Talk:Moses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moses was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: January 4, 2007

Judaism Portal Moses is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Zealotry. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

	Egyptology Portal This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Egyptological subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Moses is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Moses fabrication? 2 Possible NPOV violation ? 3 Unitarian-Universalist views of Moses 4 Dating 5 Dates 6 Atenism 7 revert 8 Discussion of "Tribulation" section 9 History section 9.1 First paragraph 9.1.1 Fragmentary 10 rewording 11 Moses in History section. 12 NPOV 13 Mini RFC 14 Volcanic eruption 15 Removed factual 16 Meaning of "Moses" 17 How was it a change in content? 18 pov 19 Yahweh n Moses 20 Ethical Dilemma 21 Moses Race 22 Original Research, etc. 23 POV? 24 How did Moses know he was of the Israelites? 25 Name of Moses in Sanskrit. 26 Moving content to "the Exodus" page 27 Horns 28 GA nom on hold 29 vandalism 30 Spelling of Moshe 31 Crossing of the Red Sea 32 Feast Day? 33 "The founder of Judaism" and the "first Jew" 34 God tries to kill Moses

[edit] Moses fabrication?

There is 100% proof that Moses was a ridiculous fabrication. His birth was a lie, his acts were a pack of fairy tales and the suggestion that an Egyptian army perished in the Red Sea is beyond ridiculous, it's downright offensive to anyone with half a brain. Chris Thomas Australia

Thanks for your input. As he appears in the most read book in the world I think this article is notable enough for inclusion here. If you can provide your so-called "100% proof" I'd love to see it. 88.110.0.207 19:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It's disappointing that this article barely mentions the far greater likelihood that Moses is a mythical, rather than historical figure, akin to King Arthur in terms of historicity. It mentions the lack of corroborating evidence for his existence, then immediately explains it away with a dubious "oh, the Hyksos would have destroyed it". Contemporary archaeology certainly seems to show that there was no Exodus or sudden arrival of the Hebrews in Canaan, no conquest under Joshua and so on- without a real Exodus Moses fades into the realm of myth. The archaeology is pointing to everything up until Omri's foundation of Samaria being fabricated. Besides all else, there's not a trace of the millions of Israelites of the Exodus left in the desert sands- nada. Sure, religionists don't like to face up to such things. Nonetheless, this article should provide a more balanced point of view. It treats him almost exclusively as an historical figure, when the balance of scholarly evidence points in the opposite direction.

Just because you may not be Christian, we learn these facts as, well facts. and its not very nice to see people saying its not right and bad and its not true, because in my OPINION, it is (that moses was real)

Wiki writers have a habit of dismissing views contrary to their own by mentioning them and then immediately answering them, apparently "winning the argument" in the mind of the reader- as with the Hyksos mention here. It's bad practice.

More balance please. 82.71.30.178 01:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If Moses' life was a fairytale then the Ten Commandments and Jewish law is also a fabrication and man may now go out and committ any immoral and hellish act that he chooses with no fear or concern of judgement. Moses lived and the law of man was given through him. Tom 12/13/06

How do you draw a comparison between Moses being a possibly mythical figure and an endorsement of total anarchy? Just because Moses may not have lived doesn't mean that Jewish law is therefore a fabrication. You seem to think that without divine rules to guide us we should literally get away with murder. People who don't follow the Jewish law can still be moral people, they just refrain from doing that which harms others. It's that simple.

I'm not going to say he did or didn't exist but comparing someone with a decent ammount of mentions outside religion to king Arthur (first heard from in a oviously fictional account) seems rather unconvincing, now whereever he did all those feats is based on faith alone (there is no way any kind of arqueological evidence to either prove it or disprove it can be found in an habitat as harsh as a desert after so many thousands of years). -Dark Dragon Flame 01:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible NPOV violation ?

"God Himself buried him in an unknown grave (Deut. 34.)."

was added: - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Moses&diff=2791612&oldid=2780123

This sentence seems to violate NPOV.

There are several subheadings describing what various groups believe about Moses, and this accurately (right ?) describes the beliefs of one group, so I think that sentence is OK. -- DavidCary 05:32, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

 how many times did moses go up on the mount sanai to speak with God?
 kneelinginprayer2004@yahoo.com

In the Moses and History section, it says that Josephus and Philo who are not reliant on Jewish tradition mention Moses, but this is entirely inaccurate, as they do rely on the tradition, just with their own twists. There's no other reason to suggest that they relied on any neutral documentation of Moses. All evidence points to Jewish tradition and scriptures as the ultimate source of Moses, with variations stemming from that. Like modern Judaism, interpretation on the scriptures varies greatly. Chris Weimer 13:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. Manetho, when he wrote about a "renegade priest" who "taught the undesirables how to fight" was not necessarily writing about the Moses described in the Torah or the Qu'ran (Muslims in general freely admitting that the Moses of the Qu'ran is the Moses of the Torah). It is Josephus who made the connection, which in itself is a remarkable admission by a Jewish scholar that neither the account of Manetho nor the account finalised in the Mishnaic (written) version of the Torah were not completely accurate.

Interestingly enough, many of the arguments against the proposition, say for example, that Moses was the older brother of Akhenaten, are in fact self-defeating. The argument that -mose, the Coptic affix for "son of" or "begotten of", is not the name of the "Moshe" who either "delivered the Hebrews" out of slavery or who was "delivered out of Nile" ignores the possibility that all three interpretations are correct. If "Moses" was Prince Thoth-mose, he would have dropped the "Thoth" part as soon as he believed that "Thoth" did not exist. And although it is unlikely that a "daughter of Pharoah" would have named a Hebrew infant marked for death by her father with a Hebrew name, it is not inconceivable that Moses may have had an "Apiru" mother (e.g. Queen Tiy?), the variance of the Hebrew word "Habiru" and the Coptic "Apiru" being a typical example of a "dropped h" and a substitution of a p for a b.

The same is even more true for the word "Aton". Both the Hebrew "Adone" and the Coptic "Aton" may have had a common root - the Semitic "idn" root which indicates "father". A "father" is certainly how Akenaten saw God, and it is the insistence by many people (who should know better) that "Aten" means "sun-disk" instead of just the phonetic structure of the glyph that represented the single Deity portrayed as the sunlight that "gave life" - like a father, or the insistence that Adone means the same as El or Baal ("lord" or "master"), that ignores the obvious relationship with both Adone and Aton. The tranliteration of a d for t (or vice versa) and the fact that it is not "lord" but "The Lord" in the Bible, and not "giver of life" but "The Giver of Life" in the Hymn to the Aten.

[edit] Unitarian-Universalist views of Moses

Were Moses himself to write autobiographically, would he include the Unitarian Universalist and ethical dilemma commentaries? Such expression best fits a Unitarian Universalist entry in Wikipedia. A better secular source would be the more contemporary today "Antiquities of the Jews", Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.)--DanB 05:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find this strange as having attended Unitarian churches for perhaps a decade I recall no mention of Moses, or indeed of Jesus. That there is a general position I don't doubt, but as references to Moses play a vanishingly small role in the life of the church perhaps this article should not give UUs such a prominent role in the article. Fred Bauder 17:40, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Apparently the UU text remains... As my first wikipedia experience, I didn't want to remove something! But the ethical dilemna section mischaracterized traditional (as opposed to what the article terms liberal) views of the Torah and the Bible in general - I gave an expanded description of how a traditional Christian tends to view Moses and his writings, and the ethical dilemnas they pose, using a NPOV to describe the beliefs as characteristic of a traditional Christian point of view. --69.17.45.251 00:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also found the UU material incongrous; it would apply to all sacred writings and does not even mention Moses. I moved the UU quotes to the Unitarian Universalist page, and changed the "Ethical Dilemmas" section to refer to Liberal Christianity, which would certainly have the same "dilemma" (if you even consider it such). Note the Liberal Christianity page links to UU-ism. Corvus 05:53, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dating

Who claims dates as early as the 18th century?? AFAIK, even Jewish tradition doesn't place Moses earlier than the 15th century. Could we say 15th-13th in the intro?

If the bliblical account is correct, then the dating should be something like this: Forty years after the exodus we have the invasion of Caanan by Joshua. Then a few hundred years of the Israelite "judges" fighting the Caananites and the Phillistines (but note - NEVER the Egyptians). Then David takes Jerusalem around the 10th century BCE.

