Jump to content

Talk:The Exodus/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

ANI

I've raised Quark's continued deletions at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Revised 2nd para of lead

I've made a revision to the 2nd para of the lead, partly from Dever (a recognised authority), and partly drawing on sentences found in the body of the article. One final thing needs to be added, which is the traditional background to the exodus narrative - we have a section on this and there's probably something useable in te sources used there.

This is the new paragraph:

There is overwhelming archaeological evidence that the origins of Israel were in fact largely Canaanite, leaving, in the words of archaeologist William Dever, "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[1] The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[2] and that the story is best seen as theology instead of history, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people.[3] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the exodus story was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[4]

For comment. PiCo (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You say above that the Stanley quote was good, so we can quote him and say "Scholars have arrived at different judgments about the exodus narrative. Conservatives scholars typically see the story as a generally reliable account of actual events. Others often agree that there is a historical core to the narrative, while others believe that there is little or no historical content in the narratives."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Stanley's work is an entry-level general textbook for first-year college students. While what he says is true, it doesn't give the more complete picture that we have in Dever (archaeological record of the emergence of Israel in Canaan), Walton (summary of the consensus view on historicity), and Redmount (composition history of the Biblical story). These are the three sources used above, and all are aimed at a more mature audience than college freshers.PiCo (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
So you agree that Stanley's statement is correct. Good then this should be included. As for your other statements, quote for me the exact line from Walton's book where he says that his view on historicity is "consensus". Otherwise, you don't have the book and don't know that his book isn't being misquoted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Just to explain another aspect: the archaeology of ancient Palestine simply must be mentioned in the article, it's important. I also needs to be mentioned in the lead, for the same reason. And the truth is that the archaeological record shows (a) ancient Israelite culture emerging from a Canaanite background, not an Egyptian one; and (b) no trace of human habitation in the Sinai by the millions of people required by the exodus story. This isn't Dever's view, or any view at all, it's a simple fact.
From Dever's book, quote for me the exact line where he says that his view is consensus.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
In tandem with the archaeology goes the study of the text of Exodus/Numbers/Deuteronomy. This is a very complex area and depends on some very arcane arguments, but in the last 10 to 20 years there's been an emerging consensus that these books were written in their present form in the Persian period (about 500 BCE) using traditions that went back to the 8th century or possibly even earlier, and that the purpose of the authors was to write a "foundation history" for the Persian province of Judah that would unite its peoples and give them a sense of belonging. PiCo (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Where is the minority view? It is WP:DUE, isn't it? – Lionel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
On the archaeological side there isn't really a minority view. The evidence for Israel's Canaanite background is overwhelming - pottery types, house types, village settlement patterns, even language and script, all come from a Canaanite background. The only possible non-Canaanite element of Early Iron Age Israelite villages (that's the period 1200-1000 and in the area of the Palestinian highlands where the kingdom Israel emerged in Iron II, the next period) is the absence of pig bones, but even that isn't clearly an ethnic marker - there might have been economic/ecological reasons for this.
How can you say there is no disagreement on Canaanite origins when almost no conservative scholars would agree with the statement?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Conservative scholars such as who? That this is a consensus position is stated by, for example, Lawson Younger in his contribution to Bill Arnold's "Face of Old Testament Studies Today" (2004 I think) - Younger says that when it comes to the origins of Israel (meaning the Iron Age kingdom) about the only thing there is consensus on is that the Albrightean conquest model is wrong. (page 177 - the book is in our bibliography). Younger is a conservative, evangelical scholar, by the way. PiCo (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
On the literary side (i.e. study of the written Exodus tradition found in the bible) there's no real certainty. The evidence points to it being written in final form around 500 BCE (there are various anachronisms, for example the name used for the city of Ramasses - if this were genuine 12th century material it would call it Pi-Ramesses instead). We mention in the lead the "common opinion", or whatever the phrase is, to this effect. But it's also quite commonly held that this 6th century re-write is based on much older traditions - an Egyptian bondage is mentioned in the 8th century prophets, for example. How far back beyond that the tradition goes it's impossible to say, there's simply no evidence, but the general feeling is that there must have been something behind it. The only book I know of that discusses this in detail is the one used in the article in the section headed "Origins of the Tradition". Some other scholars also touch on this, but not in such detail. Scholars like Hoffmeier and Kitchen are trying to establish plausibility for a substantial 12th century origin to the tradition, one that would read the Exodus (book of) story as substantially accurate, but they admit to arguing against the current paradigm. (I have the greatest respect for Hoffmeier, by the way, an honest and temperate scholar, but Kitchen has become increasingly "kranky" over the years and is now frequently intellectually dishonest, such is his hatred of those he calls "minimalists"). PiCo (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
One problem with the second paragraph (and my main objection) is that it implies that scholars think no exodus happened of any scale. And yet you concede that most think something must have happened. Your statement above is a fairer representation of scholarly opinion than what is currently in the intro. I think we should add to the intro your exact words from above:
"it's also quite commonly held that this 6th century re-write is based on much older traditions - an Egyptian bondage is mentioned in the 8th century prophets, for example. How far back beyond that the tradition goes it's impossible to say, there's simply no evidence, but the general feeling is that there must have been something behind it."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately these are my words, and I'm not a reliable source. They're based on a great deal of reading, but represent a personal impression, not a single referable source. But I believe Redmount might have something along those lines, or Meyer. You're welcome to look. PiCo (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any modern Egyptologist who would subsrcribe to the Exodus narrative as an accurate and literal description of an historical event. I don't know of any modern Egyptologist who would reject the idea of people from Canaan working in Egypt either as hired labor or as slaves captured as pows because there is plenty of supporting evidence. People who were enslaved could end up in high office so they woudln't reject out of hand that other well known bible story as being without any historical content. Yt95 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point PiCo makes about related but subtly different topics on which there may be consensus (or not) is important. Firstly, the archaeological evidence, which PiCo summarizes well. Hoffmeier (1999) says "a new consensus seems to be emerging" for the theory of indigenous origin, and I stumbled upon a 2004 dissertation (?) which flat-out states that scholarly consensus has largely rejected various other theories, including conquest by the Israelites, in favour of the indigenous origin (Pitkänen, Central sanctuary and centralization of worship in ancient Israel (2004), p. 25). Secondly, the question of historicity. Here things become much more muddled, because scholars like Hoffmeier say that some sort of Exodus (though not exactly as described in the Bible happened despite the absence of evidence. I actually found some (more or less) reliable sources stating there is no consensus on this issue (for example The College Press NIV Commentary: Exodus (2007)). The position that some migratory event happened seems at the very least a significant minority position, if not the majority. I think we should be more explicit in mentioning this view, probably following Stanley. Those who agree that something happened disagree widely over what happened and when it happened. Many of Quarkgluonsoup's eight sources above thus discuss the date of a supposed Exodus and show that most scholars [who believe something happened at all] agree on a late (13th century) date, with others arguing for an "early" date based on the 480 years from conquest to Solomon. The early date seems important to the history of scholarship, and literalists like Dillard and Longman still support it (for another more recent example see The World and the Word (2011) by Merrill, Rooker and Grisanti; they are aware of Dever). Finally, there is the question of the literary history of the Exodus narrative. While the historicity debate has repercussions for the literary history debate, they are sufficiently distinct that I don't think summarizing them both in the same paragraph is a good idea. Maybe the part on the literary history would be a good place to mention that there is a widespread belief that the Exodus narrative is not entirely fictional but based on some migratory event? Unfortunately I have not found any source on how widespread this belief is, and I don't know whether the consensus for a Canaanite origin of Israel (which seems not much older that 2000) has influenced the debate on whether Exodus contains a true core or not. Huon (talk) 03:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have copied below the opinions of an Egyptologist from a recently published book. Though I don't rate the book because it fails in the titles intended aim and through it's lack of balance the passage on the Exodus might be worth a look. The emphasised word in the passage is the authors. ( Yt95 (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC) I have added a follow on sentence from the passage as I can see it has a direct bearing on what precedes. It's also a good example of his lack of balance. Ramasses, like all pharoahs, believed that was put on Temple walls was in some mysterious ways actualised in the other world. Wilkinson sees it only as propoganda, e.g the accounts of the Battle of Kadesh:
"Even by the standards of New Kingdom Egypt Per-Ramsses was a cosmopolitan city. As well as a temple to an Asiatic deity, there were overseas legations and entire quarters for foreign mercenaries. The markets and wharfs played host to merchants from throughout the eastern Mediterranean. With its geographical proximity to Palestine, Per-Ramesses must have been a magnet for immigrants seeking a better life, and it is against such a background that the Bible story of the Exodus came to be written. Exodus 1:11 tells how Pharoah put the enslaved Hebrews to work on two great store cities, Pithom and Ramesses. 'Pithom', or Per-Atum, has been identified as modern Tell el-Maskhuta in the eastern delta, only a days journey from Per-Ramesses, while 'Raamses' can be none other than the new dynastic capital itself. It is highly likely that Semitic-speaking labourers were employed in the construction of the city. But they were more likely migrant workers than slaves (although the working conditions may have made the distinction somewhat academic). As for any Exodus of Hebrews, in the reign of Ramesses II or later, the ancient Egyptian sources are silent. The story may therefore have been a conflation of several unrelated historical events. On the other hand, as we have seen, Ramesses was not one to let the truth stand in the way of controlling the news agenda" ("The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt", Toby Wilkinson, p. 336, ISBN 978-1-4088-1002-6
The book got excellent reviews and Wilkinson is very clearly a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Walton 2003?

