Talk:Stations of the Exodus

Work On The Table

I've reverted a number of place-names to their more common English spellings, since 1) these spelling are more common, 2) the existing sub-articles are spelled that way, and 3) Sephardic pronunciation was probably the original anyway. Many thanks to whoever completed the references and place-names for the table, nonetheless. I suspect most Jewish readers will be pleased with the progress of scholarship in the Wikipedia on this subject, even so.

I've added "- -" to all the cells of the table that do not have information as yet, since otherwise only half the table would display. If a place is investigated, and its location is found to be uncertain, it should be given a "?" instead, at that time. --ThaThinker 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats not very helpful in identifying their locations. The names provide huge amounts of information when read in context in the languages that named them. Unless you think English was the original language of the Exodus and best preserves ancient Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician etc; it makes no sense to use English names rather than ancient Egyptian, Greek, Phoenician Rktect 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Intended additions

There are two wrinkles in the story that I plan to add, as I get time. First, it seems that part of the itenerary recap given in Nu. when it is recapped repeats part of the journey, perhaps from another source, as per the Documentary Hypothesis. Second, the itenerary recap seems to have the Israelites going back through Edom, whereas the narrative text is quite explicit that they went around it. --ThaThinker 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The first six stations of the Exodus are in Egypt near Thebes, Karnak, and the wadi Ham ma3t leading to Thebes Red Sea Port of Elim. The seventh is the Red Sea, the ninth through 13th are around Elat at the head of the gulf of Aqaba, the next couple of Dozen follow the borders of Edom North edging the dsrt of Sn, thence east toward Moab and South to Petra. There are several at Petra including a mention of the cleft in the cleft of the rock, and then back to Kadesh Barnea before heading back north to Dibon in Moab.

The information on the stations listed in the references (book and page) refer to the books in the Syllabus. This was cross referenced but has been vandalized by some POV editors who apparently have no interest in ancient languages or history, but rather think the Bible was written in Hebrew. In Particular Rivers in the Desert by Nelson Glueck walks the route well by well back in the forties before the whole region was turned into a tourist trap.

• 2. Nelson GlueckRivers in the Desert. HUC. 1959.Discusses The evidence for the Exodus in the Negev pp,15,41,63,95,102,106,118,119,122,123,138,143,150,151,162,167,170,171,172,186,187,194,243,246,250,258,276

Another good reference is McNeil and Sedlars discussion of the Ancient Near East (ANE)

• 3. William H McNeil and Jean W Sedlar, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1962. Among other things this discusses the evidence for Habiru in Canaan

The Epic of Gilgamesh introduces some connections between Mesopotamia, Lebanon and Egypt which tie into and reinforce the antiquity of Elat as a major trade center. In particular we can look to Sumerian as providing many of the determinatives for place.

• 4. Andrew George, The Epic of Gillgamesh. Penguin. 2000. ISBN No14-044721-0. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help) Includes toponyms for Canaan

• 5. James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East. OUP. 1968.

• 6. Shaika Haya Ali Al Khalifa and Michael Rice, Bahrain through the Ages. KPI. 1986. ISBN 071030112-x. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)Nice article by Zahrins on the Martu and other information such as the Mari letters.

• 7. Dr. Muhammed Abdul Nayeem, Prehistory and Protohistory of the Arabian Peninsula. Hyderabad. 1990. Discusses The archaeological sites in the Arabia penninsula and especially the sites around Timna.

• 8. Michael RoafCultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. Equinox. 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2218-6. discusses all the cultures of the Ancient near East IN SOME DETAIL.

• 9. Nicholas Awde and Putros SamanoThe Arabic Alphabet. Billing & Sons Ltd. 1986. ISBN 0863560350.