Now the non-biblical historical account is rather sparse, but there is evidence of the Israelites being in Caanan in the 12th century BCE, the Phillistines being in Gaza in the 14th century BCE, and the Jebusites being in Jerusalem in the 14th century BCE. Which puts the exodus sometime between the 14th century (when the exodus had to deviate from a direct exit to Caanan on account of the Phillistines being in the way, presumably in Gaza), and the 12th century (when the Israelites were numerous enough to be "defeated" as recorded on the "Israel stele").

Corresponding records of "Apiru" in Egypt date from between 15th century and 11th century BCE. If not all "Apiru" went on the exodus (or if some went back, as is suggested in the biblical account), then this again allows for a 14th century BCE exodus.

Corresponding events in Egypt: a 14th century pharoah who was a "religious heretic" who believed in only "one God", where this God had no name, only a title, where this title was very similiar to the title for God used by Jews when they recite the "Schma", where this God was adamant about one thing above all others - no "idolatry", and where this God demanded that bulls blood be used in sacrifices to him. And David's psalms to God 300 years later being so very much like the hymns to the Aten (Adonai).

Throw in the fact that Egyptian priests of Ra were circumcised at the age of 13, that Moses was supposed to be wearing "horns" like the Egyptian priests of Osirus when he came down from Mount Sinai, that the name of the god "Amon-Ra" means something like "invisible sun", and that Tutankamun said something along the lines of "the invisible sun is the most important aspect of God" when he changed his name, and you have clear evidence that there is some sort of connection between the biblical persecution of the Egyptian Hebrews and the religious purge that followed the reign of Tutankhamun. Which places the exodus at that time.

You're putting rather a little weight on weak evidence, such as words which sound similar and were definitely spoken within a few centuries of each other "obviously" sharing a common root, and the misconception that Moses is portrayed in the Bible as having had horns on his face; this is due to a mistranslation. I'm not denying the possibility that some of your claims may be correct, but you need to be a bit more careful when discussing what are still theories. Please see the main article for some alternative theories. Robin S 13:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

This article needs some dates in the intro to say about when did Moses live. I think it was around 1200 BC, but I can't remember. Just a suggestion

"The Torah contains the life story of Moses and his people until his death at the age of 120 years, according to some calculations in the year 2488, or 1272 BC/BCE. Consequently, "may you live to 120" has become a common blessing among Jews."

Is the first number "2488" supposed to be followed by BCE? You mean he could have lived in the interval of 1216 [2488-1272] years?

I think s/he means 2488 in the hebrew calendar, which translates to 1272 BCE?

--anon on 29 October 2005

Genesis 6:3 is probably a better foundation for the blessing: And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. Of couse, this has no real bearing on the subject at hand, but I thought you should know.

"And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died." Deuteronomy 34:7.--Patchouli 14:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atenism

Accoding to a Discovery Channel program, Moses was a full true son of Ramses, who followed Atenism, and killed his brother, the acting-Pharoah... does this theory hold any weight whatsoever?

• Maybe with couch potatoes...

The Atenism theory is covered in the article. It has a long history - dating back almost to the rediscovery of Amarna itself. It's not mainstream. The Ramses thing sounds like pure speculation. Paul B 12:48, 2 June 2005

How is Atenism a "couch potato" theory? And how is it not mainstream? Freud wrote a book about it--is Freud suddently considered "not mainstream"?

Freud has not been mainstream for quite a while now, even in psychology. As for his speculations on Egyptology and on Art History in his later writings, they were totally amateur. Paul B 11:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is a very well recieved theory. The important detail that appears to be missing in the programme, if the description above is accurate, is that the theory states that Moses was Akhenaten (inventer/introducer of Atenism). The one thing to note though is that it is not Ramses/Ramesses, but Amenhotep III (Akhenaten's father), in the theory, the biblical naming of Ramses as the pharaoh simply being down to the pharaoh at the time the bible was written down being named Ramses/Ramesses, as well as his predecessor, his predecessor, etc. for a few generations.

The relationship between the identities of Akenaten and Moses is highly controversial, and widely discussed, and there are many arguments both ways, from both sides of religious POV. Akenaten's father's high priest was Yuya, who many think was the biblical Joseph (of the technicolour coat), the name "Yuya" being, in such a case, a misreading of the extremely similar (in hieroglyphs) "Yusef". The connection between Moses and Akhenaten is one of the unsolved problems in Egyptology.

N.b. Moses is an egyptian not hebrew name, and means "born of X" where X is the name of a god, curiously missing from Moses' name. The name occurs in "Ramses/Rammesses" which is "Ra-Moses" meaning "born of Ra", "Tutmose" meaning "born of Thoth", "Ahmose" meaning "born of Amun", etc. ~~~~ 16:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I should explain that who we mean by "Moses" (English version via Greek; Heb. Bible Moishe) is "that person who led the Hebrew slaves away from Egypt and through the desert to Canaan." If that person was Akhenaten, or any other Pharoah, there's lots of explaining to do. Codex Sinaiticus 16:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Humm. The likely Egyptian origin of the name is discussed in the article, as is the Atenism theory. There are many variants, of which the claim that Moses was Akenaten himself is one of the least likely, for pretty obvious reasons (why would the all-powerful king of possibly the richest empire on earth wander off with a bunch of sheep-herders?). There are also huge differences between Atenism and the religion of the Torah, so any connection of the latter to Atenism is likely to be only a partial explanation, if indeed it is connected at all. Paul B 18:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The theory holds that he was expelled from Egypt by his army General under pressure from the Amon-Ra priesthood. Akenaten then took "his followers" who still believed in Atenism into the wilderness (some calim it was only to the north-east of the Delta, others to the desert of Sinai), and his name, since anyone was forbidden at the pain of death to mention, was changed by his followers to Moses, that is the Son, that is the True Son of Pharoah/God. The differnece between Atenism and the Torah are not a problem. Religions change and the Torah was written centuries after the events, and edited and changed many times since. As an example, just look at how Christianity is different from Judaism, even though it developed among the same people and is claimed to be based on and using the same sources. Yet, even the doctrines of these two religions are different. A. Khalil

This hardly counts as a "theory". Speculation would be a more accurate term, or even fantasy. There is zero evidence that Akhenaten was expelled from Egypt, unless you think this story of Osarseph counts as evidence. It is not derived from any evidence dating from the period. The differences between Atenism and the Torah are indeed a problem, though of course various solutions might be proposed. But again the central difficulty with any such solutions is that they are sheer speculation, with no actual evidence to support them. So what you have is speculation built on top of what was speculation in the first place. Paul B 22:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Not the least of the problems being that one of the Names of the Hebrew God happens to be "Amen", and Atenism was basically a reaction against Amen... Codex Sinaiticus 21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] revert

Any chance someone can revert this article to pre-64.113.110.11 times? He's made too many changes, I can't undo them all at once. unixslug 2:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of "Tribulation" section

This is in reference to a section on the section on the Tribulation that I removed. It can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moses&oldid=24282419#Moses_prophesies_concerning_the_Tribulation_involving_God.27s_covenant_people_in_the_End_times

First of all, including this passage is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Moses makes literally hundreds of pronouncements in the bible. This one is included not because it is especially informative for someone who wants to learn about Moses. In stead, it is included because it is a proselytizing passage. At least in its current form.

The above reason is grounds enough to remove the section. However, beyond this, the biblical passage is heavily edited to give a certain impression. Here is a different version of the same passage:

---

DEUTERONOMY CHAPTER 4 (JPS)

23 Take care, then, not to forget the covenant that the Lord yur God concluded with you, and not no make for yourselves a sculptured image in any likeness, against which the Lord your God has enjoined you. 24 For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, an impassioned God.

25 When you have begotten children and children's children and are long established in the land, should you ack wickedly and make for yourself a sculptured image in any likeness, causing the Lord your God displeasure and vexation, 26 I call heaven and earth this day to witness against you that you shall soon perish from the land that you are crossing the Jordan to posess; you shall not long endure in it, but shall be utterly wiped out. 27 The Lord wull scatter you among the peoples, and only a scant few of you shall be left among the nations to which the Lord will drive you. 28 There you will serve man-made gods of wood and stone, that cannot see or hear or eat or smell.

29 But if you search there for the Lord your God, and you will hind him, if only you seek him with all your heart and soul --30 when you are in distress because all these things have befallen you and, in the end, return to the Lord your God and obey Him. 31 For the Lord your God is a compassionate God: He will not fail you nor will He let you perish; He will not forget the covenant which He made on oath with your fathers.

---

You should notice two things.

