The Prime Minister had an appointment with Queen". One is proper English the other is just gibberish. Same goes for a title like Pharaoh. It is a title, not a name. And the Bible misusing the word is no reason to drag the misuse into the article. The style of the article has to be encyclopedic and proper modern English. Cush (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

er.... essentially I agree with you, Cush.--FimusTauri (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that ;) Cush (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moving per logical requested move with unanimous support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The Book of Exodus → Book of Exodus — Wikipedia:TITLE#Avoid_definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_the_start_of_names. NeonMerlin 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - the definite article is not part of the name (nor is "Book of..." for that matter but I can live with that). PiCo (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree - It makes absolutely no sense (I was actually about to 'be bold' and move the page myself before reading the talk page) --Fjmustak (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:The Book of Deuteronomy#Requested move for my supporting comments. Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Fairy Tale?"

When looking at this article, I noticed that someone had labeled this a "fairy tale". Although there may not be enough historical proof to classify the account of Exodus as fact, the phrase "fairy tale" is asinine and inflammatory. I changed it to "biblical account", not stating it as empirically verified but still being respectful of an important part of humanity's cultural and religious history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.103.176 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW "Egypt's Pharaoh, fearful of the Israelites' numbers, orders that all newborn boys be thrown into the Nile." aaaactually, he wasnt necessarily fearful of the jews, he had a dream that was interpreted by his advisors that said that one of the new borns will kill him. so he ordered that all the new borns be thrown into the nile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.2.210 (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get that from? It's not what the book says. PiCo (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tabernacle and NPOV problem

This presents only one POV; I am certain that there are others:

That so much of the book (chapters 25-31, 35-40) is spent describing the plans of the Tabernacle, demonstrates the importance it played in the life of the Hebrews. It was God's regular, permanent means of being with them, and gave them communion with him.[26]

The first sentence is not appropriately phrased; beginning with the word "that" makes it argumentative. "That" so much of the book is spent describing the plans for the Tabernacle may suggest that it is important - although it may not be important in the "life" of the Hebrews, it could be important in the structure of an oral narrative. Even if the Tabernacle were important in the "life" of the hebrews, there could be various reasons for that. The second sentence also represents only one POV. I do not reject it, but I know that others would argue that the law (emblamatized in the revelation of the ten commandments) was also God's regular means of being with the Israelites. Who knows, maybe the Ten Commandments were more important than the Tabernacle? Number of versus is not enough.

I am not rejecting the POV that is presented. But I think it is wrong to present any POV as the truth in this article. The Bible, even the book of Exodus, has generated a host of interpretations so one thing we know for sure, virtually no verse has just one meaning. Minimally, this needs to be rewritten so that it is clear that this is one interpretation. Ideally, other interpretations should be added. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

RomanHistorian

Once again, I removed an unexplained, uncited change. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

These changes are too minor to fight over. I changed 2 words. I think they should be the way I had them, otherwise they are too minor and I'm not going to fight this one anymore.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

documentary hypothesis

two points:

• this article is not the place to go into any detail on the topic of dating the Bible and the documentary hypothesis
• people keep assuming that "documentary hypothesis" is "the hypothesis that the Bible consists of documents". This is completely wrong. The so-called documentary hypothesis is a very specific scenario of how these documents were compiled (J, E, D, P). It is true that there is no consensus on this scenario, but it is completely wrong to assume that the alternative to it is Mosaic authorship (which isn't a scholarly hypothesis at all, but a medieval tradition). The actual alternatives are other scenarios of how documents were compiled. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Book Of Exodus

Two users noted that my contribution was fringe material and deleted it. Where would this material go within Wikipedia? Does Wiki not allow for non-mainstream, alternative viewpoints within the Exodus section? I'm not saying I agree, but I don't see why dismissing an afro-centric source is ok. Shouldn't there be some way to balance an afroc-centric view with other mainstream views? --User:Hillis3000 —Preceding undated comment added 13:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

Christian interpretation

Not enough on the Christian interpretation of this book...--MacRusgail (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Authorship

I am not Jewish (I am Roman Catholic though) so I am not well versed on the issue of who is claimed to be the actual author of the Torah or even specifically of the Book of Exodus. In parochial school religion class mainly dealt with the issue of the stories in the Bible, rather than the archeological or historical authenticity of the Bible.