• 10. Gerard HermThe Phoenicians. William Morrow^ Co. Inc. 1975. ISBN 0-688-02908-6.Ezion Geber and other Phoenician trading ports listed on the stations list. pp 33,84-106 passim, 123,125,126,145,149,150,154

Totally disputed

This article is a joke. It has obviously been dragged away from anything like a sound documentary and archaeological treatment into a POV-pushing screed. "Ramesses" is Thebes? Nonsense. Pi-rameses in Lower Egypt is the nearly universal consensus. The only reason one might select Thebes -- which had various names in Egyptian, but never Ramesses or anything like it -- is because it accords with someone's pet theory. Citing a deluge of references, some of obviously little to no relevance, doesn't help. For all intents and purposes, this article is completely unreferenced. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the page to how it was on June 7. The current version is significantly worse than that version. Although it was not sourced, it discussed the relevant documentary hypothesis issues and did not present conjectures as fact. Feel free, of course, to re-add details from the previous version. Please remember to mark conjectures as such. --Eliyak T·C 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry- I failed to notice that the documentary hypothesis section had simply been moved to below the list. I stand by the revert, however. --Eliyak T·C 03:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Total agreement with Csernica. The article does not even get the biblical narrative straight, let alone being consistent with the generally used interpretation (in all its variations, of course). Cush (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Studies of the Stations of the Exodus

The stations of the Exodus have been studied for centuries. Many 19th century archaeologists made speculative claims based on a combination of religious belief and assumption which have gradually been disproven by more recent work. Thats the reason for listing footnotes and references.

False assumption No. 1. The People of the Exodus were Hebrews and spoke Hebrew. At the time the story claims the People of the Exodus left Egypt there were no Hebrews and Hebrew didn't exist as a language.

False assumption No. 2. The story refers to people crossing the Yam Suph or Reed Sea. Actually the phrase originally used was Red Sea which comes from the Greek term Erythrian Sea. It would be good if people thought things through or had some basic familiarity with the languages involved. The language of the Exodus would have been Egyptian because according to the story the people involved had lived in Egypt for close to half a millenia

False ssumption No. 3. The wanderings in the desert take place in Sinai. The identification of the stations places them in three sets. Egypt, the stations related to crossing the Red Sea from Elim to Elat. The circumnavigation of Edom. Starting at Elat they go north to the mediterranian, then east to Moab, then south to Petra and return to Elat. The evidence for this is cited in the stations with references and footnotes.

False assumption No. 4 The capital of Egypt is in the Delta. The capital of Egypt at the time in question is at Thebes.

There are a long list of further false assumptions addressed in the stations list. It would be good if people discussed some of the things they don't understand on the discussion page before deleting the references and footnotes again Rktect 00:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of an article talk page is the content of the article, not to present editors' personal views on or discuss the underlying subject. See the talk page guidelines. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What does the list of "false assumptions" mean? Especially False assumption No. 4 The capital of Egypt is in the Delta. The capital of Egypt at the time in question is at Thebes. What does this mean? What is the time in question? Cush (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring old version

I've just restored an old version of this article. I believe that Rktect (talk · contribs) has sumbitted original research to a number of articles, removed content and failed to work with other editors. The so-called 'references' look more like a reading list and do not reference the text. I would like full discussion on this issue here before this user's content is inserted back into the article. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

But now, some of the links do not work anymore. There is no article for Pi-Ramesse but only for Avaris (Pi-Ramesse redirects there), and there is no article for Tel Dar'ala. The link to Sukkot is "Sukkot#Sukkot_as_a_place". Cush (talk) 07:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems the list has been copied from here: stations-of-children-of-israel.html Cush (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for sorting out those links. The entire article is problematical. Rktect's approach, replacing articles with own composition has not helped sort them out at all. The earlier recensions of the article are more measured, comparing biblical text rather than trying to prove a grand theory about these wanderings. It looks like a number of users have added their little theories over time: perhaps it needs to be pruned down to simple definition. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that this article be merged into the Exodus article. Otherwise the controversies over the actual route of the exodus should be mentioned, and surely all references to the Ron Wyatt BS should be removed or marked as esoteric fringe (i.e. placing the crossing of Yam Suf in the Gulf of Aqaba). Cush (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The simplest approach to understanding the list of stations is to recognize that they are located by metes and bounds as in describing a property's boundary lines. Indeed the Sons of Israel begin at as point, travel in a direction a given distance to another point consistently throughout the story. Each is generally physically adjacent within a days march or sail, to the next as if walking the bounds. The reason I put the maps in was to show where each is located relative to the others.