With all the recent edits, the bibliographical information for the source "Walton 2003" (footnote #2) seems to have been lost - can someone please restore it? --Cerebellum (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that; once the article and the lead are mostly stable I'll go digging for the lost books (unless someone else is faster). Huon (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, the book was added by PiCo with this edit, but it seems to have been missing information from the beginning. Considering the controversial claim it's being used to back up ("The modern scholarly consensus is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible"), I would feel better if we had full bibliographical data. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's Walton's contribution Exodus, date of, in Alexander and Baker's "Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch". Walton begins by stating that the consensus view is that there was no exodus at all and that for this reason few modern scholars would concern themselves with trying to find a date for it. He then proceeds to do so. :) PiCo (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) --Cerebellum (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
PiCo, give the exact quotation from Walton's book that says this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not a book by Walton, it's a contribution to a bible-dictionary. It opens like this: "In this day and age of biblical scholarship the debate no longer rages as to whether or not there was any exodus of biblical proportions. In fact, the consensus that there was not has become firmly entrenched in critical circles." Page 258 on the link immediately above.PiCo (talk) 11:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What exactly are "critical circles"? What subset of "scholars" does this refer to? Certainly it excludes many scholars. The article also says that there is "consensus" when Walton says the idea has become "firmly entrenched". The article therefore takes the Walton quote out of context. "The modern scholarly consensus is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible" should be changed to "In critical circles, the idea that there was never an exodus of the proportions described in the bible has become firmly entrenched."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Scholars who say the Exodus was historical

To say that most scholars say what the present article is saying is to fall into over-generalizations. Historyprofrd (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that list, I enjoyed having a good laugh. Your idea of what a "scholar" is needs some adjustment. Zerotalk 14:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Zero - While I would tend to agree that some of these people are not typical scholars, your comment was hardly necessary and defintiely not constructive. Experts can be created - just look at all the Hollywood actors who roll into Congress to give "expert testimony" on a bill simply because they played a (insert disability du jour) in some movie. No one laughs these jokers out of the bldg and in fact congressmen and the press typical fawn over how credible they are.
There are millions of people who believe the historical account of the Exodus is fact - simply agree to disagree. Ckruschke (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
I apologize for the words I used, but not for the opinion. None of the linked sources match the description of a scholar who believes the Exodus really happened. For example the first is by an "author, director and radio personality". The second one has the only example of someone who might have archaeological credentials, but his page at Creation Ministries International doesn't mention any. The third one is by a biochemist. For the fourth book see Bob Cornuke and judge if that is a scholar. The fifth book is by a physicist. Zerotalk 23:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Everyone has their opinion - I was certainly not implying that you need to be in lockstep with anyone else (especially me) as we don't need any catatonic drones here. It's all good - you are certainly allowed to be wrong...  ;-) Ckruschke (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke
The article itself says: "most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit." But it only quotes Dever. Something has to change with re to the overgeneralizations. There is a term for this in Wikipedia which now escapes me. Historyprofrd (talk) 09:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
James Long's work was praised by Professor Eugene Narrett ("It belongs in all serious history courses that purport to teach western civilization...."). Narrett who received his BA, MA and PhD from Columbia University in New York City. Since receiving his doctorate he has been living and working in the greater Boston area, teaching and developing curricula in the Humanities, -- Literature, History, Philosophy, and Art History. Honored as a writer, mentor, and teacher, his writings on American culture and politics and on history and geopolitics in the Middle East have been widely published and he has been a frequent guest on Israel National Radio. At least some of these findings should be quoted. Historyprofrd (talk) 09:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) None of the authors quoted are scholars in the two relevant areas, which are: (a) biblical studies; and (b) Syro-Palestinian/Egyptian archaeology. A trained and professional biblical scholar will have the following skills-set: knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German and other relevant languages (not necessarily fluency, but ability to read in these languages); familiarity with the history of the literary study of the Biblical texts (meaning familiarity with the development of critical scholarship, especially in the last 200 years - without that, they can't follow the technical arguments); familiarity with developments in archaeological findings and theories relating to the bible. (This list was taken from Richard Friedman). The people cited above as scholars are:

  • 1. James D. Long: an ex-disc jockey, seems to have no academic qualifications whatsoever;
  • 2. John F. Ashton: a quaified chemist and apparently has qualifications in philosophy, but non in the areas needed for biblical scholarship;
  • 3. Lennart Mollar: apparently a molecular biologist, no training in the relevant skills;
  • 4. Bob Cornuke: Does hold qualifications, but from an unaccredited institution;
  • 5. Colin Humphreys: a physicist, no relevant qualifications.

Ckruschke has put his finger on it: these individuals have as much authority to discuss the Exodus as a Hollywood actor does to talk about healthcare reform. PiCo (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please take note that the NPOV policy states that: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents....Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

The disproportion here in this article is shown by not including any of the views of this perceived minority. This borders on censorship. In reality, most of the billions of Christians believe in the historicity of this event, because they find the bible a historical document, written by eyewitnesses. So even the minority status of this view is debatable. At least this view should be treated as a significant view and given proportionate space. The weasel words should also be removed. Historyprofrd (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a fundamental difference between a "minority view" as it regards scholarship and a "minority view" as it regards the general population. As Wikipedia articles are intended to be rigorously objective presentations of subject matter, greater emphasis must be placed on scholarship rather than on general beliefs, since those general beliefs are not necessarily backed up by logic, reason, or evidence. In contrast, a scholarly consensus must be (at least, in so far as a consensus can reasonably be developed on the available data). For example, the article on Santa Claus should not be amended to include a debate on his existence simply because tens of millions of children believe in him. Doing so would be absurd.
In essence, a minority view held by professional historians does not earn "majority status" simply because a lot of non-professionals believe it. Consequently, the apparent short shrift given to the minority view in the article is quite appropriate. As it currently stands, the article does discuss the cultural significance of the Exodus story (i.e., with regard to Passover, etc.), and that's about the most that can be said for it. Forcing the appearance of "balance" in the article by attempting to insert a pro-historical argument on the basis of widespread Jewish and Christian acceptance of the Exodus' supposed historicity would be nothing more than an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Simply put, if there was a substantial body of evidence advocating for the historicity of the Exodus, we wouldn't need to look to the general population of Christians and Jews to find it -- scholars already would have, and it would be a defacto scholarly argument. As Tim Minchin once said: "Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work? 'Medicine'." Similarly, if there really was a compelling argument to be made in favor of the Exodus' historicity, it wouldn't be so hard to find. As far as I can tell, the minority view on the Exodus' historicity is informed by theological devotion, only, and not sincere historical investigation. Until someone can show otherwise, the article shouldn't be adulterated with minority viewpoints that are wholly predicated upon arguments from ignorance.--Kglogauer (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kglogauer. The reference I made to the belief of Christians points to the "debatableness" of belittling this view as merely minority. The point I was making is focused on proportionality. Right now there is not even one mention of these studies and sweeping weasle words are used to hide them away. Historyprofrd (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Whether some of these authors may have some theological devotion as motivation is beside the point -- as the skepticism and atheism of some of the opponents of this view is also beside the point. The arguments of the authors of the books I mentioned are archaeological and historical. And that is what is important for Wikipedia. Historyprofrd (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's important but they must pass the criteria at WP:RSN and WP:VERIFY whether or not they are archaeological and historical. At a quick glance, these don't. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
And the statement about Narrett is copied (and thus copyvio) from Long's own site, [1]. Long's book is self-published by himself. The Ashton and Down book is published by a Creationist publisher, [2]. Mollar's book is published by a publishing house specialising in children's books [3]. Not sure about Cornuke's publisher (which describes him as a 'criminologist', it's some sort of Bible publisher, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources which also doesn't seem to meet our RS criteria. Humphreys has a decent publisher but he's an amateur. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This pulling of rank ("our view is mainstream, yours is minority") is tiring. The article currently represents a minority hyper-skeptical POV, and unless multiple editors can work to overcome these 2 or 3 editors pushing their own views, the article will remain biased.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see this as a pulling of rank. This type of scholarship doesn't exist in a hierarchy, but in the value of the arguments they produce given the evidence at hand. Even the most revered person in a field can be proven wrong by the evidence. The reason that the non-existence of the Exodus is in the scholarly mainstream is because of an objective evaluation of the evidence. The reason that the existence of the Exodus is in the popular mainstream (arguable) is because of religious bias and tradition. Period.Elcapitanp (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Bible Versions