The "authorship" section concisely talks about the issues of "who" the author of the Exodus book is. However, there is no talk at all about "when" the Book of Exodus was written. Is there any answer to this that anyone could provide or point me to. I think it is an important point for those who are more interested in the historical aspects of the Torah and the Exodus text, rather than the religious aspects or teachings therein.

         Forget this question.  My answer was found in the informative article "Dating the Bible."  Excellent read.

mgvffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.199.35 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Searching "Exodus"

As the word "exodus" can refer to many other things than the religous books, a search for "Exodus" should redirect to Exodus (disambiguation). ThomasSixten 00:40, 1 September 2009 (EST)

Historic Proof of The Biblical Exodus

Meshnaic related articles, need Editorial Oversite. Mishnaic Hebrew is not as old as Wikipedia authors, using corrupted author sources, are citing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/259061/Hebrew-language#ref267076

Quote: "Mishnaic, or Rabbinic, Hebrew, the language of the Mishna (a collection of Jewish traditions), written about AD 200 (this form of Hebrew was never used among the people as a spoken language);"

Quoting Britannica, "Few traces of dialects exist in Biblical Hebrew, but scholars believe this to be the result of Masoretic editing of the text. In addition to the Old Testament, a small number of inscriptions in Hebrew of the biblical period are extant; the earliest of these is a short inscription in Phoenician characters dating from the 9th century BC.

During the early Mishnaic period, some of the guttural consonants of Biblical Hebrew were combined or confused with one another, and many nouns were borrowed from Aramaic. Hebrew also borrowed a number of Greek, Latin, and Persian words."

^ Encyclopedia Britannica repeats, people since inventing the Masoretic Text (900-1100AD) have been purposely destroying traces of which language produced the Hebrew Language. I have repeatedly confirmed by finding the original source, that Aramaic is phonetic or script of the Source Language being falsely called Hebrew. Even Hebrew University confirm Biblical Hebrew Script IS Liturgical Aramaic http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

The Biblical Torah began with King Ahmoses in Egypt, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose_I ) When Minoan Crete Volcano Erupted between 1650-1550BCE, but someone is claiming Ah-Moses only reigned for five years 1555-1550BCE??? Facts are Aramaic is the only Language that covers the span between Book of Genesis Chapter 19 with Abraham seeing a Volcano, and then Ah-Moses Where the Upper & Lower Kingdom became one so they could move away, "Exodus" from Lower Egypt(Nile Delta) to what people call Middle Egypt or Memphis, escaping the Clouds of Ash which Rained with Fire from the Volcano about 1650-1550BCE. Aramaic is the language of God. A "Hebrew Language" did not Exist, it was like Ge'ez priestly Aramaic so commoners could not read it. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

* Here is a University confirming Biblical Hebrew is Liturgical Aramaic. http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/ 1300BCE Aramaic.

Wikipedia pushing polemical, biased POV hypothesis as if undisputed fact

From article: "the story of the infant Moses's salvation from the Nile has its basis in an earlier legend of king Sargon"

The last I heard, this was only a rather flimsy hypothesis that was proposed within certain schools of thought, but was criticized by other theologians, who have pointed out far too many differences in the two accounts, and far too few similarities. It is even disputed which was written first, since the view that Exodus was written in the 500s BC does not truly enjoy the monopoly that this POV pushing article pretends, whereas the Sargon birth legend is only known from very late Babylonian copies. And yet, wikipedia POV pushing editors here want to take this biased, weak hypothesis and un-neutrally weigh in on one side of the controversy, endorsing the sources that agree with their own POV and they present it as it had suddenly been "proven" and accepted by all, and the question were now suddenly "settled", or as if all those who are skeptical of this hypothesis suddenly disappeared or don't count any more. In all other cases of literature, a very high standard is required to show direct borrowing or plagiarism from one work to another, but here, the standard is much lower; the barest of faint similarities is being pushed forward as sufficient "proof" of borrowing, yet to my knowledge nothing new has actually turned up in the last several decades that would settle this controversy.