One, the removed portions of the version that was put in the wiki entry all pertain to the prohibition on idolatry. This passage is not speaking to general sin, rather, it speaks to a very specific sin, namely, the third commandment.

Second, this version of the passage (a translation from the original Hebrew) does not use the terms "tribulation" or "latter days". The passage is not referring to the end of days. Rather, it is referring to repentance while still alive on this world.

So, in sum, I oppose the inclusion of this passage, both because I feel it is an inaccurate representation of the biblical text, and because even an accurate representation would have no place in a wiki entry on Moses.

[edit] History section

Anyone else find it disturbing that the history section effectively bases the belief in Moses' existence on "the evidence could have been destroyed"? The wording of the first few sentences deliberately attempts to marginalize people who doubt Moses ever existed (i.e. people who need evidence outside of the Bible) and throws out some What ifs as possible "explanations" for why there is no shred of evidence that Moses ever existed outside the Bible. Not only is this factually inaccurate, it is far from neutral. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 23:02

What kind of evidence outside of the Bible would you like?

Historical accounts from non believers?

You wouldn't think that's an easy thing to find, because as you know, non-believers aren't likely to write accounts of things they don't believe in, they're much more likely to ignore them or try to pretend they never happened - and yet, we've already listed all the historical accounts by non-believers in the article we could possibly find, and it's still apparently not enough for you.

So what kind of evidence exactly were you hoping for? ፈቃደ 02:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary evidence is usually what it takes for most people. The majority of the "History" section is just a long list of possible interpretations of Moses' story, and the only paragraph that talks about extrabiblical evidence is in relation to accounts several centuries after Moses' supposed existence. I'm not sure where you're getting this "historical accounts from non-believers" angle. If we rejected all evidence from believers, we'd never have Calculus (Isaac Newton) or the theories of Relativity (Albert Einstein). Anyways, we're getting off track. Just provide extrabibiblical, contemporary evidence of his existence, such as someone saying "I saw Moses". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-22 03:23

What does physics and math have to do with religious/cultural history? ~OZ

The ones who reject all evidence from "believers" are those with a similar purpose, to discount all evidence that Jesus existed. By discounting all evidence from believers, of course, they can summarily dispose of 99% of it, because as I said above, if a contemporary historian was not a Christian, you would expect anything he wrote about Jesus to be rather limited. Even so, the references to Christ written by non-Christian historians have been dug up and put in the relevant articles, and they consist of exactly what you would expect them to if Jesus was Jesus; and yet the revisionists who have come up with their own original research theories that Jesus never existed, still aren't satisfied with that and continue to scoff. I mean, you don't get a ton of debris all over the place without a massive explosion, right! Just because you didn't see the explosion happen and there is no videotape of it, you still can't come up with any alternative suggestion for how all the debris got there, than to say some conspiracy theorists must have gone around placing debris in all the correct locations? OK, believe what you will, but there's still enough debris left around that can only be accounted for by a massive (spiritual) explosion that must have taken place in the Middle East, one about 33 AD, and probably another one around 1200 BC. Now I or anyone could easily decide to say "I don't believe Julius Caesar ever existed. There is no evidence that he ever lived." Then you say "But of course he did - there's plenty of evidence, look at all the contemporary Roman historians who wrote about him." If I followed the logic of those who deny Jesus and Moses, etc, I would then say - "Exactly - they're Roman historians, so they don't count, because they shared the same belief system as this fictional Julius Caesar person they wrote about. All evidence by Roman historians is thus discounted, and I demand to see an account of this Julius myth that was written by a NON-Roman." Then let's say you really did some homework and came up with a handful of references to Caesar that were written by non-Romans. Then I scoffed at those and said they were too fragmentary. Can you imagine anything so ludicrous? Well that is precisely what the deniers of the historicity of Jesus and Moses are doing, in precisely the same way. No amount of evidence short of a videotape will ever be good enough for them, if they've already made their minds up to be scoffers. ፈቃደ 03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You've really gone off the deep end here. I'm not here to debate philosophy or work on original research. I'm here to enforce factuality and NPOV. Once again, it's simple: provide contemporary accounts outside the Bible of Moses' existence, and I'll be fine with that. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-22 04:10

Brian, I've read the history section and I don't see the problem. It says clearly that there is no non-Biblical information about Moses and then simply reports on the arguments of people who have explained this in various ways, plus the speculations of other writers who have attempted to connect him with Atenism and other recorded events. There's certainly nothing very surprising about the absence of records, even if he did exist. We have only a tiny tiny fragment of records of the events of ancient world. Paul B 16:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or did you go off to some pointless rant on historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth, who no one but you even mentioned in this discussion? Hint: The article is about Mose(s), the famous guy rsp. figure from the Old Testament. Aragorn2 20:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is a lack of accepted "historical" documents in existence it does not necessarly follow that something did not occur. Censorship his not a recent phenomenon. Furthermore people don't bother writing about something inwhich they have no vested interest.

~OZ

Well, Brian, if you are the "enforcer" of NPOV and factuality, you should already know how that works here on wikipedia, same as any other article. This isn't a special case. You see something specific in the article that you don't think is factual or neutral, you change it yourself. If other editors disagree, they'll change it again. If a compromise wording cannot be worked out, and if noone else agrees with your version, you'll soon run out of reverts because you'll be running up against a consensus of editors who disagree. Ideally, a compromise wording that is neutral and acceptable to all will be worked out, to prevent a full scale edit war from breaking out. The discussion page here is like a release valve, to allow any kind of debate, discussion, dialogue, or negotiation etc. to carry on unhindered without burdening the article with it all. It's NOT here to trade insults, or to stifle or squelch off discussion, proclaiming "I am the enforcer of neutrality"... So far, I am not aware of any specific wording in the actual text of the article that is being debated, just a general, vague "neutrality" disclaimer. I don't even have a very clear idea of what you would like it to say. I will say that every sentence in that section appears to me NPOV already, because it already makes absolutely clear the difference what is known for sure (very little) and what is not known. So what specifically were you proposing? Blanking out the entire section, to keep anyone from accessing this information at all? Please elucidate... ፈቃደ 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Brian only accepts "Coherentist Theories" of Epistemic Justifications. But, I think you fail to realize there is very little in philosophical, religious, cultural doctorines that is incorrigible and indubitable. Lastly, much of our understanding of the past seems to be a foundherentism view. Obviously coming across "Justified True beliefs"(Socrtes) are hard to come by. ~oz 20:13 1 dec 2005

Codex S, I think your analogies are rather flawed. Moses is a cultural founder-figure - like the Roman Romulus and Aeneas, or like Greek figures such as Lycurgus. We don't treat these figures as though they are real historical personages like Julius Caesar. We treat them as semi-mythical - maybe based on one or several real individuals, but maybe wholly fictional. Moses is treated no differently. The explosion analogy is equally flawed. We know after all that a form of monotheism existed independently of Moses. Perhaps others did that we don't know about. Anyway, even the bible itself identifies Mosaic tradition as an evolution from earlier Abrahamic beliefs. There is no real evidence of a single "explosion". BTW, the Romans who wrote about Caesar were not "believers". Plutarch and other ancient historians are not 'gospel' writers. They don't treat Caesar as someome god-like being who can do no wrong. They treat him as a normal human being. Paul B 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

I've made some relatively minor changes to the first paragraph. I've explained every edit separately so as to avoid confusion. I'm also requesting a citation for the statement "some Biblical scholars believe that the Exodus might have occurred during the end of the Hyksos era in Egypt". If there are any problems with my edits, please explain here.

One of the problems in defining an "Exodus" in any serious way is the use of a capital letter in the name, the same way that Diaspora or Holocaust is often capitalised, when describing Jewish history. This makes a distinction that marginalises the fact that there are many instances of all three in Jewish history. At least one instance of an "exodus" of Hebrews or religious "heretics" from pre-Hellenistic Egypt is a probable fact, since we know that the Biblical account existed in much it's present form from at least 500 BCE. It is an account unlikely to have been merely a mythical invention of a Caananite "tribe" who otherwise would have been ashamed to admit that they came orginally from Ur in Syria, only had their own kingdom in Caanan for about 500 years, and who spent at least a tenth of that in exile in Mesopotamia and the rest of the time fighting each other. It is an account in other words, that is proved at least partly true by it's many inconsistencies - a completely mythical account would be much more consistent. The problem only exists because some people regard an admission that the "parting of the Sea of Reeds" is based on historical fact as an admission that everything described in Exodus is based on historical fact. Moses' wife herself (a "Arabian" Midianite), who would have known the difference between a Hebrew Egyptian and a Coptic Egyptian, described Moses to her father as merely "an Egyptian" in the Bible. That is in essence much of what confuses people about any "exodus" from Egypt - it is highly likely that the biblical account describes the exodus of "people who suffer for God" (which is what the word Israel means) and that it was only later that the Israelites claimed a common Hebrew ancestry and (possibly) concealed the fact that their lawgiver was (for example) the older brother of Akhenaten, and at most only half Hebrew, by making Aaron his "brother".