A small point. The article states "there are over a hundred and fifty references scattered through the Bible, and the only significant body of work that does not mention it is the Wisdom literature." but that isn't correct. The bible used by Roman Catholics includes the Book of Wisdom and I'm pretty sure the Orthodox include it as well though I'm not certain of it's exact status with that Church. Protestant bibles sometimes include it as apocrypha. The point is that the Book of Wisdom does indeed deal with the Exodus. Yt95 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll have to point that out to our source :). More seriously, can you tell me for interest's sake where this mention is? PiCo (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
If you mean the article then I have just deleted a part of the sentence. If you mean where it appears in the Book of Wisdom then check out 11:2-19:4. Yt95 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I expect PiCo meant the scholarly book from which the line about the lack of Exodus references in Wisdom literature was taken. It is Russell's Images of Egypt in Biblical literature, p.1, but Russell refers to a 2001 paper by Ronald Hendel, "The Exodus in Biblical Memory", JFL 120 (2001), p. 601. I don't think the statement about the absence of Exodus references in Wisdom literature (diff) is all that important, but technically a reliable secondary source trumps your interpretation of Wisdom. Huon (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's not my interpretation - check google books and take your pick. A small point as far as the article is concerned but assuming its an accurate representation of what the source says (did he mean sapiential literature?) then it doesn't inspire confidence. That being said no scholar is infallible and it's not at unsual to pick up on obvious mistakes. I maybe differ from you in that I will never knowingly place in an article information I know is wrong no matter if it is from a "reliable source". Yt95 (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the source in our article is Russell's monograph. Perhaps he was meaning the Hebrew bible - I just don't know. This is a minor point, and was included in the article simply to illustrate how exodus imagery permeates the entire bible. I still think that's a point worth making, but if you feel the article needs to be edited, go ahead. PiCo (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
As you say it's a minor point and the preface reads "This article is about the events related in the Torah". I don't intend to edit but my impressions on a first reading is that the article tends too much in the direction of proving that a mass Exodus didn't take place in black and white terms and it would be better to include more information, as I mentioned further up in the talk page, which expands on the socio-political context and conflation of events that may have seeded the account given in Hebrew scriptures. A good example of how this can happen in ancient records is Herodutus account of the building of the great pyramid. He is probably faithfully recounting what the priests of Egypt told him but we now know it's far more likely to be a displaced memory of a real event that took place many centuries later (the closing of Temples under Akhenaten or Hyksos rule) conflated with another real event, i.e the building of the great pyramid. Yt95 (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Yt95 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
A good point, and we can look into it. Cut back on the detailed "historicity" section including the date and route, more on background. PiCo (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Now that we have some more editors here, please take a look at the second paragraph of the intro and tell me if you think it is fine as is or needs revision.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it needs to at least mention the opposing view. Maybe something like, "Other scholars dispute this interpretation, which they refer to as minimalism, and maintain that the Biblical account of the exodus is historically accurate." For references, we can use Peter Enns, who says "In recent evangelical scholarship, a significant amount of very important and helpful work has been done in defending the Bible’s basic historical reliability against the so-called historical minimalists, for whom the Old Testament narratives are largely a product of postexilic fabrication." We could also cite Kenneth Kitchen, Jim Hoffmeier, or Tremper Longman if need be. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It is definitely not just biblical minimalists who argue that the Exodus didn't take place, and we mustn't suggest that it is. We do need to show that there is an opposing view, but that doesn't need to and shouldn't characterise those who say the Exodus didn't take place. Biblical maximalists say it did, but there's a large group between them and the minimalists who don't support the historicity of the Exodus. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, how about "Other scholars, particularly evangelicals, dispute this interpretation and maintain that the Biblical account of the exodus is historically accurate." If anyone objects to the "particularly evangelicals" part, we can take that out as well. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree that it is largely evangelical Christians that have a "the Bible is history" view point. How about conservative Jews?
Did we want to further explain the first sentence "There is overwhelming archaeological evidence that the origins of Israel were in fact largely Canaanite, leaving, in the words of archaeologist William Dever, "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness". I would think that if I was a first timer to this page, my question would be "why is there no room" - and the answer would be because most (all?) of the archeological dating in the middle east is based upon Egyptian Chronology, there is way to shoehorn a new people into the land of Israel based upon the finds that have been unearthed and catalogued - right? I apologize if I'm opening a new can of worms. Since I don't have access to the Devers book, I don't know what it says... Ckruschke (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
You are completely right, and the scholarly view isn't nearly as clear on the matter as the intro suggests. This needs to be fixed.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Dever says the settlements in the hill country that were identified as "Israelite" are indistinguishable in pottery, architecture, alphabet, ... from settlements identified as "Canaanite", with the exception of the absence of pig bones in "Israelite" villages. The identity in material culture is taken as evidence against a foreign origin. I don't think this relies on chronology at all. Huon (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

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.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel
Quoted from Proceedings of the British Academy 143, 57-67, 2007. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Cerebellum, thanks for bringing the Enns paper to our attention, it's extremely good and I recommend everyone to read it. (The link is given in Cerebellum 's post further up in this thread).

I've made an undent because some very important issues have been raised and I want to reply at length, and it's easier to do that without worrying about indents.

First Cerebellum suggest that we need to mention "the opposing view". From the context I take it he means opposition to the view that the Exodus story is not history, rather than opposition to the view that the archaeological evidence from Palestine points to Israel emerging from Canaanite culture rather than from an invading non-Canaanite people (the Israelites). There simply is no meaningful opposition to the latter view - Bryant Wood is the only name that springs to my mind, and his redating of Jericho has been dismissed on sound scientific grounds (C14 dates don't back him up).

So this brings us to Enns, and his argument is extremely interesting, as it sums up the "opposing view" that Cerebellum mentions. Enns begins by stating the essentially theological nature of this view: "Christianity is a historical faith, and so evangelicals have a vested interest in defending the fundamental historical character of the Bible." To rephrase this, evangelical scholars defend the historical character of the Exodus story because it is necessary if they are to defend Christianity.

This is not, at bottom, a scholarly position. Scholars do not begin from their conclusion ("Christianity is true") and then search out the evidence to bolster it. They begin from the evidence, all of it, and then put forward the hypothesis which, in their view, best explains it. (By scholars I mean, of course, historians - my own degree is in history).

So when Enns says "scholars" he doesn't mean men and women who seek to understand the history of ancient Israel and Egypt, but those who look for arguments which validate their faith. It's a big difference.

Enns defines his purpose as to examine the extent to which Exodus "compl[ies] with notions of history writing prevalent in our world today" - in other words, the extent to which Exodus can be regarded as a history book.

He doesn't do this directly, but through the work of scholars (scholars in his sense, scholar-theologians) such as Hoffmeier, Kitchen, and Provan/Long/Longman (the latter three have co-authored a history of Israel which is essentially no more than a retelling of the bible - if the bible isn't a history book, neither is theirs, and this is the central problem Enns is addressing). He notes (and this is important) that these works "are aimed at defending the historical reliability of Old Testament narratives by demonstrating their plausibility" (his emphasis). In other words, the most that these alternative works aim for is plausibility, not definitive proof.

It therefore comes down to competing plausibilities, the theologians contra the historians. Enns notes how Kitchen has demonstrated that portable shrines like the one described in Exodus were in common use in Egypt and Mesopotamia in the 2nd millennium. Yes, but the question is, does demonstrating that the tabernacle might have had a 2nd millenium background constitute proof that it did? Not really, since these shrines were in use right down to the mid-1st millennium, including in Babylon, which is where historians believe the story of Exodus originated. (Written by Jews to be sure, but Jews who had been in exile in Babylon). Although Enns doesn't say, the plausibility debate comes down to deciding between elements which could have come from either the 2nd or 1st millennium, and elements which could only have come from the 2nd or 1st. (As I said, Enns doesn't go into this).