There are thus serious neutrality issues and POV pushing issues with this article. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of scholarly history

This article in badly in need of a section tracing the development of the received historical interpretation, presumably from German scholarship in the early 19th century: it is not good enough simply to cite a clutch of very recent scriptural historians as it does at present. Deipnosophista (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And an academic historical perspective is not included. This really jars: "The purpose of the book is not to record what really happened, but to reflect the historical experience of the exile community in Babylon and later Jerusalem, facing foreign captivity and the need to come to terms with their understanding of God", because it gives the impression that there was an exile community, whereas the Israelites arose from Canaanite culture exactly where they ended up. The book creates a fictional history, and that may have had a purpose in building community, and seeing the other Canaanites as foreign and enemies, but it wasn't to reflect a historical experience; at most it was to reflect a non-historical experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinGrant (talk • contribs) 21:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Authorship section

Since when was the discredited Documentary Hypothesis been the "current thinking" apart from in the minds of some editors? LowKey (talk) 02:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

First texts

I came here to check for information about the first written versions of this biblical book, and found nothing. Why? Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That would be the Samaritan Pentateuch wouldn't it? Perhaps it should be mentioned... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Moses and anthropology

New evidence is interesting that the first humans to leave Africa probably went over the Red Sea land bridge, to Australia, perhaps 70,000 BCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.131.117.141 (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute in Section Genre and sources

This section does not appear neutral. I'm not a Christian, but this section talks in an atheist point of view without saying that the section content is how others view it. Seems to also call the book a myth, which is not a neutral statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CEAE:5FB0:C88C:9A5E:1888:FA23 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not reflect an atheist pov. You can be Jewish or Christian and still accept that the Book of Exodus isn't literally true, and you don't seem to understand what mythology means. Take a look at our article on the subject a Mythology. Jewish and Christian theologians discuss biblical mythology without being atheists. You also deleted a whole section with no explanation. And no one was writing "history" at that time. Dougweller (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This page has a very clear Baptist bias, with the themes part being extremely so. The fact that all the sources come from a Southern Baptist website isn't much better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.13.135 (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of section

This section should be restored.

==Archeological discrepancies and the Exodus== The cities of Jericho (Joshua 6), Ai (chaps. 7–8), Arad (Num 21:1; 33:40; Josh 12:14), and Hormah (ibid.), which are all said to have been destroyed in Joshua’s invasion, have been found to have been unoccupied in the Late Bronze Age. Several of the cities found to have been violently destroyed in this general period are listed in Judg 1:27–36 among those not having been captured by the Israelites: Megiddo, Beth-shean, Gezer, and Beth-shemesh. Only Lachish and Hazor were found to have been laid in ruins around 1200 B.C.E. (cf. Joshua 10–11).

References

It is incorrect to claim that it is bold. It is generally accepted academic material. The lack of historicity of Exodus should be included in this article. It is clearly POV to not include it. Theredheifer (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You confuse "contentious" with WP:BOLD. Your addition was bold and someone removed it, so now we're discussing it.

I'm honestly a bit confused what this is even saying... which parts are in Exodus and which parts were found by archeologists? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Theredheifer, I didn't remove that material because of doubts about its academic validity but because the story of Jericho is found in the Book of Joshua, and this is about the Book of Exodus. Nevertheless, if it had been in the Book of Joshua article I'd still remove it, as being overweight (it's just one small incident in a much longer book). You should begin by looking at the article Battle of Jericho (have a look at the History page of the article while you do - it might be illuminating).PiCo (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right it should go in Joshua. The suggestion that this is one small incident is not correct, the historicity of the conquest is fundamental to the stories in the HB. 'Overweight' is not a valid reason for removal of material.Theredheifer (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

Don't you think one of the most important features of the Exodus myth is that it is fictional? It has had a profound historical impact and yet by reading the introduction a completely uninformed reader would probably come away with the perception that this myth actually happened. It didn't. And the article must adequately reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.227.245 (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The article on The Exodus covers this quite well. But I'm a bit confused. There seems to be a lot of overlap between this article and the Exodus article. Aren't they the same thing? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