Hyksos just means a people like Bedouin, a semitic people who are "shepherd kings" of the "desert uplands" (e.g. Caanan), or something like Hebrew - a people from "across the [Euphrates] river". Yes, it is possible that the "pharoah" who "knew Joseph" was himself a semite, and the pharoah who came later and did not "know Joseph" would have been the Ah-Mose who defeated the Hyksos. But there is evidence of "Apiru" being in Egypt from the time of Thoth-Mose to long after the death of Ra-Mose. The belief that the pharoah of Exodus was Ra-Mose is based on the argument that the "city of Ra-Mose" described in the Bible places Ra-Mose as a contemporary of Mose (Moses). However, this theory has several defects. One - the so called "Hebrew slaves" of the Exodus actually had their own slaves, and are never described as "slaves" - just as a people being in "servitude to Pharoah". Two - the "passover" lamb's blood would have been a useless protective mark for slaves without any property they could mark with blood. Three - whether you describe Kadesh as a victory for Ra-Mose or a defeat, the fact is that after his supposed "defeat" Egypt controlled all of Caanan. Far more likely that the "Israel Stele" describing the defeat of "Israel" by his sucessor describes the defeat of people who had been his enemies ever since they fled to Caanan to escape a religious and ethnic pogrom. Four - the obvious relationship of the God of Akhenaten and the God of Moses suggests that the absence of any Egyptian account of the exodus of "undesirables" and "religious heretics" (other than that of Manetho) corresponds to the known deliberate erasure of the history of Akhenaten and his "religious heresy". And Five - there is evidence that there were important people in Egypt during this time who "could have" been semites - people like Queen Tiy (mother of Akhenaten), Nefertiti (wife of Akhenaten), Ka-Mose (vizier to pharoah Thoth-Mose), and especially Aper-El (an Atenist priest with a Hebrew name).

Actually, your edits are pretty good, even improvements. It is kind of funny that you added a cite request for "some Biblical scholars believe the Exodus occurred during the Hyksos", right after you added the word "Biblical" yourself...! I would just as soon take "Biblical" out of that sentence again. I am aware that some scholars at one time had a fashionable theory that the Exodis occurred during the Hyksos era, but I'm not too sure where these scholars were coming from, or if calling them 'Biblical' really adds anything. It goes without saying that any scholars who have anything to say about the Exodus, even those who deny it existed, may be called "Biblical scholars", beause this is a Biblical subject, so sticking Biblical in here is just a little unnecessary IMO. The word "chiefly" seems extra too... So one of my minor changes is to take out 'Biblical' and 'chiefly', another is to tweak the clauses in the first sentence around slightly to try and make clearer that the term "minimalist" as used here is defined more by their rejection of Exodus. ፈቃደ 21:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• I merely call them "Biblical scholars" because they are scholars of the Bible. At least, one would hope that we'd be citing Biblical scholars in reference to content from the Bible. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-22 22:08
• I think the first sentence works better the way I originally had it. Not all historians who reject Moses as uncorroborated may be Biblical minimalists. It is also better to explain the subject (biblical minimalists) before labelling them. This version of the sentence also flows better into the next sentence. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-22 22:15

[edit] Fragmentary

I think the anon considers it POV because it just says "so fragmentary", without providing a reference point. Fragmentary compared to what? I agree with the anon, and think this could be solved by providing some sources. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-23 21:58

[edit] rewording

Reworded a sentence that introduced the topic of miracles. tried to make the sentence a little more clear. -dantedanti

[edit] Moses in History section.

There are plenty of sections in this article that review Moses from the religios point of view; I hope I can be allowed to rewrite the history section from the point of view of mainstream history. Most of the pro-Moses theories are written by people with little to no background in Egyptlogy or even history, for example Freud. It's important to note that these theories are not widely accepted; the section as it is right now almost makes it appear that they are, and that historians only disagree on the exact nature of historical Moses.

1. Accounts of Hebrew enslavement - this is a much more important historical factor than mentions of Moses himself. The name of a single man might have disappeared from history; but the details of hundreds of thousands of peoples systematically enslaved for generations is a different matter entirely. The whole thing should not be a footnote.
2. "historians who require contemporary extra-biblical evidence, also called Biblical minimalists" - horrid POV. People who do not require any evidence besides the Bible aren't historians. And Biblical minimalists, whatever that is, aren't the only people who discuss the historisity of Moses.
3. The main theme of the first paragraph, that the records of Moses must have been deliberately destroyed, is a fringe theory akin to "the dog ate my homework, but I swear I did it". It is not scientific, and is widely rejected outside the biblical circles.
4. "Also, of course, there are the above-mentioned stories in the Mishna and Qur'an. See the article on the Bible and history." The title of the section is Moses in History, not Moses in Other Religions Source.
5. "Even if Moses is accepted as a historical figure, various aspects of the Biblical tale can be re-interpreted. Manetho's claim..." and so on looks like original research; please add back with citations if you have them.
6. By the way, "Moses is an Egyptian name meaning "son" and was often used in pharaohs' names (as in Tut-moses)" is pure bollocks, and even if there are citations I suggest it stays out, in order not to embarass the authors who completely misunderstood what they were dealing with. There was no pharaoh Tutmoses in Egypt. There was a pharaoh with the name transliterated as dhwtj-ms, and the exact pronunciation will never be known; the most common theory is something like jekhutimes. The root 'mes' in there is the same as in Rameses, and means "child", or more precisely something like "born of" as it relates to mesut, to give birth. If you must have some Egyptian word to base your theories on, at least take "m?sha" which means "army".
7. "Moses was the early 15th century BC Crown Prince of Egypt called Ramoses (i.e. Rameses, "son of Ra"), who also disappeared from Egyptian records around the time of Queen Hatshepsut's death". Honestly, what is this? Please, at least in this section, let's stick to mainstream scienece and not some fringe theory no one has ever heard of. The name Rameses is not attested until the 19 dynasty; the only similar name is the vizier Ramose, who lived almost a century after Hatshepsut, and is best known for his tomb (i.e. he was buried in it, i.e. he never disappeared). If you want to add this back, please include citations.
8. Habiru - Hebrew: not by any means a proven connection, and the farther we get from the discovery of the Amarna letters, the more dubious this theory becomes.
9. Merenptah - the stela is generally understood to refer to the land of Israel, not people of Israel. See the full text at [http://touregypt.net/victorystele.htm]. The first historical mention of Israel surely couldn't have been written as soon as Moses left Egypt. Also see [1] for a Christian perspective.
10. "A more recent and controversial view" that Moses was tied to Akhenaten - what? This theory dates back to the late 19th century! Just how old were the sources for this section? User:Flyboy Will, 29 December 2005. (sorry, forgot to sign when I originally wrote this)

I would have preferred to see this left longer on discussion before you went ahead and changed the article. Being bold is one thing, but it usually turns out problematic when something this hacked over by so many people gets turned upside down. You cut out way too much that needs to be included, and replaced it with only one pov where there had been many. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I actually didn't cut out that much, but since I rearranged the paragraphs, if you're looking at a version comparison, it paints even the stuff I kept red since it's in a new place. In any case, I certainly apologize if my tactics upset anyone. I think I explained the reasons behind each change well enough, so please let's discuss the specifics. And before you accuse me of bias, please check my history with articles like Talk:Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism and Isis. My main interest is history of ancient Egypt, and I aim to correct any inaccuracies whether they're pro- or anti-religion. I didn't come to this article with any specific goal in mind - I simply looked through my library, and found what I believe to be current, modern opinion in Egyptology. Unfortunately, no historical records of Moses or the Exodus have ever been located, and any hypotheses to the contrary have not met much acceptance with Egyptologists. That's not a point of view - that's a fact. Flyboy Will 07:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

For Christians, Moses – mentioned more often in the New Testament than any other Old Testament figure – is often a symbol of the contrast between traditional Judaism and the teachings of Jesus. New Testament writers often made comparison of Jesus' words and deeds with Moses' in order to explain Jesus' mission. In the book of Acts, for example, the rejection of Moses by the Jews when they worshipped the golden calf is likened to the rejection of Jesus, also by the Jews.