Enns does, however, raise another interesting point regarding Kitchen: Kitchen has commented on a fact which many others before him have noted, which is that part of the Exodus story mirrors ancient Egyptian literature - fictional literature at that - as well as Mesopotamian myth. Even if one feels that Exodus was written by Moses c.1440 BCE, these stories and myths are older. How can a record of historical events, written in 1440 at the very earliest, reflect myths and stories several centuries older? (Remember, it's Enns who says this, although in his own words and less bluntly, since the implications are troubling for theologically-based scholarship).

So in conclusion: there really isn't an opposing view, since historical scholarship simply ignores that which is based on theological premises. Enns aim is to overturn this and get a hearing, but the historians simply aren't listening. I think that's enough from me. Would anyone else like to comment? PiCo (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Your argument here is that the views of conservative scholars aren't just wrong but illegitimate, and can be treated as if they don't exist. You are claiming that some scholars (the skeptics) are free from bias, while other scholars (the conservatives) are biased and don't represent serious scholarship. This simply isn't the case, as everyone is biased. Dever is just as biased as Kitchen. Even if you were right (which you aren't), a scholar is a scholar and when we say "scholars think..." we can't just ignore what many scholars think.
By claiming that the skeptics are "just following the facts" while the conservatives are biased and so their views can be delegitimized or ignored, you bias the article by redefining "scholar" to leave out many scholars. The simple fact is that many scholars do think that the exodus narratives are mostly historical, and their views have to be represented.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I was giving a gloss on the Enns article - the views you ascribe to me are in fact his. Please read the article, but carefully and dispassionately. Enns is not an idiot. PiCo (talk) 02:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
@Quarkgluonsoup: You're quibbling on the word "scholar" here, and comparing apples to oranges. As Pico pointed out, the apologists you would like to mention have placed themselves entirely outside the mainstream scholarly community and exist in their own little universe in which "scholarship" is fundamentally redefined. Their "scholarship" is based primarily on confirming their own religious beliefs, to the point that they are unable and unwilling to examine the evidence in accordance with the principles of historical research. They are not dealing with the evidence (in fact, they are ignoring it), and are engaged in almost pure speculation. Quite frankly, they don't even qualify as fringe because there is a stark discontinuity between their beliefs and the findings of modern historians. Put simply, apologists are not reliable sources for historical information because that is not their purpose. They seek to create a pseudo-history that is consistent with their religiously motivated literal interpretation of the scriptures. They automatically reject any conflicting evidence, information or conclusions. As such, it's difficult to consider them "scholars" in the same sense of the word as modern historians are. We're not talking about opposite poles here, but about completely different planets. Their disagreements are not part of the scholarly discourse, and shouldn't be described as such. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
That is a caricature, as they are no more biased and no less scholarly than the skeptics. They are scholars, and if we are going to report the views of scholars, we have to report the views of scholars, not those who we judge as having the correct methodology.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

PiCo, thank you for taking the time to read the Enns piece and for your thoughtful critique of it. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since the scholars Enns refers to "begin from their conclusion ('Christianity is true') and then search out the evidence to bolster it," i.e. they are not objective, they are not legitimate scholars and should not be mentioned in this article. Whether or not this is the case, we are bound by WP:UNDUE here, and so this article must "fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Have those who support the historicity of the exodus been published by reliable sources? Yes. Do they constitute a significant viewpoint? Yes - in addition to those mentioned by Enns, we could look to scholars such as Alan Millard (source), Lawrence Schiffman (source), and the Jewish Orthodox publication Aish.com (source). Therefore, we must include them. For the record, I also disagree with you that Hoffmeier and company are not legitimate scholars: see the collapsed text below.

Additional boring arguments, largely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
(1) Your distinction between objective scholars and Evangelical ideologues is a bit too cut-and-dried. No one is perfectly objective; all scholars have preconceived notions of the nature of historical reality, and despite their best efforts their work will be to some extent influenced by these preconceptions. Dever has written that, "My view all along....is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information" (source) This "view" is Dever's starting point, and his work is an attempt to show that it is valid, whether consciously or unconsciously.
(2) While your ideas are no doubt shared by many scholars, others would dispute them. In an interesting article, Philip R. Davies, a prominent minimalist, writes that there is no "consensus about what they are doing....among Bible experts." So, given that the scholars themselves cannot agree on what constitutes legitimate scholarship, we should defer to them and present both viewpoints.

--Cerebellum (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with alot of what (I think) Cerebellum is saying. I think the problem with some of your viewpoints on who are and aren't scholars is that somehow someone who is trying to PROVE the Bible has such a jaded worldview that his findings are meaningless. Why does a scientist have to be an atheist to propely critic Middle Eastern history/archeology? I thought that what scientists do was form a hypothesis and seek out evidence that strengthens/negates that hypothesis. Since a preponderance on the archeologists/historians are looking at the evidence and forming conclusions from a non-Biblical worldview, I don't see the problem with a minority of the archeologists/historians doing the same from a Biblical worldview. Just because someone's opinion/stance is in the minority doesn't invalidate it. Minorities in the US and around the world have been arguing the contrary for years. Ckruschke (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
As for majority/minority, a majority of all scholars are conservative. In any case, Cerebellum's argument is (correctly) that everyone is biased, and no one "just follows the facts" free of bias. Skeptics are just as biased as conservatives. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't saying "conservative" scholars aren't scholars, I was saying they aren't historians (they're theologians); and I wasn't putting forward my own claim, I was paraphrasing Enns.
I put "conservative" in quote marks just then because it doesn't seem like an appropriate label - they aren't trying to conserve anything (except maybe their faith?). "Evangelical" seems like a better word, and it's one they use frequently for themselves - Enns does.
Back to our article: There are three broad positions available regarding the historical reality of the Exodus story in the bible: (1) it's accurate history exactly as it stands - the "truth" position; (2) it preserves a historical core but isn't accurate exactly as it stands - the "plausibility" position; (3) it isn't history at any level, and to read it as such is to misjudge the intention of the authors - the "foundation-myth" position.
Here, so far as I can judge, are the evidence to back up each position: (1) for the idea that the Exodus story is accurate as we read it, I've read no evidence whatsoever; (2) for the idea that the story contains a core of remembered tradition, only arguable evidence, and the most that evangelical scholars like Hoffmeier and Kitchen argue is plausibility, not proof; (3) for the idea that Exodus is foundation-myth not history, a great deal of hard evidence - Dever uses the word "overwhelming".
So, staying with improvements to our article, what do you propose we do? PiCo (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd say we should give all three positions, with the corresponding caveats: No direct evidence for the first two (we can even cite Tremper Longman for that). The indigenous origin of the hill country settlement is scholarly consensus (citing the dissertation I mentioned above, or, a little less explicit, Hoffmeier). I haven't seen sources claiming that the foundation-myth theory as a whole is scholarly consensus, nor have I seen sources claiming that there is much archaeological evidence against the "plausibility" position; unless we have sources to that effect we should not say so in the article. Conversely, I haven't seen any source for Quarkgluonsoup's claim that a majority of scholars are "conservative" and subscribe to the "truth" or "plausibility" positions. I'm also not prepared to call someone like Kitchen anything but a historian (Longman is a borderline case and seems more of a theologian, though). Huon (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
How can something be consensus when so many disagree? I think you are on the right track, but we should report what advocates of each of the three positions would say about their own position, and about criticisms of it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You just, again, said that conservatives aren't scholars in the sense that skeptics are. You seem to be saying that holding a traditional view automatically disqualifies a scholar from being a scholar-historian rather than scholar-theologian. There are many conservative scholars whose scholarship is of an historical type. When you say that you have read no evidence of the exodus "truth" position, you must mean that either A) you don't read much conservative scholarship or B)you have read such scholarship but don't think the scholars in question are serious. No one knows how much of the exodus claim is historically correct, so nothing has been "proven" in any sense. You are engaging in original research by trying to get the article to report what you think the correct answer is (though there is no such answer), rather than the scholarly debate. You have already admitted that there are many scholars who hold to a traditional view on these matters. So if you admit this, then why can't we report what scholarship you admit exists?
I guess I don't see why my request is so unreasonable. All that I want is for the article to report what scholars publish on the topic. I don't think we should include devotional or fundamentalist commentators but rather all serious scholarly views (conservative and liberal). The first two sentences of the second paragraph show the liberal view, but leave out the conservative view (which you admit exists and is not tiny). What I propose is that we add a sentence or two that gives the conservative view of those two topics (archaeology and historicity). If you will agree that this is OK, I will put something together.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Quark, you keep saying that "so many" disagree with the consensus (presumably meaning the consensus that the archaeological evidence from Palestine leaves no room for the Egyptian origins of Israel), but you never produce any instances. Even Kitchen doesn't disagree with this position - he merely says that the possibility that a few thousand (not the bible's few million) people left Egypt for Palestine around the 12/13th century BCE is "plausible". This is a long way from what you seem to be claiming. You also keep refering to biblical scholars and archaeologists like Dever as "skeptics" - of the veracity of the bible, presumably. That's very revealing, as their objective isn't to examine the bible at all, but to study the history of ancient Israel. PiCo (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Your line here: "I guess I don't see why my request is so unreasonable. All that I want is for the article to report what scholars publish on the topic" is quite reasonable. PiCo (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
According to Longman, most scholars accept that the exodus occurred. It doesn't seem like you disagree with that statement, only you argue that the views of those who accept it don't count because they can't be considered serious. If Canaanite origins mean that the exodus didn't happen, then very few scholars agree that Israel was of Canaanite origin, and your/Dever's claim of "consensus" is absurd in the extreme. You are debating what evidence is the most compelling, which is by definition original research. So again, if you will agree that we can add the conservative view, I will put something together.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
"According to Longman, most scholars accept that the exodus occurred." Are you sure that's exactly what Longman says? In any case, the Longman/Dillard book isn't very influential in scholarly circles - it's widely viewed as hopelessly old-fashioned. Anyway, give us a reference for this statement of yours. PiCo (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it says exactly that. The source is right here: [4] Page 59: "In the modern period, this picture of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings has been questioned and modified either slightly or radically, or it has been downright rejected (so the minimalists)". Also, page 60: "While there have been more radical approaches, the most common solution to the questions raised about the exodus is to date it in the thirteenth century and to argue that a smaller group actually left Egypt than that apparently descried by the bible."Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Using PiCo's distinctions, that would be a majority support for the "plausibility" approach: There is a historical core, but the Exodus did not happen as described in the Bible, and not at the time given by the Bible. The people supporting this position need not disagree with the evidence on the indigenous origin of Israel. Longman explains his own position at greater length here: He accepts the historicity of the exodus narrative as a matter of faith and acknowledges that there is no direct evidence for it outside the Bible. Using that same line of reasoning, he accepts an "early" exodus predating the Bronze Age collapse, by the way. Huon (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What that quote shows is that the most common position is not an absolute traditionalist one, and does encompass a wide range of positions. Many conservatives hold the position Longman described, and yet overall view the exodus narratives as mostly right. Others hold that view and are more skeptical about the accuracy of the exodus narratives. Speaking of majority/minority is tricky. We wont find a source that says a "majority" support any one particular position. Since most religious scholars become religious scholars out of deep personal faith, the "majority" support something close to the traditional argument. You can only get to a majority accepting something else if you narrow down the group of scholars enough and in the right way (in other words, eliminate enough conservatives and devotional commentators to get the result you want). The best approach is just to report the three major groups and not to take sides about which is right. Longman's quote is a good for the common view from a very broad lens. 03:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. On that page Longman says that Exodus "recounts the past in a story-like fashion; in other words, it is history." I don't think you'll find a lot of professional historians who would accept that definition of history. PiCo (talk) 07:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggested changes

