Talk:The Exodus

Lead contains no summary of account

Why does the lead contain no summary of the Exodus? Also, its historicity is quite secondary to its religious significance, so I think that paragraph should be last. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Zanahary, there is Book of Exodus for the story, The Exodus is about its historicity (mainly). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources and parallels of the Exodus is the article about the myth’s origins—but even that article should have a brief overview of the narrative. This article is about the narrative called the Exodus, whose content spans a number of books besides the Book of Exodus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not the decision maker in that respect. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh, okay! I’ll work on the lead. Open to thoughts from anyone with input. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I made an update to the lead. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think a brief summary can be included.—-Ermenrich (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Out of Date

The information in the "Origins and Historicity" is way out of date. It is obvious that the contributors and editors have not kept up with the results of archaeological excavations in the Nile Delta over the past few decades, especially the work by James Hoffmeier and Manfred Bietak. This material is now readily available in archaeological publications and has been much discussed at conferences such as those of ASOR and the SBL. This is not the fault of the editors and contributors alone -- in general, the Biblical studies community has fallen behind on absorbing and integrating this data.

One thing has not changed: there is still no evidence for a mass revolt of Israelite slaves at any time during the New Kingdom. However, we now know that much of the population of the Delta during the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom was West Semitic (the broader ethnic group to which Israel belongs) and that the geographic descriptions found in the Bible accurately reflect conditions during the 15th to 11th centuries BCE.

I recently tried adding references to a few recent studies that attempt to integrate this material. They were rejected by an editor who claimed that TheTorah.com is not a reliable source. The editor in question is a specialist in Eastern European affairs whom, as far as I know, has no expertise in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical History. I used those sources only because they are the most readily available to readers who do not have the time or energy to comb through piles of research papers. I question how one defines a "reliable source" on a topic as contentious as biblical studies; is a source "unreliable" simply because it expresses an opinion different from that of the editor? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

First, Wikipedians are not supposed to be experts, they just have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES, see WP:CITIZENDIUM for details.

I can grant you the point that there were Semites in Ancient Egypt. There just weren't millions of them, and there weren't any Israelites until 1210s BCE (that's technically when Israelites have been shown to exist). Let me spell it out clearly: before 13th century BCE there couldn't be any Israelite in Egypt, since according to the known evidence they did not exist yet. And yup, in the 13th century BCE and earlier, there were Semitic temples in Egypt, just there were no Yahwistic temples. Those Semites were polytheists and they did not worship Yahweh. What's the evidence for any Yahwist being in Egypt before 1250 BCE? I bet there is none. There's is a mention of "Ywh in the land of Shasu", but the Shasu were not Israelites. And saying that Yhw=Yahweh is not completely supported by evidence. Redford speculated that Yhw is the ancestor of Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Two of the articles that I cited were written by leading experts in the field: Gary Rendsburg of Rutgers University and Israel Knohl of Hebrew University. The citations themselves were rejected as "unreliable" by an editor simply because they were published on the website of thetorah.com. Isn't that "citing sources"?

Incidentally, neither of those papers claim that there were Yahweistic temples in Egypt, or even that the West Semites of the Delta would have identified themselves as Israelite. Certainly it is true that the first reference by name to Israelites by the title "Israelite" comes from the 13th century! What makes you think the articles in question claim differently? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Those two scholars seem to be at the maximalist/conservative extreme of the scholarly spectrum. Wikipedia usually renders mainstream Bible scholarship. While conservative scholars may be WP:CITED, their arguments should be rendered with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What difference does that make? I added those citations to a section on "Possible Historical Origins" which explicitly notes that is presenting controversial and uncertain hypotheses! How can one possibly discuss "possible historical origins" if one categorically rejects the work of scholars working in that area as "unreliable"?

Besides, they are not "maximalists". If you want to understand what a maximalist is, look at the web-site of the Associates for Biblical Research (https://biblearchaeology.org/).