This is not NPOV AT ALL, it is christian POV. Biggest problem of all, it seems to claim all Jews worshipped the golden calf. When this wasn't the case,

especially when you consider that Jews did not exist as a people until the "Babylonian Exile" of the people of the kingdom of Judah. Lets be clear about this: Israelite means Jews and Samaritans BEFORE they fell out over a minor religious issue.

Rashi says it was about a few hundred people, most of which where not the Bnei Yisrael or Ben Israel - "sons of Israel", but rather the others who where also slaves in Eygpt and went with the Hebrews out of Eygpt.

But why would they not less likely to be "sons of Israel" when they worshipped the "golden calves", when it was Moses own brother who made the first one? There is of course the possiblity that the "non-Hebrew" people of the Exodus were Atenists, and they would have just as much as much an objection to idolatry as Moses himself. And just as much a tradition of sacrificing bulls to God.

Correct, it is Christian POV, but that is also what it claims to be. It opens with "for Christians" and is located right under a big, fat header "Moses in Christianity". Thus the criterion to judge the validity of this text should be whether it is a NPOV depiction of Christian POV. If it does, and I think this is the case at least for many Christians, it is both Christian POV and Wikipedian NPOV. gidonb 18:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry did I say christian POV. I meant christian biasness and taken out of context to make things look worse. I am going to wait for IZAK and JFW's replies (probabbly still shabbos for both them, unlike for Australia). They both can explain this biasness better than me, I haven't really explained it. Let just say it isn't the christian POV, it is the christian POV in a zelous way and goes to say more than what they hold.

This is actually a very good example of Pauline Christianity and should certainly be retained. As long as the POV is clearly indicated, the position of Moses in Christianity should not be neglected. JFW | T@lk 00:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

But it says "also by the Jews" which isn't the case according to the Torah. It is over-biased to make Jews look bad, and help convince them to accept Yoshka. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it doesn't make Jews "look bad" if you see the obvious flaw in the "Pauline comparison". Moses receives the law of God, his brother then breaks the law, some people (whether descendants of Jacob or not) follow his brother's lead, and the tribe of Levi then punishes the trangressors when Moses finds out. Whereas for 1st century CE Jews who already obey the law, all they have to do is be "doubting Thomases" and they have every right under Jewish law to regard Jesus as someone other than a "messiah". The statement that it "isn't the case" that ALL "Jews" worshipped the golden calves seems to imply the suggestion is that NO Jews accepted Jesus as messiah. Many did, and Paul himself critcised his fellow Jewish Christians for refusal of many of them to accept Gentiles (other than by marriage)

This is a Christian reading of Jewish actions, just like it states. Our readings differ of course. gidonb 15:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok please give me a source for the verse. Like somewhere online. With blessings, 220.233.48.200 14:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's Acts of the Apostles chapter 7. verses 40+[2]

I agree with the objectors here that this is somewhat POV. The verses in Acts that you mention do not make any explicit comparison between the idolatry and the rejection of Jesus. They read (by the way, this is Stephen talking, not Paul):

"But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt. 40They told Aaron, 'Make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who led us out of Egypt—we don't know what has happened to him!' 41That was the time they made an idol in the form of a calf. They brought sacrifices to it and held a celebration in honor of what their hands had made. 42But God turned away and gave them over to the worship of the heavenly bodies. This agrees with what is written in the book of the prophets: "'Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? 43You have lifted up the shrine of Molech and the star of your god Rephan, the idols you made to worship. Therefore I will send you into exile' beyond Babylon."

Acts of the Apostles 7:39-43 (NIV)

And I should point out that when Stephen quotes the Bible, it's the Septuagint translation he's referring to. This is all during a long speech Stephen delivers before he's stoned to death (next, he talks about the Tabernacle). Nowhere in these verses does Stephen compare the idolators to those Jews that reject Jesus, and so such a comparison is un-biblical. I added a paragraph in the "Moses in Christianity" section regarding additional comparisons of Moses to Jesus that later Christian commentators saw in the texts. If the author of the original paragraph feels as though this is a good example, let them include it there (personally, I feel it should be left out - it is un-biblical and possibly offensive to not only the traditionalist Jews, but also to Messianic Jews who have accepted Christ - it implies they haven't). Remember that such an interpretation is not explicit in Acts, and shouldn't be cited that way. I won't change anything, but rather let other editors consider my suggestions. Thanks for spotting that paragraph - I wouldn't have caught it by myself.

Keep reading until verse 53. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but I don't see where the comparison is made. "You who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it," doesn't seem to make the comparison. The connection between the golden calf and rejection of Jesus doesn't look to me as though it's there.

Well, unless you mean "always resisting the Holy Spirit" implies a continuity in the events Stephen describes with having "betrayed and murdered him [the Righteous One]."

That's certainly implied in context, isn't it? More than that -- it's the whole point of the foregoing sermon, which otherwise has no point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, it is a valid interpretation. Nonetheless, think this analogy is a bit insensitive in terms of wording. Not all Jews rejected Jesus, and not all Jews worshipped the calf (if that were the case, Stephen would be incriminating himself when he said, "Our fathers"). I think this deserves some re-wording, so how about this:

"In Acts 7:39-43,51-53, for example, the rejection of Moses by the Jews that worshipped the golden calf is likened to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews that continued in traditional Judaism."

The key word here is "Jews that worshipped..." and "Jews that continued..." Is this agreeable?

[edit] Mini RFC

I think this page gets enough traffic in editors that everyone overall has done a pretty good job of NPOV-ing it, for the most part, or at least keeping it reasonably so. I was wondering if folks watching this could take a look at another Torah-related (Genesis) topic: Sons of Noah. We have a user who hijacked it to a completely different title and turned it upside-down in November, and rewrote the whole thing with a lot of very one-sided pov edits, and I have been doing my best to neutralize it, but for the most part, been on my own. He's suddenly back now, and we desperately need more knowledgeable editors to pore over and watch this article, and keep it npov and balanced (meaning of course, not leaning too much toward one pov or the other - my reasoning, as proven by this article is, the more editors with different views, the better). He is very persistent, and today unilaterally tried to move the article to his essay-title again, even after abstaining from a unanimous requested-move vote to return to the old Sons of Noah location. If you look at the history first you will see all the wars, especially in Nov. and Dec. Thanks in advance. Codex Sinaiticus 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volcanic eruption

I removed the following paragraph but kept the link (see below):

According to tsunami experts, the massive volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in 1600 BC could have generated a giant tidal wave or tsunami that struck the Nile Delta, parting of the sea, triggered the ten plaques during the time of Moses' escape from Egypt. For more information, visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/moses/ All the evidences are based on scientific facts and findings, and not based on religion.

This paragraph didn't make a lot of sense to me, and I'm not talking about the misspelling of "plagues". First, the theory presented on the referenced webpage does not even attempt to explain two of the plagues (locusts and death of the first-borns). Second, the whole "frogs die, give birth to flies, flies transmit diseases that kill cattle" thing seems a bit ad hoc, and there isn't a lot of evidence for that part (as I read the BBC page, they provided some evidence for the immediate effects of a volcanic eruption and an ensuing landslide, but none for the biological effects they hypothesize). Third, this theory attempts to explain only the nature of the plagues, not the interactions betweeen God, Mose, the Pharaoh and his high-priests (sorcerers), which make up most of the Biblical account of the plagues. Fourth, the volcano theory as stated there contradicts the order of plagues IMO (darkness would have been one of the first plagues, not the penultimate).

The link is interesting enough, though, so I moved it into the external link section. If anyone insists that a paragraph of its own should be devoted to this theory, go ahead and write one, but please be more precise and use better style. :o) Aragorn2 21:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed factual

I removed the {{Template:factual}} tag because it's fairly unlikely that that would actually happen.... Aaronw 00:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "Moses"

In what language does "Moses" mean "to draw out"? I think it means simply "son" in the Ancient Egyptian language; it's not a Semitic word. This should be explained in the article. Badagnani 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This is explained in the "Moses in history" section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This can be backed up with the name Ramesses, meaning son of Ra. Dropping the Ra would leave "Messes", —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.151.196 (talk • contribs).

And we wouldn't want to do that! (Sorry, couldn't resist.. please carry on with serious discourse...!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How was it a change in content?

? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I just finished expanding the sentence, to more clearly explain the fact that most of these accounts (and all but one of those written by Pagans at that) have additional details about Moses not mentioned in the Torah. That in itself makes it pretty obvious that there almost certainly WERE other sources than the Torah, since these additional tidbits could not have come from the Torah. You deleted what I added, went back to the earlier wording that ignores this legitimate point, and then called it 'no change'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I fear this is a non sequitur. Extra details are not necessarily from independent sources about a historical Moses. The "additional details" provided by Manetho, for example, concern someone called Osarseph who, if he existed at all, may have nothing to do with Moses. These alternative accounts may be part of inter-ethnic conflicts at the time, creating negative alternatives to the Biblical account. Alternatively they may result from attempts to reconcile genuine historical information about different ancient events with the biblical story. Paul B 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No, this is absolutely not a non sequitur! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And that's absolutely not an argument. Paul B 19:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's not an argument, it's a fact. You do know what a real non sequitur is, right? This is a legitimate fact that is 100% relevant to the issue at hand. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The non sequitur is following statement "That in itself makes it pretty obvious that there almost certainly WERE other sources than the Torah, since these additional tidbits [sic] could not have come from the Torah". The non sequitur is in the assumption that the "additional tidbits" derive from sources about the historical Moses. What additional bits do you mean? I gave a specific example of a story with additional material that most likely conflates the Moses figure with wholly different events. Paul B 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pov

Please follow the discusion here--Striver 16:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yahweh n Moses

Is Moses YHWH?? Was he ever been called YHWH in the torah or bible?? is there more than one YHWH? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.29.199 (talk • contribs).

According to the Torah / Bible, the answer to all of those questions would be 'No'. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any group actually believes Moses is God, but I may know what verse is confusing you. Ex. 7:1, which reads, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.'" The word for God is not YHWH, however. The verse means that, since Moses was not a good public speaker, Aaron will speak for Moses; God is using an analogy here - Moses will give messages to Aaron, who will then declare them to Pharaoh, in much the same way that God would have been giving messages to Moses to declare to Pharaoh. But the Lord did not mean that Moses was God. As for there being more than one YHWH, I would say the Bible is pretty strongly set against that.

[edit] Ethical Dilemma

I really think the whole Ethical Dilemmas section should be taken out or moved somewhere else, most of it has nothing to do with Moses directly.216.90.56.122 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ethical Dilemma section is being moved to the talk page on Criticism of the Bible. Maybe it belongs on the talk page of Ethics in the Bible, but I will let another user determine that. Unfortunately, the Ethical Dilemma section is a large conglomeration of Original research (see policy page WP:OR) and facts that belong on pages other than this page. In need not mention in detail all the other policies it violates or might violate (follow the link to WP:OR and you can get to the other policy pages from there). As for the references, the Unitarian interpretation will be moved to Biblical inerrancy, and the Apologies for the Bible will be moved to Criticism of the Bible. Again, there may be a more correct place, but another user may determine that. JBogdan 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moses Race

I see alot of pictures of Moses and hes a caucasoid. In moses time the egpytians were black/negroids. According to leviticus 24:10(i think) the israelites went from 70 souls to 3 million souls becuz they mixed with the black kemetics.

Any "pictures" of Moses are purely artistic renditions as there is no way to tell what he looked like other that the description given him in the Bible. But as for your other statement, please check your facts before making such claims. The overwhelming consensus of scholars in all disciplines (Anthropology, Archaeology, Genetics, etc) is that the Egyptians were an amalgum of peoples from Northwest Africa (Berbers), Northeast Africa (Arabs, etc), South Asians (Persians, etc) and Mediterraneans (Phonecians, Greeks, etc). Prehistoric Egyptians were even less black/negroid than they are today.--WilliamThweatt 23:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that made sense then how come pictures of egyptians in 1600-1300 BCE show the egyptians as black/darker than modern egpytians? hmm?

They don't. You're making that up. They were, in any event, always depicted as lighter-skinned than the neighboring Nubians. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Egyptians typically portrayed themselves as a mid-tone between light-skinned Asiatics and black-skinned Nubians. In reality they would have been a mixture of skin-tones, probably with a concentration of lighter tones to the north and darker to the south. The Israelites would be "Asiatics" in the Egyptian scheme, that is, portrayed as lighter thren themselves. Look at illustrations of Book of Gates, which depicts the ancient Egyptian perception of race. King Tut's cane is a good illustration of an Egyptian image depicting Semitic enemies as pale-faced and Nubian enemies as black-faced. See here [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/BEARD11.JPG] Paul B 10:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

So just cuz someone is lighter than their neighbor that makes them white? just because the egpytians were lighter than nubians that means the egpytians werent Black/African/Negroids? Even if they werent(which they were), the 70 israelites that went into egpyt had Negroid heritage. Abraham was from Ur, Ur is less than a "Kuwait" away from Elam. The Elamites pertrayed themselfs as Black/Negroids(similar lookin to indian dravidians). Type in "Elamites" on google and tell me what color the people are in the last picture on first row...

I have no idea why you're so insistent on applying this modern distinction to a group of ancient peoples. If you're so interested in skin tones, you have to go rather far north in Western Europe to find people who are closest to "white" -- who are in fact no more white than "black" people are really black. "Not black" is not the same as "white" anyway. People come in all shades from pink through medium brown to deep coffee-colored. If it's nose shapes and such that concern you, a casual survey of Egyptian sculpture reveals a great variety. It's pointless to categorize them unless you're trying to make some racist point. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Be quiet,black people cant be racist, if we are "racist" then its justifyed. When i say "black" obviously i dont mean the actually color black, no one is actually black. You know what i mean, he egpytians were Negroids. Accodring to the OT/Bible the Israelites mixed with the black/negroid egpytians so by the time of the exodus Moses would be black! if he wasnt already, which he was....

"black people cant be racist"?? I won't even dignify the ignorance of that statement with a response...it can just speak for itself. But if you really want to get historical here I can site sources and proof all day long...can you. First of all, just because the Bible says Jacob entered Egypt with 70 souls doesn't mean those were the only "Israelites" to ever enter Egypt. I'm sure you know that it was customary for them "to take a wife from among their own people". Genisis 24 describes how Abraham sent servants back to "his country" to take a wife for his sons from among "his people". Same for Isaac and Jacob who married the daughter of Laban, of the people of Abraham. Wherever they lived, they sent back to get wives and other servants; their custom would have been no different in Egypt as evidenced by Joseph's journey back to Canaan to bury Israel. Secondly, Joseph's stay in Egypt began under the Hyksos ("Shephard Kings"). This was from the 15th to 17th dynasties. The Hyksos rulers were Semetic conquerors from Mesopotamia, Bedouin princes from the desert. They were of the same stock as Abraham and the Israelites were their only friends as the native Egyptians hated the Hyksos. These are the people the Israelites eventually ended up "mixing" with. The end of this dynasty came generations later when Amasis, a native Egyptian military leader, led a rebellion against the Hyksos Kings, deposed them and made himself Pharoah. His direct descendant in this native Egyptian line was Ramses II ("who knew not Joseph") of Moses' time, that persecuted the Semitic Israelites because of their beliefs, their race and their association with the Hyksos.--WilliamThweatt 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

lol,well i learn something.....BUT THERE IS STILL A CHANCE MOSES WAS BLACK!!! Go get a bible and read leviticus 24:10.....

Only if Egyptians were "black". They weren't. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But ive seen pictures of egyptians in that time and they were black!!!

If they were depicted as black, then they were not Egyptians. Ancient Egyptians were very careful to show the peculiar characteristics of foreign peoples, even down to the details of their clothing. The only instance I know of where an Egyptian was shown in black was on an object found in the tomb of Tutankhamen, where the young king was depicted twice in mirror image. One image was white like ivory and the other was black like ebony. It was the only such depiction in the tomb. In that case the coloration was clearly of symbolic meaning relative to that particular object. In every other instance Egyptians are depicted with a kind of medium reddish-brown coloration (i.e. not really what we think of as "white" either.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So becuz sum1 doesnt depicted themselfs as "black" that means to you that they arent black/negroes? I guess that means you dont think Beyoncé, Chris Brown, Aaron McGruder, and Louis Farrakhan are black either, to you...???....