I will note a couple of quotes from "The Oxford History of the Biblical World" [5]. P62: "There is less agreement than ever as to the history, development, and character of the exodus account, and biblical scholarship in general is in ferment." It doesn't sound like there is much "consensus" from that description. P63: "The growing dissonance of scholarly opinion underscores the impossibility of tracing the details of the exodus narrative's evolution". P77: "By their very nature archaeological finds are generally unsuitable for establishing detailed historical interpretations". P63: "The overall intent of the narrative was historical". P63: "The dominant historical concern of the exodus account is to demonstrate that God acts in history." P63: "this underlying, elemental historicity suffices to make the account historical". This contradicts the claims currently in the article that the narratives were intended as theology rather than history (of course they were intended as both). P63: "Ultimately, it is this compelling historical grounding of the narrative that sustains most scholars' belief in an actual historical origin of the exodus events." So we have a source (Oxford) that everyone can agree on. The views expressed here are fairly non-controversial. Would anyone object if I added these quotes to the article?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

First, we shouldn't be considering just biblical scholarship. The view from an Egyptologist given above isn't biblical scholarship, correct? Although it is probably true that it is mainly biblical scholars that discuss the Exodus.
Secondly, "By their very nature archaeological finds are generally unsuitable for establishing detailed historical interpretations" - no one is discussing "detailed historical interpretations" as I understand it. This is about whether an event took place, not the details of it.
Third: "Ultimately, it is this compelling historical grounding of the narrative that sustains most scholars' belief in an actual historical origin of the exodus events." What does this actually mean? I read it as "most scholars' belief in an actual historical origin of the exodus events" is sustained by a compelling historical grounding'. Not "most scholars believe in an actual historical origin because of its compelling historical grounding." Dougweller (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Quark, while I have no problems with Coogan and the Oxford Press, I'm unfortunately unable to access it and can't check it out.
I have my doubts, not about the quotes you give, but about the way you understand them. There outy of context here, and as I say, I can't access the book to check.
But I suspect that when he says, for example, that "there is less agreement than ever as to the history, development, and character of the exodus account," he's talking about the collapse of the documentary hypothesis (which saw the origins of Exodus in the 10th century) and the rise of new theories which place the origins of Exodus considerably later (6th century). This is not a resounding endorsement of the historicity of the bible story.
And when he says that "archaeological finds are generally unsuitable for establishing detailed historical interpretations," I suspect he means that we all accept nowadays that archaeology can't prove that the exodus account is historically accurate (whereas it can prove that the story of the conquest of Canaan given in the Book of Joshua is not accurate).
And: "The dominant historical concern of the exodus account is to demonstrate that God acts in history." Demonstrating that God acts in history is not a task that historians undertake (Britain did not win the Battle of Britain because God was on the side of King George, the Defender of the Faith). I think you may have misunderstood what Coogan is saying. PiCo (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
(P.S. - It's not Coogan anyway, he's just the editor. Can you look up who is actually saying this for us?) PiCo (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's Carol Redmount,[6] a reliable source but should be attributed to her if we use her. You can read the whole chapter here.

She concludes by saying you can't prove it happened or that it didn't happen. Some other quotes: "The historicity of the Exodus narrative is thus a complex issue. Clearly, significant portions are not and were never intended to be historiographic. Yet the overall intent of the narrative was historical, despite nonhistorical elements in its compilation. In this context it is important to remember that the biblical writers' conception of history, ... The dominant historical concern of the Exodus account is to demonstrate that God acts in history: that Israelite bondage and salvation took place in history... this underlying, elemental historicity suffices to make the account historical, and this dominating concern made it permissible to shift historical particulars in order to make the Exodus chronicle more accessible to successive generations."

"The archaeological data relating to the Exodus are subject to differing interpretations. But at no point in the known archaeological sequence for Egypt, Sinai, and Palestine does the extant archaeological record accord with that expected from the Exodus (or, for that matter, conquest) account in the Bible. No archaeological evidence from Egypt can be construed as representing a resident group of Israelites in the delta or elsewhere, unless one accepts a general equation of the Exodus group with the Hyksos. Nor is there any evidence of an early Israelite presence anywhere in Sinai."

"Compromise and selectivity are thus the keys to all hypotheses that have been advanced to date the Exodus events. ... None is entirely satisfactory from the point of view of critical historiography, archaeological evidence, or biblical testimony." "There is, in fact, remarkably little of proven or provable historical worth or reliability in the biblical Exodus narrative, and no reliable independent witnesses attest to the historicity or date of the Exodus events. ...To others, still in the majority among scholars, the ultimate historicity of the Exodus narrative is indisputable. The details of the story may have become clouded or obscured through the transmission process, but a historical core is mandated by that major tenet of faith that permeates the Bible: God acts in history."