I will, however, review the policies concerning WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to see if there is some other way they can be cited. They should be. Archaeobuf (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What I think is not relevant. What are the WP:RULES and customs at Wikipedia, that's relevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if those are the rules, then this entire article violates them far more aggregiously!

Talk about unattributed points-of-view, consider this far more opinionated and completely unattributed statement for the article: "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons." Archaeobuf (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We actually have WP:RULES for that, too, see WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those rules read "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." This article doesn't follow them!

I don't disagree with the statement; I think it is true that "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons.". I'm just wondering why that statement is treated as an exception to the rules! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Such sourcing is cited in the article, in the lead, in footnotes 4 and 5 and arguably also in 1 through 3. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Having had a chance to review the "WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" rules, it seems to me that adding a citation to a statement that already reads "with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE under Ramses III (20th dynasty)." to an opinion which does indeed date it to the twelfth century BCE complies with the rules. Ditto with the statement "The 17th dynasty expulsion of the Hyksos, a group of Semitic invaders, is also frequently discussed as a potential historical parallel or origin for the story.". So why were the added citations rejected?

Don't get me wrong: I understand the underlying problem here of maintaining neutrality on a controversial subject such as this. But rejecting references to scholars whose viewpoints are identified as controversial only adds to bias! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The citations were rejected because we need to use high quality academic sources. Not a popularizing website, even if it is written by academics. It is not peer-reviewed. Also, most of the things you added citations to already had citations that were better.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the existing citations are way out of date; and TheTorah.com is peer-reviewed, although not to the extent that, say, JNES or JBL is peer reviewed. Furthermore, the existing citations are way out of date. If you prefer, I can cite Israel Knohl's original book; but since it is in Hebrew I doubt most wikipedia readers could understand it. I could also cite Rendsburg's original article in Vetus Testamentum from 1992 (out-of-date) or his more recent article written jointly with Manfred Bietak from 2021. Would that meet Wikipedia's standards?

Also, I notice that the article refers under "see also" to Simcha Jacobovici's 2006 documentary "The Exodus Decoded". Hardly a peer-reviewed source!

Please don't get me wrong: I really do understand the problems of maintaining neutrality in a topic such as this, where there is absolutely no concensus. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no. In the mainstream academia the consensus is that the Exodus is either totally bunk or very dissimilar from the events related in the Bible. We have WP:RS for that. Evangelical colleges and universities will disagree, but we don't consider them "mainstream". Orthodox Jews will disagree, idem ditto. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, why is that relevant to a section that is explicitly discussing theories that try to make historical sense out of the exodus? Should that entire section be deleted because it does not comply with what you call "mainstream concensus"? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Minority views are not banned from Wikipedia, but they don't get lion's share. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But don't they have to be represented accurately and in an up-to-date fashion?

Incidentally, I've heard Rutgers and Hebrew University called many things, but "Evangelical" is not one of them. And I think most Orthodox Jews would be horrified by the theories which Knohl and Rendsburg expound. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not opposed to briefly mentioning there are other opinions. But the consensus/most scholars claim is pretty well sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So what does that have to do with citations added to a section which is explicitly discussing alternative viewpoints? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, there are multiple views about how the Exodus really happened, but what all mainstream views have in common is positing that the story from the Bible is inaccurate. And Joel S. Baden claimed on YouTube that, wait, there is not one story of the Exodus, there are at least four in the Pentateuch, and they differ very much from each other. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaeobuf -- if you'd like to draft something, it might help us to understand exactly what you're proposing. Like tgeorgescu, I would not be opposed to brief mentions of alternative theories like Knohl's. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OK; how do I draft something and to whom should it be submitted? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is you simply present it here on the talk page for comment, to see if it gains a consensus of editors. I think in the abstract what you suggest is fine, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do.

I started out just trying to add a few citations, but I would like now to think the whole problem through and try to get it right. Give me time. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All true; but what does that have to do with the rejected citations?