Numbers 34 Boundaries of Canaan

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Command the Israelites and say to them: 'When you enter Canaan, the land that will be allotted to you as an inheritance will have these boundaries: 
3 " 'Your southern side will include some of the Desert of Zin along the border of Edom. On the east, your southern boundary will start from the end of the Salt Sea, [a] 4 cross south of Scorpion [b] Pass, continue on to Zin and go south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it will go to Hazar Addar and over to Azmon, 5 where it will turn, join the Wadi of Egypt and end at the Sea. 

The stations list walks the bounds along this border rather than wandering in the desert.

Those which say they are at a place should be located at that place. Before crossing the Red Sea the stations are in Egypt. After crossing the Red Sea they are not in Sinai but in and around Elat at the head of the Gulf of Aqaba.

1The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. Since Egypt borders Sinai by land it doesn't take a month and a half.

The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, ... They camped at Rephidim

The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua, "Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands."

Jethro, Moses' father-in-law, together with Moses' sons and wife, came to him in the desert, where he was camped near the mountain of God.(Mt Horab)

This has nothing to do with Ron Wyatt, its just what the story tells you. Mt Horab is located on the border of Midian because that is where Moses tends Jethros flocks. Its located on the border of Rephidim because that is where Moses stands to direct the battle.

If we are going to attempt to make the stations match up to a conjecture about their name in a language which doesn't exist at the time in question why not use Greek rather than Hebrew so we can also match it up to histories of the places in question as named in the periplus of the Erythrian Sea?

The Red or Erythrian Sea and not the Yam Suf is the principle trading route between Elim and Elat. Thats well documented from the 12th dynasty onward in "The Tale of the Shipwrecked Sailor" and other Egyptian literature. Thebes was the capital of Egypt during the time in question and Hatshepset built a Red Sea fleet precisely to bring the goods necessary for the mummifications at Karnak to Thebes Red Sea Port, modern Quasir, ancient Elim.

The trade consisted of bitumen from the Dead Sea copper from Elat, Juniper berries and Linen from Byblos, Frankincense from Yemen and Myhr from Ophir in exchange for gold from Nubia.

Those are the facts and the reason for the correction; your religions POV notwithstanding.

69.39.100.2 (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been told about no original research, but continue in it. The above rant was in no way a reasoned, referenced account which is accepted norm for encyclopaedic writing. You are opposed because you break the guidelines, so stop thinking it's a conspiracy. Repeated removal of content for the insertion of your text will lead to your accounts being blocked. That is not a threat, just procedure for disruptive editors who push their own research. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not original research Garzo. There is nothing wrong with including sources of information other than your religion to give context to a Bible story which mentions a number of real places.

The story itself is the principle source. It says what it says in direct contradiction to what the article says in its present state. I'm really curious why you are afraid to deal with the facts as outlined here.

Far from being a rant I took a list of places and located them according to historical references to them and the internal references given in the story.

Your threats come from a desire to eradicate a challenge to your POV not reason or a desire to be encyclopedic. How about you give us a reason why you consider historical references to the subject matter such as "the Periplus of the Erythrian Sea" OR. 69.39.100.2 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Taking a list of places and locating them according to historical references is WP:OR and as such should not be in Wikipedia. Doug Weller (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The entire list is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and should not be in Wikipedia ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Alternative unreferenced version

Is this some sort of joke? This 'alternative unreferenced version' is just a copy of the actual version without the table.