PLEASE look at the original, I've elided some as using it all would be copyvio. What I haven't included may be considered important by some editors. It's all available at the url I've provided. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, so why can't this be included? No one objects to the source, and it can be quoted however the editors here agree it should be quoted.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Basically we can reduce what Redmount has said into one sentence. There is no evidence that the Exodus happened but we have to accept that it did because the Bible said so (an article of faith). Isn't this concept already covered in the article? Wayne (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

I full protected this article indefinitely. (Please see WP:WRONG VERSION) I will unprotect it when you can come to a consensus of what should be in the lead. I suggest that you attempt to run a RfC to attempt to get the opinions of editors who don't normally edit within this topic area. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 17:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction (lead)

OK Lionel, as long as you are here we can discuss this. The intro as PiCo wants it is:

"The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[1] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[2] A minority of scholars assumes that this has yet older sources that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th century BC.[3]"
I think it should be changed to reflect current scholarship, and should be changed to:
"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3] Due to possible conflicts between the exodus narratives and the current state of archaeological knowledge, the most common approach among scholars is to date the exodus to the 13th century and argue that a smaller group left Egypt than the narratives appear to suggest.[3]"
Lets let Lionel comment first on this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph PiCo "wants" (though he said he would be open to modification) is based on [1] Dever (2003), p. 99, [2] Davies (2001), p. 37, and [3] Hoffmeier (1996) and Kitchen (2003). The sources for Quarkgluonsoup's preferred version are Davies and Hoffmeier/Kitchen, too. The first sentence was at times attributed to Longman and Dillard (2006), which is probably the second edition of their 1994 book. Huon (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quark has once again removed any mention of archaeology from the lead. I note that he/she's suggestion above also removes any mention of archaeology. That would of course be POV and I don't think anyone else wants this, nor does Quark offer any justification for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
If you want to mention archaeology, then you have to present current archaeology in context, which that quote does not do. I have modified my proposed paragraph to include information on archaeology. This replaces Dever's own personal view with the view of scholars generally. I want to know what Lionel thinks of my purposed edits above.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And you have to present biblical scholarship in context. The lead has to make the archaeological evidence, or rather lack of it, explicit. Your version is still extremely pov. By the way, what does [3] mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have modified the proposed intro further to address this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I have to echo Dougweller's question: What is source [3]? It would surely be helpful to explicitly give the source here so we can all check it. Huon (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
[3] is the Longman book you mentioned above.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you please provide page numbers? Huon (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
66Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe that's because you have the second edition, but the version available on Google Books does not discuss this on p. 66. The "most common approach" part seems to be from p. 59, but I couldn't find anything resembling the first sentence you used Longman/Dillon for. Huon (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The info comes from page 60 of the version you just linked to.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

So a 1994 book written from an evangelical perspective. Certainly not for the lead, and certainly not for anything archaeological. And not for a statement about scholars in general. I can't see anyway that we can use a statement that says "Due to possible conflicts between the exodus narratives and the current state of archaeological knowledge, the most common approach among scholars is to date the exodus to the 13th century and argue that a smaller group left Egypt than the narratives appear to suggest" - it's unsourceable as it stands, and is clearly pov - and what in the world does 'possible conflicts' mean? It looks as though it's meant to suggest that there might not really be any conflicts. We aren't going to get far going down this route. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your instance that we include Dever but not Longman is simply not acceptable. The book was written in 2006. If you don't like the sentence you quoted, don't include it.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 22:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::Would you please stop rewriting it and show your changes in a new paragraph, as our replies don't make sense anymore. I'd love to see your source for your new version that says "While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred." I think you'll find that most Egyptologists don't think it occurred, and that's just for starters. Also, now that I've found that I had an edit conflict last night, I'm not insisting on Dever - since you've said I have, where do I say that? I'm reverting your deletion because until we have something better we have to have something on archaeology in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

While I'm not endorsing an "evangelical perspective," if said perspective has sufficient coverage in the article body then I do not see why it can't be included in the lede. Quark, I think your proposal may be too ambitious at this point. I'd like to see if we can make some headway with Houn's suggestion above. – Lionel (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Lionel, I have made the suggested modifications. How about:
"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3]"Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You can't say "currently" because a 1994 book isn't current. Its age (18 years old) really rules it out altogether - things have moved on in the last two decades. In addition, it's not a replacement for a sentence about the archaeological evidence (or rather the lack thereof) for the exodus event - for that you need Dever or Meyer or Killebrew or someone else who discusses archaeology and has published in the last ten years. All in all Dillard/Longman isn't a source we should be using. PiCo (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Did I not just say the book was from 2006? I will get to work deleting all sources older than 1995. Your statement from Dever doesn't represent mainstream scholarship, while the Longman quote does. Until you actually compromise on something, we will be at this for a long time.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrarily deleting all sources in the article earlier than 1995 looks very much like an attempt to make a point and might be seen as tendentious. I'm wondering what you mean by compromise - saying "few scholars doubt that the Exodus occurred" is miles away from a compromise. You didn't like Dever's book which was neither maximalist nor minimalist, yet you seem to want the article to present a maximalist position. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I want it to say that few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred. You want it to say that most think it didn't. I will compromise from my point if you compromise from yours. If you won't compromise, neither will I.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Doug, I think Quark was being sarcastic, a response to my point that 1994 isn't current. Quark, the edition you have is 2006, but the passage you're quoting appears in the original 1994 first edition, and therefore dates from then. In addition, Longman isn't discussing archaeology, but rather literary scholarship of Exodus/Numbers - he's not a counterpart to Dever. PiCo (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
And the passage I am quoting was current as of the second edition in 2006.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Quark, where did you find this? "While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3]: PiCo (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources for "few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred" from 8 different books:
  • 1. [7] Page 141. "The religious history of Israel is almost inexplicable without accepting the historicity of the exodus, as most biblical scholars are now inclined to do."
  • 2. [8] Page 54. "Most scholars think that the events of the exodus occurred during the late bronze age".
  • 3. [9] Page 239. "Contemporary scholars, on the other hand, have arrived at wildly differing judgments concerning the historicity of the exodus narrative. Conservatives scholars, whether Jewish or Christian, view the story as a generally reliable account of actual events....Maximalists tend to agree that there is a historical core to the narrative....Minimalists, by contrast, believe that there is little or no historical content in the story."
  • 4. [10] Page 60. "The most common solution to the questions raised about the exodus is to date it to the 13th century and to argue that a smaller group actually left Egypt than that apparently described in the bible".
  • 5. [11] Page 257. "Hence many modern scholars find a date 1290-1260 for the exodus and the wilderness period most acceptable."
  • 6. [12] Page 87. "Most scholars believe that the exodus took place under his successor".
  • 7. [13] Page 72. "Numerous scholars believe that matters thus far discussed, all involving direct biblical evidence, are sufficient to settle the question in favor of the early date."
  • 8. [14] Page 78. "Many think it happened during the reign of the Nineteenth Dynasty"Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Well at least it's a book by an academic with a fairly respectable background. It does, however, show the importance of investigating that background to see whether statements can be supported - after all, anyone can say that they represent the majority.
I have serious reservations about Jeffrey Jay Niehaus. He holds a PhD in English literature, not biblical studies, and he teaches at a very small theological seminary. He makes statements which indicate a rather extreme religious view"point - e.g., "pagan" religions "represent a weltanscahauung (world-view) that is degraded from the truth" (page 82). Comments like this suggest that he approaches his subject with a supernatural frame of mind (i.e., he believes that the theophany at Sinai really did occur and that God really did direct Israel's history). In other words, he is not really capable, mentally and ideologically, of approaching the question of the Exodus with a critical mind.
My list is of 8 different books from 8 different scholars, not one by Niehaus. I can easily find many more, as the view that the exodus happened is nearly uncontested among scholars.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Given this, I'd need additional sources from people of equivalent status to Dever before I could accept Niehaus as a reliable source. PiCo (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, the point Dever raises is that the archaeological evidence from Palestine points conclusively to Israel (the Iron Age kingdom with its capital at Samaria) arising from local developments in Canaan stretching over the preceding few centuries, and not from an invasion by external peoples. Niehaus never mentions this, at least in the quotes you give us. PiCo (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I just gave you 8 different sources saying the exact same thing! Stop filibustering this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It's much better to rely on sources who have expertise in the particular area of study. I understand Niehaus pov, I've been there myself, but it betrays a complete lack of knowledge of "pagan religions". In the case of Ancient Egypt Egyptologists have long since abandoned such scathing assessments. Robert Wright, an agnostic who seems to think that religion may have had a positive role to play in evolution theory and points out the benefits brought by the Abrahamic faiths, writes in "Evolution of God," (p. 440-441) of Ancient Egypt (with particular reference to Maat and Osiris and striving for moral truth), that "Christians and Muslims matched this power, but they didn't surpass it." Yt95 (talk) 16:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beak for easier editing

Sorry, I thought you were using only one source. I'm undoing the indent to make this easier to edit. I've also added numbers for ease of reference. Sources need to be checked for (a) reliability, and (b) relevance. I've investigated 3 of your sources and this is what I find:

  • 1. Jeffrey Jay Niehaus, "God at Sinai". This book was reviewed in Themelios, and very unfavourably. The reviewers pointed out a range of weaknesses, from a lack of understanding of basic Hebrew grammar to anawareness of contemporary scholarship. One went so far as to express surprise at being asked to give a review at all. The book is not a reliable source.
  • 2. Richard A. Freund, "Digging Through the Bible". This is the same Richard A. Freund who claims to have discovered Atlantis. It was reviewed for BAR by Eric Cline, whose verdict was: "Caveat emptor!" (Let the buyer beware). Cline gives this book even less credit than the reviewers at Themelios give to Niehaus. Not reliable source.
  • 3. Christopher D. Stanley, "The Hebrew Bible: A Comparative Approach". B.A. Anderson reviewed this for RBL. The review is favourable. The passage you quote, however, is not very useful to our article: it simply says that conservative scholars hold to the view that Exodus is a history book and a reliable one, while the rest don't. Very true, but not very illuminating.