I might also add that all three articles that I tried to cite agree that what really happened is very different from the story in the Bible (at least as commonly interpreted). So by your definition, these are all mainstream! Archaeobuf (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For Baden's argument see Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus - Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal). The argument starts at 0:03:55. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What's that got to do with citations added to a section dealing with alternative theories?

I have to confess that I have not read Baden's magnum opus, "The Exodus; A Biography". The amount of material written on this subject is voluminous, and it is impossible to digest it all. My understanding, however, is that Baden's position is basically an upgraded version of a theory first proposed several decades ago by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, holding that Israelites emerged from Canaanites. It is one of several such models currently used in the archaeological and biblical studies communities to understand the origins of Israel, all of which are considered hypothetical and unproven. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Israelites emerged from Canaanites is not Baden's theory by a long shot, not even as him reviving the work of scholars deceased long ago. It it THE consensus view in the mainstream academia. Mainstream Bible scholars have various views about how Israelites emerged from Canaanites, but they all agree that the Israelites did emerge from Canaanites. That is, indeed, the only game in town, except for WP:FRINGE scholars. And of course, several sources to that extent are cited in our article. I advise you to read this (it is not a long article). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh? What about the Shasu theory? The Syrian immigration theory? The re-sedentarizing nomad theory? Why do you keep trying to equate me and the scholars whose work I was trying to cite to Biblical inerrantists?

There is NO concensus about any of this among archaeologists and biblical scholars trying to understand the origins of Israel -- only questions. And that is the way scientific research proceeds. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You're barking at the wrong tree. I'm not in charge of the Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. There are enough sources which clearly make the point that all other theories about the origins of the Israelites have been relegated to the academic dust bin. Of course, tiny groups did flock to Israel, and brought with them stories about Yahweh and escapes from Egypt. But the Israelite conquest of Canaan has been thoroughly debunked, no scholar worth his salt believes it.

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, 2007

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the idea of a massive conquest of Canaan by Israelites arriving in mass from Egypt at the end of the Late Bronze is not consistent with the currently available archaeological or documentary evidence. But the stories do exist, and that raises the question, "how did these stories arise"? On that, there is no concensus. Furthermore, Israelites clearly inhabited Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, and that raises the question, "where did they come from"? On that, too, there is no concensus.

Besides, what does that have to do with the core question here: citing the work of scholars who are attempting to figure out the answers to those questions in a section dealing with such issues? Archaeobuf (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I take mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP at face value. It is not any of my business to second-guess it. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's go to bed; we are going around in circles. I will do as Dumizid suggested and try to put together an update to this section that brings it up-to-date with current research, and post it to the talk section for review. That will take me a while, and even then I am not certain that an unbiased review is possible. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

To spell it out, yes, we are biased for mainstream scholarship, and we are biased against WP:FRINGE scholarship. These words have Wikipedically shared meanings which are explained in WP:RULES.

Baden is known as a champion of the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, but of course he does not claim to have invented NDH, and in fact NDH is a return to the old (initial) ways of DH, meaning plot threads only. I don't think his take upon the origin of the Israelites amounts to original research, rather than restating stock knowledge. There is a trend in the academia that when one is lower on the pecking order, they are mostly busy with summarizing and evaluating the points made by more important scholars. Because somebody still has to teach the basics to the students. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What does Baden's opinion on the New Documentary Hypothesis have to do with properly citing sources in a section dealing with theories about the Exodus? Archaeobuf (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Noll, K.L. (2001). "6. The Iron Age I". Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction. London: Continuum. p. 157. ISBN 9781841273181. ISSN 0266-4984. The Conquest Model For much of the twentieth century, this hypothesis for the emergence of early Israel in Canaan enjoyed a consensus among historians, but it has been abandoned by almost all competent historians today. Essentially, the Conquest Model was a paraphrase of the biblical story (minus the miracles, of course).