William Dever on proto-Israelites

"recent archaeological discoveries in Israel and the West Bank have shown that the majority of the proto-Israclitcs had probably never been in Egypt. They were displaced Canaanites who had fled the Late Bronze Age city-states and had colonized the sparsely settled hill country frontiers of central Palestine. There was no military conquest of Canaan, only a socioeconomic revolution. Furthermore, the emergence of early Israel must be placed not in the fifteenth century bc, but shortly before and after 1200 bc. Thus the Biblical story of the exodus and conquest of Canaan has little basis in fact. The Egyptian elements in the Biblical story—the Joseph saga, a few Egyptian names like Moses, references to the “store cities of Pithom and Ramesses” in the Delta—can all be shown to be literary devices. They are most easily accounted for in the Saitc Dynasty (26th Dynasty) or Persian period (27th—31st Dynasties), precisely when the Biblical tradition was being edited into its final form. In summary, the patriarchal and exodus/ conquest narratives in the Bible may rest on genuine oral traditions, or even on distant memories of a few actual historical events, of the Hyksos and Ramesside (19th 20th Dynasties) eras. Later tradition, however, has set Israelite prehistory into a supposed Egyptian context that greatly exaggerates any real role that Egypt could have played in the formulation of the Israelite people and state."Encyclopedia of the Archaeology of Ancient Egypt. Doug Weller (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Ketef Hinnom amulets

I explained to the IP that we shouldn't use blogs but that doesn't seem to have any effect. We also should not use newspaper reports when we actually have scholarly papers. And the problem with grabbing the first source one finds mentioned is that they can be obsolete. Barkay et all wrote another paper, "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 334 (May, 2004), in which they wrote "Based on the discussions and analyses above, the late preexilic date should be reaffirmed with confidence as the proper chronological context for the Ketef Hinnom inscriptions. We can thus reassert the conclusion reached by most scholars that the inscriptions found on these plaques preserve the earliest known citations of biblical texts. The new readings outlined in this article show that these plaques not only contain biblical quotations, but they also provide us with the earliest examples of confessional statements concerning Yahweh."

More recently we have William Schniedewind's 2013 book published by Yale University Press, A Social History of Hebrew: Its Origins Through the Rabbinic Period which says "The archaeological context requires that these amulets be dated to the late seventh century b.c.e.35 The text of the amulets paraphrases two well-known biblical passages. The first is the priestly blessing known from Numbers 6:24-26, “May YIIWH bless you and keep you. May YHWH make his face to shine upon you and give you peace! May he be gracious to you. May YHWH lift up his face upon you.” The second passage is the well-known text from Deuteronomy 7:9: “Know, therefore, that only YHWH your God is God, the steadfast God who keeps I Iis covenant faithfully to the thousandth generation of those who love Him and keep His commandments.” This latter text continued to be an important text in the Second Temple period (see Dan. 9:4; Neh. 1:5)."[2] The new text needs to be properly sources and written to reflect the sources. Doug Weller (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The ISP posted this on my personal Talk page, but as it relates to the article I'm moving it here:

In your edit of the Book of Exodus page, you stated "the Ketef Hinnom scrolls suggest that the authors of the Torah used traditional material, which is not the same thing."

What I entered in the article is what is stated by the researchers themselves in the sources I provided. The sources provided are reliable and accepted. I stated what the researchers stated, which is that they know that "at least some material" of the Torah existed prior to the exilic period. They've analyzed the exact text on the scrolls and it matches that found in the Book of Numbers. The scrolls pre-dated the exilic period, and thus there is a piece of the Torah which clearly pre-dates the exilic period. The article on the scrolls itself goes into a fair amount of detail on how the text matches that found in the Book of Numbers.173.238.79.44 (talk) 08:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Specifically refer to this section of the well-referenced Wiki article: [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.79.44 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, read the comments from the researchers themselves from this news article [4]:

"Dr. Pitard said the evidence for the antiquity of the benediction was now compelling, although this did not necessarily mean that the Book of Numbers already existed at that time. Possibly it did, he added, but if not, at least some elements of the book were current before the Babylonian exile.

A part of the sacred Torah of Judaism (the first five books of the Bible), Numbers includes a narrative of the Israelite wanderings from Mount Sinai to the east side of the Jordan River. Some scholars think the Torah was compiled in the time of the exile. A number of other scholars, the so-called minimalists, who are influential mainly in Europe, argue that the Bible was a relatively recent invention by those who took control of Judea in the late fourth century B.C. In this view, the early books of the Bible were largely fictional to give the new rulers a place in the country's history and thus a claim to the land.