I can't spend any more time on this right now. I'll return to this later. PiCo (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for at least approving of the book by Stanley. Actually his quote is the most relevant for the issue here: conservative scholars believe the exodus narratives are mostly right, minimalists think it never happened (the article from our earlier discussion, which you approved of, said that there were only about a half dozen active minimalist scholars) while the rest ("maximalists") think the exodus occurred but differ in how accurate they think the exodus narratives are. Therefore, as I have been saying, most scholars think it happened. Given that this is what our dispute is over, the article should reflect this scholarly division between conservatives, "maximalists" and minimalists. I will compromise on Dever if you agree to include this in the article.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • 4. Raymond B. Dillard,Tremper Longman, "Introduction to the Old Testament" - a book which was outdated even when it was written in 1994. It's an interesting book though, as it represents the position of sincere and reasonable "confessional" scholars - those who argue from the world-view which holds that Christianity represents supernatural truth, and that the history contained in the bible must therefore also be true (or else the entire edifice of their faith collapses - if the exodus isn't fact, then the resurrection isn't fact, or so they reason). It's not well regarded by modern scholars, although I must stress that what I said above is absolutely true: Dillard and Longman are men of honour, but unfortunately, like Niehaus, they were out of touch with the contemporary scholarship of their day. In your quote, they say that "most scholars" (in 1994?) answer problems in the text of Exodus by dating the event "to the 13th century and argu[ing] that a smaller group actually left Egypt than that apparently described in the bible". In fact, as Dever says, the archaeological evidence clearly shows that Israel had its origins in Canaan, not Egypt, and that attempts to date the exodus are therefore on a par with attempts to date King Arthur. Dillard and Longman are unaware that this archaeology has even happened. It's not a reliable source.
  • 5. John L. McKenzie, "Dictionary of the Bible". McKenzie was a prominent Catholic theologian, dates 1910-1991. The given publication date is 1995, which seems a little odd - it must have been written well before that. I think something a bit more current is needed.
  • 6. Edgar S. Marshall, "Israel: current issues and historical background". Doesn't seem to have been reviewed in the academic journals at all, and I can't find the author mentioned anywhere in academic sources. Not a reliable source.
  • 7. Wood and O'Brien, "A Survey of Israel's History". 1986 edition of a 1970 book, not current and fails even in it's revised edition to take account of then-current findings in relation to the archaeological record. Not reliable or current.
  • 8. Avner Falk, "A psychoanalytic history of the Jews". A strange book, to say the least. Doesn't seem to have been reviewed in the professional journals. There's a personal endorsement at JSTOR from the Journal of Political Psychology, but that's not a professional body connected in any way with biblical studies. Not a reliable source.

That brings us back to the book by Stanley. He's not actually saying anything that isn't already in our article: conservative scholars like Longman do argue that the bible is history, for reasons I mentioned above, but they are a distinct minority; the majority are well aware of the archaeology outlined by Dever, and also of current thinking about the origins of the Book of Exodus as a 6th century BCE foundation-narrative working on, but thoroughly transforming, older traditions - see our article's section on origins. PiCo (talk) 08:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What source says that people like Longman are in the minority, and people like Dever are in the majority? Quote the exact reference that says this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Read the Introductions to Hoffmeier and Kitchen PiCo (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
A minority view should not be open to an editor offering a compromise to give his view undue weight. The prevailing theory among archeologists is: no exodus and that "Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan". David Wolpe said this in 2001 and gave very compelling reasons as to why the Biblical account remains important, see here although this exagerates the condemnation he recieved and reads as if it is his own view when he clearly states that it is the view of "virtually every modern archeologist". Scholarly opinion should be the criterior for due weight in the lead. Wayne (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit protected

  • In subsection "Theories of William Denver and others" change "rchaeological" to "archaeological"
  • Change section title "Secular academic theories" to "academic theories" (academic theory is academic theory. "Secular" is blatant NPOV violation)
  • Change "Secular theories about how the story was written" to "Theories about how the story was written", per above.--В и к и T 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire structure needs to be remade - it's a mess. PiCo (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I know, but this request is for edits that can't wait.--В и к и T 00:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The admin did the right thing to padlock the page immediately (I hadn't seen WP:WRONG VERSION before so am not familiar with how exactly that works), but I think now rather than fiddle with post editwarring clean up/mess it may be better for a non-involved admin, or 2 or 3 admins, to come look at the page and establish where the status quo was and wind it back as many days or weeks as needed. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the spelling of archaeological. Regarding the use of 'secular' I'm not sure that any bias here is blatent enough to need an urgent edit, so it would be better to get consensus about it first. Tra (Talk) 13:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a standing joke that an article gets protected at the "wrong version" - obviously in an edit war someone will think the version locked is the wrong one. It's only where there are BLP problems that an Admin might revert before blocking. It's sort of 'the luck of the draw" and Izak was lucky that it was locked when it was - but it's a mess.
The section heading "Theories of William Denver and others" obviously needs changing. It's a made up heading by Izak who removed the paragraph from the lead. Because it was a lead paragraph it was or at least should have been part of the summary of the article, and wasn't suited to be what it is now, a stand-alone section. It certainly shouldn't mention a "William Denver" who doesn't exist.
The article is a real mess now. It would be very unusual for an Admin to revert it, as Admins that is rarely our role. I don't know how we sort this out and am tempted just to walk away and admit it's a bad article that can't be fixed very quickly. Dougweller (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From bad to worse

Thanks to Izak and Quark, we now have a section:

Theories of William Denver and others

There is reportedly rchaeological evidence that the origins of Israel were in fact largely Canaanite, leaving, in the words of archaeologist William Dever, "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[5] The modern scholarly consensus is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[6] and that the story is best seen as theology instead of history, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people.[7]

'William Denver'? 'rchaeological'? And who in the world agrees with the segue between 'There is reportedly' (pov in wording) and '"in the words of...". It isn't the origins of Israel in Canaan that cause the lack of archaeological evidence for an exodus. It doesn't get any better from there, see the above discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

and, the lead shouldn't be taken up with the opinion of single author when there is an extensive literature to draw upon. I will dig out tonight, hopefully, from a scholarly work which summarises the debate, the different positions, and avoids simplistic assertions. Devers poured lavish praise on it and recommended it as a text book. Yt95 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
What was I thinking? My own OR. There are two places where there is a lack of archaeological evidence, and Dever (not Denver, not Devers) is right about Israel. The other place is Egypt. Yt95, look at my post about and see what Carol Redmount has to say. Look at her chapter on Google. It looks pretty good. I never wanted the lead to keep one opinion like that, I was just trying to get it to mention archaeology. It no longer adheres to WP:LEAD and is following Izaak's desire as expressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe if a bottom up approach to article development could take place first, i.e expand the main article text and then the lead can emerge from it without any sound-bite wars over it's contents? Yt95 (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the Exodus as seen from a Sunday School in Dogpatch, Tennessee. I agree with Yt95, let's revise the article itself and then go to the lead. PiCo (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Yt95 and PiCo that we should work on the article body. To get the ball rolling, here are some changes I would like to see. Feel free to leave comments directly below my suggestions. I am new to this field so please forgive my inevitable mistakes and I apologize for hindering verifiability by using an offline source; I can try to find the same information on Google Books if it would be helpful.

Pottery: The article currently says, "the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition." This is true, but it misses out on some nuances. Israelite pottery is more primitive than Canaanite pottery: "A characteristic of the material culture in the hill country settlements is the poor pottery repertoire limited to types essential for basic subsistence....The assemblage as a whole differs widely from that of the Canaanite-Philistine culture of the coastal plain and the valley of Jezreel" (Amihai Mazar (1990). Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. Doubleday. p. 345-346.). Later, the same author says, "It appears that the Israelite settlers in the hill country lacked their own pottery-making tradition, and that initially they obtained the most necessary pottery vessels from their Canaanite neighbors. When they did begin producing pottery, they manufactured a limited repertoire of forms based on Canaanite prototypes, without adopting the Canaanite decoration" (Mazar, p. 348) So, if we want to use the pottery evidence for the indigenous origin of Israel, we need to present both sides of the story, and it would be good to mention the collared-rim pithoi as well, they seem to be significant.