George, Arthur; George, Elena (2014). The Mythology of Eden. Hamilton Books. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7618-6289-5. Retrieved 10 August 2024. In summary, the real history is the reverse of the Bible's account: The Israelites were the result rather than the cause of the collapse of the Canaanite city-states.

Niesiolowski-Spano, Lukasz; Laskowski, Jacek (2016). The Origin Myths and Holy Places in the Old Testament: A Study of Aetiological Narratives. Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN 978-1-134-93837-7. Retrieved 10 August 2024. The religious text which formed a theology was there to legitimise a system of values, a way of exercising power, and the establishment of a national consciousness. In the hands of the Bible's authors, the past was material to be freely shaped, and while they worked on it, they paid little attention to fidelity to reality. For the Israelites the stories of, for example, Egyptian slavery, the feast of Passover, the exodus from the land of the Nile and the conquest of Canaan were essential: they had to full theological and political aims. It is hard, therefore, to accept them as an objective description of past events. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Americans in lead

I feel that the final bit in the lead about the narrative resonating with Americans is not due. This is not a major aspect of the Exodus, and its placement in the lead feels like Americo-centrism. Surely the narrative has resonated with all sorts around the world who have been culturally exposed to Abrahamic religion—why is relatively recent American history in the lead? I know of no other overview/reference source that introduces the Exodus with discussion of its presence in American imagination. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at article content, it doesn't fit per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The corresponding subsection in the body of the article, The Exodus#As historical inspiration, lists US political movements as well as liberation theology in Latin America. The real problem is that this section isn't broad enough. The Exodus has been used as inspiration for may modern political movements. I'm afraid I know little about that subject, but The Book of Exodus: A Biography (2019), cited in the source list, seems to discuss it fairly extensively. I've found some other possibly useful sources listed in The Pentateuch (2012) by Walter J. Houston:

• Cone, James H. (1997). God of the Oppressed, Revised Edition.
• Croatto. J. Severino (1981) Exodus, a Hermeneutics of Freedom.
• Gottwald, Norman K.; Horsley, Richard A., eds. (1993). The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics.
• Pixley, George V. (1987). On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective.
• Sugirtharajah, R. S. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. (There are several editions of this one, the most recent of which seems to be 2016).

A. Parrot (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Exodus has had influence on social, religious, and political movements in many places throughout history. That there's a section on America alone is because there's not relatively enough on other places and eras. Not a single reference overview source so emphasizes the Exodus's influence on American movements. It is just not lead-worthy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. The lead summarizes the article. If you’re unhappy that that section is mostly about America (although liberation theology is not particularly American, you can expand it to include other areas.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the major aspects of the article. Not every section of the article needs a blurb in the lead. As it stands, the lead's blurb of the American influence is way overweight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Who-tags

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, why are you marking the names of scholars with who and non-sequitur tags?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Because they need a bit of in-text context. "Historian", "theologian", "4th century rabbi", "blogger" or whatever is correct. Readers should be told who this person is and why they're allowed to talk at the reader. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

As both the names you've tagged are modern scholars, is "scholar X" not sufficient?--Ermenrich (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If "scholar" is the best we can do, sure, but my preference would be a bit more specific. A scholar of 15th century Venetian glassware won't do us much good in this article. I'd like to see at least "historian", "biblical scholar", "16th century theologian" or what we may have in there. I think writing like "Early Christian authors such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine" is ok, though I'm tempted to get some data in there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I added biblical scholar to both, with outside evidence - but I don't think this is something we should be doing unless someone can be showed NOT to have expertise (in which case we shouldn't be citing them in these contexts anyway).--Ermenrich (talk) Ermenrich (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

And I think in-text description should be the default, Wikipedians have on occasion been less than perfect when picking sources. To take one example, "first century CE Jewish historian Josephus" (at first mention) is the way to go IMO, we should not assume that the reader knows who Josephus was. I'm not suggesting adding "21th century" to people like Kenneth Sparks. If he was 19th century, that might be different. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)