As for references, Z. Sitchin's books have huge lists of references, most of which is good, solid, stuff, he just doesn't use it in his books. The reference section of this article just makes it look good, it isn't useful in verifying the article. The article needs inline citations. I am considering removing all the location bits shortly if they aren't given citations. dougweller (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Route and Navbox on some station articles

If there was an Exodus, we don't know the exact route, right? So why are there navboxes on some articles taking you from one station to the next? dougweller (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't we know the exact route? I mean, more or less, we do. Most of the stations have been identified a long time ago. Only certain religious groups offer alternative interpretations for whatever purposes. Or folks like Rktect who want their "own" Exodus. But after all, the Sinai peninsula is not that big. What I find strange is that there are articles for the stations at all. Isn't the stations list sufficient?? Cush (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought we did, then saw [1] p. 248. But I shouldn't have said 'route', we don't know that for sure (northern, southern, middle, aren't these still being argued)?[2]. Of course I don't think there ever was a real route/Exodus, but that's a different issue. Some of the stations are more notable then others. dougweller (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But the route is given in the bible by naming its stations. What's uncertain is the location of some of the stations, and thus the identification with modern sites. On, and I do think that there was a real Exodus under king Dudimose as recorded by ancient historians. Just without any magic from the biblical deity. Cush (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This article must be deleted.

The academic consensus is that the Exodus never happened. The list of stations of the travel route of a fictional group of ancient people is of no encyclopedic use to anybody, especially since the actual geographic locations of the individual stations are heavily contested. The history of this article is its use as the dumping ground for fringe interpretations put forward by pseudoscientists and religionists. The article is assembled via WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and provides information not based in history or archaeology. An article entirely based on religious writings, yet presenting its subject in an in-universe style, is unencyclopedic. It must go. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Do a WP:Afd then. But it will be a genuine miracle if it succeeds. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Modern locations

I think the "modern locations" column of the table ought to be removed. Not just because it's currently unsourced, but because I don't think it could ever be informative or useful. There are numerous conflicting theories about each of these locations; this isn't the sort of information that can be summarised in a sentence. For example, Kadesh (biblical) has five paragraphs of discussion about possible locations, whereas the table in this article just says "Probably Ain el Qadeis", which is extremely misleading. I think it's better to present only uncontroversial information in the table, and confine the theories on proposed locations to the linked articles. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

There are some interesting articles on this: e.g. Robinson, George L. “The Route of the Exodus from Egypt.” The Biblical World 18, no. 6 (1901): 410–23. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137178. I think the first systematic attempt was Biblical Researches in Palestine.

What we have now is not helpful at all, but there is enough scholarly research out there to give some information on what has been formally conjectured. Of course, conjecture is wide (per Mount Sinai (Bible), noone can even agree whether the key moment would have taken place), but there are often leading traditions to be mentioned. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that a prose-format discussion on the history of the various proposed routes would be interesting, but I don't think it's appropriate to try and condense this information into a table. If it were possible to create a short, one-line summary of the modern scholarly consensus regarding each location, then yes, but I don't believe this is possible, since even the modern sources contradict one another. I think it will always be misleading to present any theorised location as an isolated information snippet, outside the context of a wider discussion on the subject. Dan from A.P. (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What do you think of the table in Sea_Peoples#History_of_the_concept. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a subject I know much about, but I'd probably make the same objection to the "other theories" column in that table. It looks like a magnet for everyone to add their favourite theories, from a mixture of good and bad sources, and doesn't seem to accurately represent modern scholarship (compare, for instance, the Tjeker article with the entry for "Tjeker" in the table). However – to save us from discussing hypotheticals, I'm going to try and improve our Exodus table before continuing this discussion. Then at least we can see what a well-sourced version of this table would look like. Dan from A.P. (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my best with it. I was planning on listing all the main theories for each place, but generally there seems to be one leading theory and lots of other theories that don't have much support, so it wouldn't be appropriate to give these equal weight with the main one. The trouble now is, I feel like readers will get the impression (despite my footnote in the header) that the proposed locations are much more certain and agreed on than they really are. So I still think this column would be better off gone completely, but if no-one else agrees, I won't push it. At least it's better than it was. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it should go, I agree with User:DanFromAnotherPlace. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay then, it's not just me. Onceinawhile, do you see my point about the table, even when it's sourced? Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@DanFromAnotherPlace and Doug Weller: I am in two minds. Also pinging Arminden. Over my years editing articles relating to places in Israel-Palestine, I have tried to tidy up dozens of speculative nonsense. My view is that the majority of modern locations identified as biblical locations are entirely speculative. Many of them were first codified in Robinson’s Biblical Researches in Palestine (and Sinai) and were based primarily on the modern names sounding similar to the Biblical name, which is extremely weak evidence. A good deal of this is summarized at List of modern names for biblical place names.