Jericho: Speaking about Canaanite cities c. 1400 BC, the article says, "many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time." However, what the digs in the 1930s actually found were a lack of fortifications, and there was in fact evidence of a settlement in Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, c. 1500-1200 BC. It could be that preexisting Middle Bronze fortification were being used in Jericho at the time, and so, "In the case of Jericho, the archaeological data cannot serve as decisive evidence to deny a historical nucleus in the Book of Joshua concerning the conquest of this city"( Mazar, p. 331). The author here is talking about Joshua, not Exodus, but it still applies because the question of the indigenous origins of Israel goes beyond the Exodus.

Canaanite origins: The article says that all theories, "agree on Israel's Canaanite origins." However, the source provided for this, Shaw 2002 p. 313, mentions the theory that Israel was descended from the Shasu, who unless I am mistaken were not Canaanite. In addition, Mazar says that "the nature of the settlers' culture as a whole differed to a large extent from that of the Canaanites,"(Mazar, p. 354) so the indigenous origins of Israel are not quote so indubitable as the article claims.

Additional viewpoint: In the Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, writes "Possible their departure, or exodus, was also phased over a period, though of the event in some form there can be no doubt; the recollection was deeply engraven in the nation's consciousness...and liturgies" (page 126 in my edition from 1996, Google Books has a different version). This gradualist viewpoint should be mentioned in the article.

Aside from those specific things, I would like to see more on the Islamic interpretation of the Exodus, as mentioned by Izak, and it would also be nice to have more on the significance of the Merneptah stele, the Hyksos invasion theories, and the evidence for Israel's Canaanite origins. There seems to be lots of room for expansion in the "Summary" and "Cultural signficance" sections as well.

Let's try to figure out exactly what our differences are so that we can have a clearly defined RfC as suggested by Guerillero. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cerebellum, if editors as rational, cool-headed and well-read as you are involved, there won't be any need for a RfC :) PiCo (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words PiCo :). Would it help if we created Talk:The Exodus/Draft as a sandbox for us to try out changes and build consensus? We could build the article there and move it to mainspace when ready. --Cerebellum (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparing Jan 1 status quo to today's padlock

comparison - I just place this here so readers can see what the last couple of days of edit warring has removed from the lead. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  • In ictu: There is no "edit warring" stop making things up just because a few editors are willing to take the time out and edit an article that's not according to your own POV does not translate into "edit warring"! (As you can see all of the long time Judaic editors have left in disgust over the years, nothing to be proud of.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
You have a different view of what edit-warring is. We were having a discussion about how to phrase the lead, what do say about the archaeological evidence, etc. You ignored that discussion and went in and gutted the lead so that it is in no way a summary of the article. Quark helped you even though he was part of that discussion. Dougweller (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
There should be RFC about this. That's only way to deal with IZAK POV pushing.--В и к и T 16:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
IZAK, could you please try and refrain from making personal attacks on other editors. There was no call for "stop making things up" simply because someone describes the activity which led an admin to padlock the article as edit warring. It was a textbook case of edit warring, hence the admin padlock? You may also wish to consider whether (1) this kind of language; meaning mode, exclamations!!, SHOUTING, and (2) lack of reference to WP guidelines are helpful to improving article, or any other article on WP. Therefore, please, if you have a case to make for a set of edits then please try to do so in accord with WP:RS, and particularly, again, note WP:PSTS. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi: So far I have not "pushed" anything and not added to this article! Everyone is so touchy as if their candy is going to be taken away so they jump to ask for RFC this and ANI that instead of facing up to the problems here. I have called for greater input from points of view other than the secular, otherwise as this article reads right now it should be renamed Exodus denial by the editors under the sway of the bible critics. Any fool can see that this The Exodus article has lost it's way and now reads like an article that should rightly be called Exodus denial (see Holocaust denial as an example of how this works -- here are some links to the way "Exodus denial" and Holocaust denial" are linked up: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]) as if it's sole real aim is to demolish the original ideas and events and replace them with cockamamie prejudiced and jaundiced anti-religious "theories" (at best) and outright canards and Quackery cloaked in academic jargon that's being cooked up as we sit here. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Izaak, you've pushed your version of the lead, the sort of version you seem to be pushing for at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal where I've commentd on it. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, and it no longer is. Now you are linking to fascist websites suggesting that anyone who denies the Exodus took place is no different from a holocaust denier. And you introduced a new section and someone I don't know named William Danver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug: thanks for responding. First of all who arranged to have this article "padlocked" so quickly? It seems that admins are using connections to get things done their way especially when it does not suit their own POVs the way things may unfold. Let's level the playing field ok? Secondly, we are all free free to express various views and from that lively debate comes consensus. To impose just one rule of law using WP policies is neither fair nor helpful Just let the debate unfold and see where it goes. To respond to your points 1 If the article is full of holes then the way you set it up the lead will be full of holes. The lead should introduce the topic first and its origins and not much more when it's a 3,300+ year old topic. 2 Readers need to be aware that there is such a thing out there in the world known as Exodus denial and with just a few quick Google searches I was able to find a couple of examples, some are antisemitic and some written by rabbi, but they prove that "Exodus denial" is as much a phenomenon as Holocaust denial is. It would be a lot more intellectually honest if all the heavy-handed pseudo-scholarship stuff in this article that LOUDLY proclaims DISPROOFS and outright denials of the Exodus were now transferred into a more aptly titled Exodus denial article where it belongs. 3 As for Willian Danver, he was in the article already, I did not make it up, I never heard of him either, but if it was in the article so prominently I gave him his own sub-section rather than outright deleting him which probably should be done, but not for now, it needs more input. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I'm discussing this with someone who is willing to use a Fascist website to link the Exodus and the Holocaust, but I will say that the Admin who protected the article protected it because of edit warring. He protected it at the WP:WRONG VERSION, yours and Quark's because Quark was the last to edit it when it was protected, which was what he should have done even though I'm unhappy about the mess it's in now. As for the lead, I realise that you are trying to get a religious exemption from WP:LEAD but the lead is supposed to summarise the main points of the article and if it leaves out anything significant it fails NPOV. Change the article before you change the lead. 'Danver' was a mistake, you took a section about William G. Dever (not a minimalistic source) but gave it a section heading highlighting a William Denver. If you've never heard of Dever then you aren't familiar with the archaeological writing on the subject. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
IZAK, you're obviously a very religious person, but you need to realise that this is not a religious article - that is, it's not about belief and faith, and it's about a specific bible story. We have to write about it using scholars who have studied it, not as an example of what you believe. "Denial" doesn't enter into it. Also, you are edit warring - just listen to the emotional tone of your remarks here - but your very subjective approach makes it impossible for you to recognise this. PiCo (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course this is a religious article, and no one is immune from religious biases. You need to realize that everyone is biased, and you elevated the bias of one scholar (Dever) to the status of "consensus". You are totally incapable of realizing this. As long as you continue to confuse your own biases with consensus, this dispute will continue. Your very subjective approach makes it impossible for you to recognise this.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Históricamente, no podemos hablar más de un periodo de los Patriarcas, del Éxodo de los israelitas de Egipto, de la con quista de Canaán, de un periodo de los Jueces en Palestina, ni de una Monarquía Unida dominando desde el Éufrates hasta el Arco de Egipto.31 Incluso la historicidad del Exilio de los israelitas de Palestina hacia Babilonia como un evento único ha sido puesta en seria duda recientemente.32

31 Cf. Th. L. Thompson, Early History of the Israelite People: From the Written and Archaeological Sources, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East, 4, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1992, pp. 10-116, 146-158, 215-300, 401412; N. P. Lemche, "Early Israel Revisited", Currents in Research: Biblical Studies, vol. 4, 1996, pp. 9-34, y The Israelites in History and Tradition, Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville, wjk, 1998, pp. 35 85; I. Finkelstein y N. A. Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision on Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Nueva York, Free Press, 2001, pp. 27-96, 123-145. Vease tambien Liverani, Oltre la Bibbia. Storia antica di Israele, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003, y Recenti tendenze nella ricostruzione della storia antica d'Israele, Roma, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2005.

32 L. L. Grabbe (ed.), Leading Captivity Captive: "The Exile" as History and Ideology, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament - Supplement Series, 278/European Seminar in Historical Methodology, 2, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1998.

— Emanuel Pfoh, UNA DECONSTRUCCIÓN DEL PASADO DE ISRAEL EN EL ANTIGUO ORIENTE: HACIA UNA NUEVA HISTORIA DE LA ANTIGUA PALESTINA, Estudios de Asia y África, Vol. 45, No. 3 (143) (SEPTIEMBRE-DICIEMBRE, 2010), pp.669-697, Published by: El Colegio De Mexico, Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25822403
Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
The URL to Grabbe's text is [20] (I have removed it from {{quote}} since it broke the template). Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Exodus/Archive_6&oldid=1251317304"