Talk:Book of Exodus

Template:Vital article

Mosaic authorship

@IP from UK: the Mosaic authorship is dead in the water as far as the mainstream academia is concerned. It is extremely doubtful if people from 1450 BCE could be called Israelites. It is doubtful that Israelites from 1250 CE had their own alphabet, or that they were actually speaking something which is more or less ancient Hebrew. And monotheism such as in the Deuteronomy did not exist in David's and Solomon's time, let alone 1250 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus view

About Instead, they point out how modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlements, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, with no suggestion that a group of foreigners from Egypt comprised early Israel. It is rendered as Finkelstein and Silberman's view, while in fact it could be said that it is the consensus view of mainstream archaeologists. Even William G. Dever agrees, while Dever's POV is to combat whatever Finkelstein posits. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, a Yeshiva boy who became a Bible professor at Harvard University, "Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!" http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf https://courses.biblicalarchaeology.org/hebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Israelites did not build the pyramids" As far as I know, nobody has suggested that there were Israelites around in the 3rd millennium BCE. The best known pyramids in Egypt date to that period. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Using John J. Collins as a source for history

Is John J. Collins really an expert in history? On his Wikipedia page it appears he’s not a historian or an archeologist. I tried looking this guy up and couldn’t find any websites saying he’s an expert in history.

Not to mention I can’t find any indication that his book was written with the help of someone who is an expert in history.

Can’t we just replace him with a better source that is written by someone who actually has knowledge on history?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

John J Collins does not have to be an expert in history to summary the WP:RS/AC of scholars working on the Exodus.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The source only said there is a consensus it’s a myth. It didn’t say “there is a consensus that it does not describe historical events.” Or at least it doesn’t directly say that.

The definition of myth is merely a traditional story that explains things.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Merger

I may have missed this discussion in the past, but why do we have separate articles for The Exodus and Book of Exodus? The Exodus only exists in the Bible, not in real history, so what is actually the difference? Should we not merge them? Wdford (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

The Exodus narrative covers four books, not one: "namely Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy". Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Banner in "summary" section

There is currently a banner at the beginning of the "summary" section that says "This section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view." It seems to me that a section giving a summary of the Book of Exodus is not the right place for critical analysis. A "summary" is supposed to be just as the word implies, a shortened synopsis of the book itself. The place for critical analysis should be in other sections of the article, otherwise the section would be more than just a summary. If the section is to include analysis, then it should be titled something other than "summary". I would like to remove the banner, but I wanted to see what other editors think before doing so. Vontheri (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading the summary section a bit more closely, I will say that it does need some work and does contain some subtle editorializing that would likely not be obvious to someone who has not read Exodus. But that is an issue irrelevant to the banner and whether or not the section should contain critique and analysis.Vontheri (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I also agree, especially since we have another article on The Exodus which discusses the text. It is referenced in the hatnote. I also edited the first three paragraphs of the summary to hew more closely to the text.--agr (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the banner. Vontheri (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Revert

The Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Orthodox Jewish, and Evangelical scholars, who are the majority of modern scholars, generally regard it as true—not true: most Catholic scholars and many Eastern Orthodox scholars find it unhistorical (the way it is described in the Bible). Generally speaking, there is no pressure for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars to obey traditional church dogmas, rather than the academic consensus based upon evidence. For them there is the realm of faith, which is not based upon empirical evidence, and the realm of historical knowledge, which is based upon empirical evidence. Most of them aren't fideists, so they agree with the consensus from mainstream archaeology. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible scholars and archaeologists are sophisticated believers, who find that taking the Bible at face value is childish. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)