So are the identifications in this article on the weaker end of the spectrum? Maybe. But even so I do think it’s appropriate for us to record the research that has been done on the topic.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm answering in general. Some are stronger/weaker than other. Josephus and Eusebius are usually very helpful, if they both offer arguments for the same location, then this pushes the proof back by 1700-2000 years. Like always, the older a biblical episode, the less likely it is that it has any historical truth to it, but this doesn't mean that the authors of the respective books didn't know their geography. Even the most dogged minimalists allow for an authorship 2300-2500 years old, which is good enough for me to call a place "biblical" if the name coincides with the location over this entire time span. I tend to hope that I'm not in the naive camp in this regard. I find your approach as too strongly influenced by political aversion against those who use the Bible as a political tool. There are lots of academics who are very skeptical and secular by nature, but who still don't have much of an issue with many, if not most of the identifications. Again, this is an arid region, the ideal combination of water + transport hub (important road crossing, bay for a port, mountain pass) + defendable height + agriculture for sustenance is so hard to find, that habitation tends to return to more or less the same location over and over again, after every destruction. Names have often survived over millennia, that's a fact, not an "extremely weak evidence" - think of Jericho, Jaffa, Akko/Akka (I'm intentionally leaving out Jerusalem), although such settlements often have been abandoned for long periods of time or had to move slightly, and more than once. 1500-2000 years of name preservation are commonplace (think Kfar Nachum - Tell Hum for instance), and longer time spans are also common. Don't think in European (moderate climate) or political terms, that will help you to better understand the realities of the region. That said, there are dozens of cases of wishful thinking, like Y. Garfinkel identifying Khirbet Qeiyafa with biblical Sha'arayim ("two gates") because it had two gates. The Exodus is not history, but again, those who wrote the story knew the area and they had specific places in mind. Whether they did build upon memories of groups or tribes from the past who joined the confederation coming from the south is irrelevant to most of those who don't take the Bible literally: it still would be great to know what stations the authors had in mind some 2.5 millennia ago, if not more. If nothing else, this would inform about the desert routes in their time. I do doubt that can be achieved. Among other reasons, the Israelites often used the same toponyms over and over again, the same as Arabs did and do, with lots of "crooked streams", "red inns" and alike. The Gihon River of Eden wasn't meant to be the same as the Gihon Spring of Jerusalem, they were just both "gushing". Jews even took biblical names with them to Europe (Ashkenas, Sepharad). But if name, location, and archaeology coincide, I have no problem to accept an identification. There are a few rare cases where they even found inscriptions (Gezer, Ekron), but that's rare. My two pennies' worth. Arminden (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were sources discussing the possible composition and sources for the stations, but they may not exist. Doug Weller talk 15:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Previously I replied to Onceinawhile's message, only now I saw where this has started (DanFromAnotherPlace's request that the "modern location" column be removed). To that I would have agreed, since it's oversimplifying things, but the column heading has been changed since to "Possible location", and that's OK with me, in conjunction with sources. A comment re. different theories can be informative on the level I mentioned (mirrors realities at the time the Exodus narrative was written, with probable echoes of older legends/traditions); only stating certainties is plain wrong. Some "stations" might have been identified with some degree of certainty as to where they were thought to be at different times (LXX, Josephus, Eusebius, Talmud P or B, I can imagine), which has its own value. Having more than one modern location, some with the source between brackets (like "Josephus + Peutinger Map"; making it up now), might be able to "wake up" the lazier ones among the users to the fact that these are ancient narratives and interpretations, not modern scientific facts, and to offer a perspective on how the "identification" has been performed. Arminden (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I like this as a solution / ambition. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