"'The new research on the inscriptions suggests that that's not true,' Dr. Pitard said. In fact, the research team noted in its journal report that the improved images showed the seventh-century lines of the benediction to be 'actually closer to the biblical parallels than previously recognized'."

I also found this source [5]:

"According to Barkay, the discovery of this early biblical inscription is an important part of the argument for an early dating of the Old Testament. He acknowledges that the find does not prove that the Pentateuch was written by the 7th century. However, it is strong evidence for that position."

“I can at least say that these verses existed in the 7th century ... the time of the prophet Jeremiah and the time of King Josiah,” Barkay said

Please also refer to this reference: Smoak, Jeremy, "Amuletic Inscriptions and the Background of YHWH as Guardian and Protector in Psalm 12," Vetus Testamentum 60 (2010): 427–428.

Clearly, the authors of the Torah and other major books of the Hebrew Bible who compiled it during the Exilic Period did so based on pre-existing documents. Therefore, we now know that those who compiled the Hebrew Bible in that period were not the true authors of at least some of the material.

In any case, I re-worded the entry to accommodate your objections.

173.238.79.44 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(My thanks to the ISP for posting it for me.)PiCo (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be archaeological, historical or written evidence of a religious belief based on the Bible or Torah?

If not does it belong here? If yes should it be in the other Wikipedia article on Exodus?

Why are there two articles one supposedly dealing with religious beliefs, the other with evidence both under Religion?

If there is no evidence of an Exodus then you can't say the Exodus was of Jews, that they were slaves, that there were more of them that went, than the population of Egypt at the time, that they left from the delta, near Pithom and Rameses which were "Treasure Cities" that they crossed the Red Sea by a land route, that it took them 2 and 1/2 months to get from Egypt which borders Sinai to cross the border after leaving Egypt, that Rameses II was the Pharoah of the Exodus, that it occurred in the 19th dynasty let alone all that stuff about plagues, Moses and the Ten Commandments all of that stuff is somebody's fantasy. As the Egyptians put it if you plundered us pay us restitution, if its not true why don't you shut up about it?142.0.102.25 (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You can summarise a text whether or not it's true. Doug Weller talk 21:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous Citation(s)

At least one citation is ambiguous on this page:

• The story of the exodus is the founding myth of Israel, telling how the Israelites were delivered from slavery by Yahweh and therefore belong to him through the Mosaic covenant.^[10] (Sparks 2010, p. 73.) The statement may be accurate, but without a more credible citation, the author could be ANYONE with the surname "Sparks" who has published ANYTHING in 2010 (notably, this romantic novel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Haven_(novel).

The article uses the "short footnote" (abbreviated sfn) system for referencing sources. To use this system, you click on the numeral at the end of the sentence being referenced, and you're taken to the expanded version in the References section. That tells you this is Sparks 2010: you click on Sparks and you're taken to the full book details in the Bibliography section, giving the name of the book and and a clickable link. If you click on that link a new page opens giving the exact page in the book as per google-books. You'll find the sourcing is accurate.PiCo (talk) 07:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

5th cent date not supported by references

The article's introduction dates, "final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE)." That references [2] & [3]

3 = Finkelstein, I., Silberman, NA., The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, p.68. That page, accessible at Google Books, says "the Exodus narrative reached its final form during the time of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, in the second half of the seventh century and the first half of the sixth century BCE." So, that's a hundred years earlier than the text of the article states (5th cent BCE). See https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&q=68#v=snippet&q=68&f=false

2 = Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible by James D. G. Dunn, page 72, which says "the composition of a first draft of Exodus during the Babylonian exile of the sixth century BC." That's at https://books.google.com/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA72&dq=Exodus+William+D.+Johnstone#v=onepage&q=Exodus%20William%20D.%20Johnstone&f=false

I suggest that someone edit the main article to either change the references to others consistent with the text, or change "modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE)."

to "modern scholarship sees the book as a product of 7th century BCE written and oral traditions finally revised in the 6th century BCE." Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host , are you looking something up for the station? There's no consensus on when Exodus was written, but the thinking is increasingly that it was finished in the 5th century with further minor revisions after that. But if it's for your station, you'd be safe to trust Eerdmans.PiCo (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Latest edit: is it now consensus the sources are Egyptian.