It's impossible to take you seriously when you use these deliberate, ridiculous misspellings. I'm happy to call someone whatever it is they want to be called. But don't tell me that if Louis Farrakhan were to draw a picture of himself, he would color it in as if he were a Middle-easterner, because I wouldn't believe you. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What when did i say he would color himself in??? And i mispelled(on purpose) only 2 times. and you ignore the main point of my last response: Just cuz they werent as dark as the nubians doesnt mean they werent black!

I guess all your other misspellings are just...misspellings then. Leviticus 24:10 refers to one Israelite who married an Egyptian. Indeed the context clearly implies that this was rather unusual. It's also portrayed as dangerous, since the offspring of this union is condemned for blasphemy. If anything this passage reads as a warning about the dangers of marrying non-Israelites. The warning is obviously not concerned with "racial" differences, but rather with alien religious practices.

Of course in reality we would expect some mingling of populations. One of Moses's wives was a "Cushite", which may mean she was Ethiopian. We don't know. Egyptians were neither "black" nor "white" as those words are normally used these days. Paul B 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If they werent black or white, what were they? Every population on earth has a "color", or at least we assaigned them one in america.

The Egyptians were caucasoid.

Now that's just silly. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that "silly"?

The ancient egpytians were Negroid.

TCC said earlier that there is no evidence of Egyptians being black. Perhaps this image from Seti's tomb will shed some light on it. Of course it will be speculated away that what appears to be black is only symbolically black. I would dare say that Moses looked very simular to the Egyptian in this original drawing from the tomb. This debate only exists when dealing with ancient prominent black civilizations. The drawings in the tombs are ignored. The carvings and monuments with their clear negroid features are ignored. The fact that their was no recorded literature proving the existence of any caucasion race during the early Egyptian Dynasties is also ignored. Even the column effigy showing Seti I as a broad shouldered black man (here in Wikipedia) is from the nineteenth Dynasty and probably considered a caucasion in disguise. Even so, the 19th Dynasty is modern history by Egyptian standards. The farther you go back in Egyptian history the more difficult it becomes for modern scholars to inject caucasions into the picture. TCC even fails to mention the doll and guards in Tut's tomb (18th Dynasty) are more than clearly black. Thanks to the discovery channel I have Tut's opening on vhs. Modern Scholars do not want the Ancient Egyptians to be black. So much so, that there lips drip with conjecture and loose speculation against solid Archeological findings. http://www.catchpenny.org/race.html Tom 12/12/06

What, the image at the top of the page? It's a bad scan and the colors are a bit washed out, but it's obvious that the Egyptian is portrayed with a "medium" skin tone, darker than the white Syrian but lighter than the black Nubian, not too different from the modern inhabitants of Egypt, not to mention those who still speak the last remnant of the Egyptian language. As I said earlier.

Perhaps you should have read what that page said instead of just looking at the pretty pictures. "It is impossible to categorize these people into the tidy 'black' and 'white' terms of today's racial distinctions," even while conceding that at least some of them probably were what we would call "black" in modern terms. Essentially, that page agrees with what I've been saying here -- that they weren't "black", they weren't "white", and to try to cram them into someone's modern racial agenda is absurd in my terms, and "divisive" in the terms of that page's author.

Occasionally skin tone was used symbolically, as in King Tut's tomb. There was an object found in it, of which I can't locate an image online, of a ceremonial chest twice depicting Tutankhamen as a child. (He still had the sidelock.) One depiction was deep, ebony black, and the other was stark white. Since he cannot have been both at the same time, we are left to conclude that the skin tones aren't always meant to be taken as literally accurate. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean. In reality if this Egyptian was in 1950s Missisippi he would be arrested if he didn't immediately go to the back of the bus with the other black people on the bus. I'm also sure that no caucasion DNA could have produced him. Like Italians are caucasions yet darker than Scandinavians, the Egyptians were black yet lighter than Nubians. I agree with you that the Ancient Egyptians did not define race as we do today. They didn't have to deal with race differences as we do today. There is no record that I know of of any prominent intellectual caucasion races in existence during the early Egyptian Dynasties. This is why I suspect that Caucasions are trying to inject themselves into Egyptian lineage. Of course the farther you go back, the more difficult this becomes. Even though we're talking about the 18th and 19th Dynasties, we're not in anyway talking about the most ancient of Egypt. There was no reason for them to define that which didn't exist. Had they to deal with what we've dealt with racially for centuries, they would have opinions about it as well. You mentioned that you didn't have anymore images of King Tut, but I do. You will see him as dark as Denzel Washington defeating the Nubians who are as dark as Wesley Snipes. http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/TutBoxB.lg.html The image on the other side of the box shows his destruction of the asians. Remember this is still not Early Egypt and even the Asians have an earlier intellectual history than the caucasions. Also note the image of Tut's cane submitted by Paul on july 13th. Look deeply at the features of the lightened figure. Notice the broad lips and nose of that figure. In all honesty, if you saw that person on the street today you would think him a light skinned black person. But even here you can't make an argument for caucasion Egyptians, but rather only a light skinned conquered enemy of the 18th Dynasty. There was a time in Egyptian History when there were simply no white people to deal with. Tom 12/12/06

I don't know why all this is such an issue, but think of it this way: "races" as we think of them today are not fixed things. They are the result of combinations of genes combined with mutations, and these things change over time. Three to four thousand years is plenty of time for the Ancient Egyptians to have been of a "race" which would defy categorization by today's standards. As for the box, the image is far too small to make out any physical characteristics with confidence other than approximate skin colour (and even the representation of that must have been limited by the colours which were available). Robin S 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Robin this is just another attempt to un-African or un-blacken the Ancient Egyptians. If the Egyptians cannot be catagorized by race, then neither can the Scandinavians, British, Native Americans, Polish, Greeks etc. Of course we will never have this debate over the caucasioness of the Scandinavians. This debate is almost exclusive to prominent ancient Black Civilizations. I can't imagine myself saying that race isn't significant to the Greeks or Native Americans. The race of an indigent black civilization or a significant white civilization is almost never brought into question. It only becomes questionable when an Ancient Black Civilization has been proven to have had significant influence on history and modern culture. Somehow it gets speculated that they may not be as black as they appear. Somehow it always get mentioned that race in this case doesn't really matter and therefore should not be referenced. Or that somehow the historical figures aren't accurate or the pigment colours aren't accurately represented in this case. If the Ancient Egyptians weren't black, then the Greeks weren't white and the Chinese aren't oriental. Tom 02/09/07

[edit] Original Research, etc.

The following portions are being placed here until there are reliable resources, etc. (see policy page WP:OR and the other policy pages associated with it):

• Even if Moses is accepted as a historical figure, various aspects of the Biblical tale can be re-interpreted. The claim that Moses was an Egyptian is quite plausible. This is not very different from the assumption that he was adopted into an Egyptian family, so the theory may only be one of perspective, not an actual challenge to the traditional narrative. It has been suggested that he may have been an Egyptian nobleman or prince influenced by the religion of Aten (see Freud's theory below), or simply sympathetic to Hebrew culture.
• The Hebrews might have fabricated the "bulrushes" story along the lines of the tales of Sargon of Akkad (Mesopotamian) or Oedipus (Greek) to legitimize his position. On the other hand, infants were sometimes abandoned by the lower classes in ancient times. JBogdan 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of these passages are in any sense "original research". These theories are well documented. But it's pretty bad that an article on so imporant a figure is so messy and poorly referenced. Paul B 12:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV?

"Moses or Moshe (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה, Standard Mošə Tiberian Mōšeh; Arabic: موسى, Mūsa; Ge'ez: ሙሴ Musse) is a legendary Hebrew liberator, leader, lawgiver, prophet, and historian. Moses is one of the greatest figures in Biblical history."

NPOV violation? --Jontsang 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What NPOV violation?

Assuming you mean the last sentence, can you cite anyone with a different view, that Moses was NOT one of the greatest figures in Biblical history?

Would it be fixed if it said "Moses is considered one of the greatest figures in Biblical history" ?

ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Codex, I must say I'm surprised to see you allowing us to call Moses 'legendary' - unless you're giving the word a different meaning from 'non-historical, fictional.' Personally I wouldn't say this at all. Personally, in fact, I have an open mind: I have no idea whetehr Moses was a real person or a mythical one, a Hebrew or an Egyptian - on the available evidence, no one can say for certain. I'm also not terribly happy with the overall tone of this sentence describing M - it reads like gush from a fan-mag. On the other hand, I do agree with the general trend: Moses was important. How about having this read something like: "Moses ... is a pivotal figure in the Jewish Torah/Christian Old Testament, leading the Children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt and delivering the Ten Commandments. To him the Name of God (YHWH) was revealed for the first time, and it was to him that God gave the laws for Jewish ritual and ethical life." This is more informative than the present sentence, and can be expanded if you have the time and inclination, which I don't. Merry Christmas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PiCo (talk • contribs) 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

This is an old discussion on the state of the intro 3 months ago; by the time you read it, it has already metamorphosized into something quite different. Also, 'legendary' in common and correct usage can easily be applied to a real person, without implying they are fictional, so why would I object to that word? If it means something else to you, you haven't the common understanding of it in mind. A Happy Holiday to you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did Moses know he was of the Israelites?