It should be done by those who care more about the topic. Right now, the incriminated column only has 7 "possible locations" for 42 stations plus a general area for an 8th one, so hardly a topic worth so much talk-page discussion. I'm not aware of the identification of the final point, (a site near) Mt Nebo, being contested. The starting point, Raamses/Ramesses, can be well imagined to be Pi-Rameses; considering that we're dealing with a 'tradition' that's good enough and close to consensual. Large oases in the general area are also good candidates, that's how Tell el-Qudeirat comes in. I'm surprised Jebel [Nebi] Haroun near Petra and Jebel Madara don't show up next to Mount Hor, as often-quoted identifications. I've fixed in the spirit of what's been said here one of the 7, Wadi Gharandel (Sinai), "at the source" (Wiki art.). Arminden (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify that sentence in the Pi-Ramesses article. What it means is that people used to take the Ramesses reference as proof that the Exodus story preserved an ancient tradition, because Pi-Ramesses was thought to have had a different name in the 10th century, but this isn't true. This discussion only demonstrates how complex this all is, which is why I don't think our readers are well served by the oversimplified information in the table. Eventually, perhaps, someone might write a sourced prose section summarising the history of the debate, which would be great; until such time, I think we should simply explain (as the article already does) that locating the stations is difficult, and leave it at that. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine with me. One can still click on the station name and read about all the different speculations. Here we could have summaries, like "if starting point is A and the century is N, then one possible sequence would be A-B-... according to X." But far too complex - the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia entry on Mt Hor (now under "Sinai, Mount" at online version) is very well written and gives you a sense on how these theories function and interact. Almost impossible to do it here as well after first updating to what's known today, unless there's another similarly concise entry somewhere one can paraphrase. But then offering a link would do. Arminden (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Other issues - first sentence, desert, "lit."

I think the first sentence should read "According to Numbers 33, the Stations of the Exodus are the 42 locations visited by the Israelites following their exodus from Egypt, with variations in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy."

Shouldn't we use "literally" instead of "Lit."? Doug Weller talk 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Re: your first suggestion, I think it's better for the lead sentence to begin with the title of the article. If the idea is to make it sound less like historical fact, perhaps it could be amended to "supposedly visited". I've got no objection to "literally" instead of "lit". Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

No archaeological migration proof possible?

I'm not at all sure of "Additionally, if an Exodus truly occurred historically in some analogous or similar manner to that which is described in the Bible, the material culture of a group of newly freed slaves wandering in a vast desert would be admittedly scant[9] and likely would not have survived nearly as long as, say, a sedentary village community or even city in a desert region." Insufficiently sourced and I have read that tracks that old have been clearly seen in other areas of the desert, ie that the sentence makes too strong a case for "we shouldn't expect any evidence." After all, The Exodus says "Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman say that archaeology has not found any evidence for even a small band of wandering Israelites living in the Sinai: "The conclusion – that Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable [...] repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence." Instead, modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlement, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, with no suggestion that a group of foreigners from Egypt comprised early Israel." Doug Weller talk 15:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

References

I'd agree with removing that sentence about the archeological evidence. No need for speculative comments there, just a statement that no material evidence has yet been uncovered. Dan from A.P. (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Doug, sorry, but I don't agree with your last statement. The 12th-c. material culture from the hill country is distinctly different from the previous Canaanite one. There is no way to connect "pots and peoples", which leaves a lot of space to speculations. Most agree on a mix of tribes and social strata, from which elements that came from the Sinai and/or the Nile Delta cannot be excluded, not any more than any other group & the respective speculative theory. Mind for instance how archaeological findings from Tel Dan, in conjunction with biblical reference to the tribe of Dan taking to their ships, gave rise to a very recent theory that that tribe was at least in part founded by Greek mercenaries employed by the Egyptians in Canaan. So no way to have any kind of certainty about who might have been part of the tribes who formed the "early Israelites". Arminden (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"...the material culture of a group of newly freed slaves wandering in a vast desert would be admittedly scant and likely would not have survived nearly as long as, say, a sedentary village community or even city in a desert region. As such, identifying the stations of the Exodus are almost entirely conjectural."