Also concerned about the historical experience bit. Doug Weller talk 08:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. Was sourced from the blog of Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre, a non-specialist. He is, nevertheless, worth reading.PiCo (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Jacob's descent

I don't think that this edit was appropriate. Jacob's family's decent and reconnection with Joseph is summarized in Exodus 1:1-5. The "fifth column" claim is supported by Exodus 1:9-10. Unless a good argument is given for not including this essential information, I intend to restore the previous edit. --GHcool (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be no place in Wikipedia where there is a discussion of the descent of Jacob into Egypt. I would suggest that you mention this explicitly when you edit. TomS TDotO (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

(Sorry GHcool for editing your choice of thread-headrer but it's honestly like fingernails on a chalkboard for me).

I don't actually disagree about the accuracy of your preferred version, I just think it's too small a detail for the plot-summary. What's really at issue in Exodus is God's promise to Abraham that Israel would become a mighty nation more numerous than the stars in heaven, but that first his people would suffer oppression in a foreign land. Pharaoh's fear is just a by=product of the fulfillment of that divine promise. I'd like the summaries of each of the five books to bring out this theological point - because the Torah is about God and Israel, not mere human history.PiCo (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Two responses:

1. The question Exodus answers is not "Are the number of Israelites consistent with God's promise to Abraham?" The questions it answers is "Under what circumstances did this small family become a large nation of 12 tribes?" Exodus Chapter 1 is brilliant in beginning to answer this question. I agree with you that God's promise to Abraham is an important consideration, but that isn't Exodus's primary concern.
2. That Pharaoh's reaction to the numerous Israelites is a by product of God's promise to Abraham is an interesting commentary, but it doesn't summarize the text. A simple reading of the text assumes that Pharaoh has agency. NPOV requires Wikipedia to simply summarize the text. --GHcool (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't care enough to become engaged :) PiCo (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

5th cent date not supported by references

Hello, I'm bringing this back from the archives because the invalid use of sources has not been corrected regarding the text based on references [2] & [3], which are pasted below.

I suggest the main article be edited to either change the references to others consistent with the text, or change "modern scholarship sees the book as initially a product of the Babylonian exile (6th century BCE), based on earlier written and oral traditions, with final revisions in the Persian post-exilic period (5th century BCE)" to "modern scholarship sees the book as a product of 7th century BCE written and oral traditions finally revised in the 6th century BCE", since that's what those references say. -B.E.

3 = Finkelstein, I., Silberman, NA., The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, p.68. That page, accessible at Google Books, says "the Exodus narrative reached its final form during the time of the Twenty-sixth Dynasty, in the second half of the seventh century and the first half of the sixth century BCE." So, that's a hundred years earlier than the text in the article which changes that date to the 5th cent BCE. See https://books.google.com/books?id=lu6ywyJr0CMC&q=68#v=snippet&q=68&f=false

2 = Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible by James D. G. Dunn, page 72, which says "the composition of a first draft of Exodus during the Babylonian exile of the sixth century BC." That's at https://books.google.com/books?id=2Vo-11umIZQC&pg=PA72&dq=Exodus+William+D.+Johnstone#v=onepage&q=Exodus%20William%20D.%20Johnstone&f=false Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host , are you looking something up for the station? There's no consensus on when Exodus was written, but the thinking is increasingly that it was finished in the 5th century with further minor revisions after that. But if it's for your station, you'd be safe to trust Eerdmans.PiCo (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello PiCo. Thanks for trying to divine my intention (I guess :). But I'm not addressing the date of the Exodus but the invalid use of references. The article implies that the footnoted sources support the text when they do not. So I'm suggesting that either the references are changed to agree with the text or the text is changed to agree with the references. Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Historicity

Any reason why the article doesn't reflect that the archaeology suggest the events never happened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

92.22.1.172 (talk) 07:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Citation Style

Hey, would anybody object if I move this article over to sfn style references? Basically, it would have footnotes that appear like they are now, except that they'd also give the year for each work, and would link to the biography if you click on them. Alephb (talk) 02:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Woodcuts

Epiphyllumlover, you seem to be on a general woodcut-spree, and in this article [6] you are definitely over-doing it. Please reconsider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me finish first, okay? They are beautiful woodcuts. Too bad the articles aren't longer for them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Moderation. This article is not a Julius Schnorr von Carolsfeld gallery. But consider making a woodcut-galley in that article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)