The narrative within this article starts with the story of Moses being sent down the Nile and plucked out by Pharaoh's daughter. Then it says: 'After Moses had reached adulthood, he went to see how his brethren who were enslaved to the Egyptians were faring'. How did Moses know they were his brethren? (Or did he? — I assume so as later in the story he asks Pharaoh to 'let my people go', at least in English). So how did he discover his Hebrew heritage? The book of Exodus says Pharaoh's daughter knew: 1) How? 2) Do we assume she told him, or did his mother, or God (and if he was brought up as Egyptian — remind me: was he? — did he believe instantly)? Njál 17:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess his mam told him. After all, she brought him up. Read Exodus 2. Paul B 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

His mother acted as wet-nurse. Whether he was old enough to be told by the time she left him depends on Egyptian customs of how long babies should be breast-fed for. Do we know this? Njál 11:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name of Moses in Sanskrit.

I know this is a odd request, but what is Moses's name in Sanskrit? Zazaban 20:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving content to "the Exodus" page

Some of the content as to whether or not the Exodus took place did not belong in this article. It has been moved to the talk page of The Exodus, where the editors on that artcle can determine what to do with it. JBogdan 00:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horns

The citation "karnu panav" poses some problems. Ex. 35:29 (source: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0201.htm) sais: קָרַן עוֹר פָּנָיו where the "u" in "karnu" is obviously missing whereas we see a complete extra word in between. The right transliteration would be something like "qaran or panaiu". Where was the "karnu panav"-citation taken from?

The letters which could form words meaning "horn" or "ray" are ambiguous by definition. To say that there is an absolute "correct" translation violates NPOV. Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the Bible's crucification to take place on a "stake" instead of a "cross." My religion may believe that Moses had horns. That is the nature of ambiguity, folks. Sure, most people may believe the correct translation is "ray." Ray might even make more sense in the context. But we are talking interpretation of religous text here, which has been done to Biblical text many different ways by many different peoples (for example, see the sections of this article on Judeaism, Islam, etc.); a encylcopedia entry shouldn't declare one interpretation to be "correct." 74.129.231.106 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom on hold

I am placing this Good Article candidate on hold. While, by and large, this article seems quite good, I have some issues with some of it which I think make this article too close to a GA to call. The first problem I see is this:

"Currently unverified to Wikipedia, it is possible that Moses has been identified with Osarseph, a figure from Josephus' Against Apion.[citation needed] Josephus may have attributed the identification to Manetho but may have vigorously denied it himself.[citation needed] Osarseph may have been identified with Joseph in Thomas Mann's Joseph and His Brothers, and others might have suggested that historical Osarseph is the nucleus of both the story of Joseph and of Moses.[citation needed]"

Firstly, self-references are pretty much never ok. The wording almost makes it look like there was some sort of dispute about this that made someone self-reference it as some sort of comprimised, and while this may of been well-intentioned, it almost strikes of some hidden POV agenda, as if it was to say "Although Wikipedia can't confirm it, this and that and so on and so forth.....", which strikes me as introduction of views which are so undue weight, there are no reliable references for any of it. I recommend this all just be deleted, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and honestly, is some obscure association with a character in a work of Josephus really helpful to readers for learning about Moses? Nextly, i'd like to call into question the extremely long quotation of Tacitus and Strabo, are their views really important enough in an article like this to warrent such long quotations? It also seems like you could use summary style, except of course, there doesn't appear to be an article to move it to. Why not just summarize the most important parts of what their saying? Think of it this way, with an article this large, a reader likely should be getting the most important aspects and impressions of Moses, and I think quoting those two people at such length seems like just going way off track of a general look at Moses :/. (Plus, its almost like its giving undue weight to historian type figures from the distant past.)

Nextly, the Horn section at the bottom doesn't appear referenced at first glance, and seems to be making assertions which have not really been proven reference-wise by the article. Right after that, the Popular media section looks like unreferenced trivia to me, and i'm concerned some of this falls under 3b of the GA criteria, "it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary details (no non-notable trivia). " The three reference needed tags in the Exodus section also could use some taking care of, but I don't think those alone make the whole article not well-referenced as a whole.

Lastly, the introduction probably needs to be expanded. Think of this as sort of like a bopgraphical article, mention family, the most notable sorts of things Moses did, (probably the plauges and the parting of the red sea are the most well known) and most of this should probably come from the Moses in the Bible section, since that's by and large where most of the main stuff about Moses comes from.

I might notice a few other things afterwards, but the thing is, I think this would be sort of on the fence as GA's go :/. Homestarmy 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the lead, removed the uncited paragraph. I think the Cultural Depictions is ok. Wiki-newbie 15:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I just can't bring myself to pass this article, all that attention with history to only two or three people, no matter how famous they are as ancient historians, just seems very limited. And when the topic is Moses, i'm afraid I just can't see justification for appearance in south park episodes to be notable, or alot of that pointless stuff. Plus, i've recieved advice about the lead, its still too short, it needs to summarize at least most of the article, that's all the topics in the various sections. Homestarmy 14:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

[edit] Leader of the Israelites Shit happened. That is all that is appearing when the article is viewed however the normal info is viewed with the editing page yet isn't (after refreshing it of course.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.246.213.116 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Still more vandalism ongoing. Can't we do something about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robin S (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Spelling of Moshe

I changed the spelling of Mosheh to Moshe since that is the way it is most commonly spelled.

[edit] Crossing of the Red Sea

I have heard that Moses might not have crossed the Red Sea, that it is a mistranslation of Hebrew. He might have actually crossed what is meant to translate into "Reed Sea," and there is a lake in Egypt which some think could be this "Reed Sea." I'll put up some sources in a bit. A section or subsection should be made regarding this issue; even in the articles introductory paragraph it mentions him crossing the Red Sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.144.254 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Feast Day?

Isn't Moses a saint? 71.98.224.230 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No he is not. Zazaban 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes he is, in the Eastern Orthodox tradition. His feast day is September 4. Centuries ago the 1st Sunday of Great Lent, now the Sunday of Orthodoxy, was also dedicated to him. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He's an Orthodox saint, but not a Catholic saint? How strange. You'd think major players like him would be.Therequiembellishere 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think, but I'm not certain, that Catholics tend to not venerate Old Testament figures in general. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm mistaken. He appears in the 1956 Roman Martyrology: [3]. Whether or not that means he had an approved cultus or if he was removed as many saints were in the later reforms, I haven't been able to determine. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon something on Saint Patrick's page that says that holy people were generally just declared saint soon after their deaths, would this apply to most everyone from Adam to whatever were just made saints? Therequiembellishere 04:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to traditional RC theology pre-Jesus godly figures went to Limbo, from which they were later liberated by JC in the harrowing of hell. This is discussed in Limbo. Paul B 13:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is are they saints? Therequiembellishere 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's funny, but I can't get a direct answer out of anyone I normally consider a reliable source on Catholicism. The question is, is he or was he officially venerated as a saint? This should get a yes-or-no answer, but no one wants to give one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken to my Monsignor and he says that those major people who were holy (Abraham, Moses, Isaac) are indeed saints.Therequiembellishere 02:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The founder of Judaism" and the "first Jew"

Hi. Some of us have been working on a new category, [[Category: Founders of religions]]. To our, mostly, non-Jewish perspective it seems like Moses established the practices of the Jewish religion, even though Abraham, of course, is the father of the Jewish people. I hope that no one thinks that any disrespect was meant by our trying to add the category tag to Moses' article as well as to Abraham's. Steve Dufour 13:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] God tries to kill Moses

I read the passage in the Bible about God trying to kill Moses and it had nothing to do with his son not being circumsized. The event is unexplained. Many people think ot was just a folk tale that got mixed up with the moses story and was put in the Bible. Please edit his to what it should have been. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.176.253.2 (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Please provide sources for your claim or it's Original Research. Zazaban 22:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)