There are similarly strong statements, also AGAINST the historicity of the Exodus, but based on the exactly opposite assertion, that multitudes of several 100,000 people, as stated by the Bible, WOULD have left massive traces, archaeologically recognisable even after a good 3 millennia. This needs also to be mentioned, with sources. There is of course a quasi-consensus that if there had indeed been any historical memory of any tribe coming from the Nile Delta or the peninsula to Canaan, those people must have been far less numerous than the 600,000 stated by the Bible. Apart from that, desert routes are considerably more stable than stated here in the article, as proven by numerous findings, and any group, however large or small, would have to stick to them if they wished to come out alive, water being the first concern, and avoiding serious obstacles the second (migration happens with families and herds, not just with sportive youths). Arminden (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I failed to make it clear I disagree with that quote. I believe that there are still traces of nomads moving around that old, and even with much smaller numbers there should be be evidence. I'm on my iPad, moving stuff is hard, feel free to do it. Doug Weller talk 20:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I saw it as two statements: a) "we shouldn't expect any evidence", with which you disagree, and b) "nothing was found after lots of searching", quoting Finkelstein and Silberman, to which I thought you agree. I believe both aren't final. Uzi Avner (see here for instance) has been doing amazing work about early desert cults/religions and has proven that there is far more to be found in the region's deserts. I'm not expecting any great revelations on a large-scale Exodus, but more findings on connections to Egypt, and on migrations and nomadic life in the fringe and desert areas throughout history. Arminden (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"in conjunction with biblical reference to the tribe of Dan taking to their ships, gave rise to a very recent theory that that tribe was at least in part founded by Greek mercenaries employed by the Egyptians in Canaan." I am not certain this is a new theory. Plenty of sources have pointed at a linguistic similarity between the Danaans/Danaoi tribe of Greek sources (equated with the Achaeans), the Denyen tribe in Egyptian sources, and the Tribe of Dan in Hebrew sources. In addition, "Danu" was a Scythian term for river, and several rivers with similar names are thought to be connected to the Indo-European water goddess "Danu". Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Redirect proposal for minor stations

A lot of these stations have tiny stub articles which are unlikely to ever be substantially expanded. The most hopeless cases appear to be the following: Rissah, Kehelathah, Mount Shapher, Haradah, Makheloth, Tahath, Terah (Exodus), Mithcah, Hashmonah, Iye Abarim, Hazeroth, Red Sea – Exodus station, Alush, Rithmah.

I propose turning these articles into redirects to the "List of the Stations of the Exodus" section of this page. They provide no additional information beyond what already exists on this page, except that some of them give interpretations of the Hebrew names of the stations. This is information that could be included in the table, if good sources could be found; however, in the articles listed above, these interpretations are either unsourced or sourced only to the 19thC Easton's Bible Dictionary, so it wouldn't be appropriate to merge this information over here. Dan from A.P. (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Don't seem to be notable for anything else. Editor2020 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. The only potentially usable bit of information was in Rissah, which interpreted the name as meaning "dew", citing Geoffrey W. Bromiley (ed.), The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:K-P (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 1995 ISBN 978-0-8028-3784-4) p 197. Dan from A.P. (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

More stations

Following on from the above, I think these stations should also be turned into redirects: Etham, Dophkah, Rimmon Perez, Moseroth, Be'eroth Bene-Jaakan, Zalmonah, Punon, Oboth. These aren't quite as obviously hopeless as the last lot, but the same argument applies: they are unlikely to ever be expanded, and contain no meaningful information beyond what is present in this article. Some of them include speculation about locations, but these are poorly-sourced and unsuitable for merging. I'll carry through this proposal in a week or so if nobody objects. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I also redirected Jotbathah, Hor Haggidgad and Abronah on the same grounds as the above. Dan from A.P. (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)