Talk:Exodus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religious texts
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a joint subproject of WikiProject Religion and WikiProject Books, and a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religious texts-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B 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.)
WikiProject Bible This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
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.)
Judaism Portal
Exodus 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:
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Douche, the counts given for each tribe in Numbers 1-2 cannot be interpretted in this fashion. They are given in units of "thousands", "hundreds" and "tens" and in addition the total is given. No interprettation of eleph except "thousand" makes sense in that case, so the difficulty remains.

They are given in terms of gene, oinkos and phratre. Elef means clan or group of kin. The census counts only fighting men, no women, no kids. In terms of Military organization each gene provides a squad of a families fighting men over 20 which is then combined into an oinkos, or platoon of the fighting men from a village combined again into an elef, or clan of several villages numbering in the hundreds which fights as a company in a phratre or battalion. To speculate that elef are thousands requires a population which wouldn't be supported by any archaeology or history of that region.
Example Numbers: 26 For the tribe of Reuban, 5 battalions plus commanders divide among them 43 elef numbering in total 730 men. In command of the tribe, phratre or brotherhood of 730 men including himself Reuban. At battallion in command of 146 men each 5 Clan chiefs Reuban, Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi. Each has one company themselves and one son running another company. At company in command of 73 men each Reuban, Hanoch, Pallu, Hezron, Carmi, Pallu, Eliab, Nemeul, Dathan, Abrim, making 10 named captains. At platoon 20 platoon sergents. In total 30 officers and 700 enlisted 5 battalions, 10 companies, 20 platoons of 35 men each, each platoon divided into squads of fathers and sons
Even as late as Judges 4-5 the chariot battle at Megiddo involves 10,000 chariots which represent Hittites, the men of Kadesh, Canaanite, the Hapiru tribes of Naphtali and Zebulon, pretty much the entire population of the region. Rktect 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
True, but the Hebrew Bible doesn't always use the same word in the same way, as it was redacted together from a number of different sources. So the previous reading does remain a possibility. RK 01:04, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that whoever wrote the tables of count in Numbers 1-2 obviously meant "thousands", so the large total of 603,550 remains a problem for those who can't accept that the Bible account might be wrong. Of course it remains possible that the author of Exodus meant "clans" rather than "thousands", but that would just create a contradiction between Exodus and Numbers which is even more of a problem for the literalist. I didn't try to write this opinion in the article, but it seems to me that the close similarity between the total in Exodus and the total in Numbers makes it most unlikely that anything except "thousands" is meant in Exodus either. --zero 01:49, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Understood. Of course, I think that when you read it carefully, and with an open mind, the entire book presents problems for the literalist! Which is why some of my co-religions have tounge-in-cheek accused me of worshipping the God of J, E, P and D, instead of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. :) RK 13:26, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
The article, as now written, is obviously POV - as of a non-literalist who feels triumphant in believing that disputed figures prove that Exodus is a story. And, as usual, the term Fundamentalist (whether ignorantly or pejoratively) is used as a broad brush in separating Christians into just two groups. Fundamentalism is one of many movements within Christianity. The article has a ways to go to meet Wikipedia NPOV standards. Pollinator 14:26, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Why not just exchange Literalist for the term Fundamentalist? 13 July 04
My $0.02 answer: The terms Literalist and Fundamentalist are extremely weak. I suggest reference to methods of interpretation. For example: historical-critical or historical-grammatical.
An article already argues this 603,550 number to death The Exodus as opposed to Exodus.
The term contradiction seems to be used too carelessly. Why doesn't anybody use the term paradox? If the generation of Hezron makes it to Egypt with just 70 men, just three generations before an exodus of 603,550 begins, an explanation is for each man to have 20 kids per generation...unbelievable...but possible especially when Mosaic Laws aren't yet in place that prohibit more than one wife...not that the Mosaic Laws prevented multiple-wives from happening later on!...the next problem is Exodus 12:40 which describes 430 years for the three generations...--Ep9206 20:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Duh! What is the definition of an Israelite? When there is a count of 603,550, it counts people like Caleb, whose father was not an Israelite but a Kenezzite.Ep9206 05:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why the {} sign/s?

Why were one or more of these sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} signs placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning? (And why create a redundant category Category:Bible stories that is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories?) IZAK 07:25, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] What are we doing with this: Mass Exodus. Redirect, merge or seperate article?

The instance in which a large group of people, animals, or objects attempt to leave, evacutate or move to a different location.

  • Some famous exodus include the jewish exodus from Egypt to the promised lands.
  • Refugees ussally partake in exodus from troubled lands.


It’s not an exodus unless it’s a mass exodus.

Redirect, merdge or seperate article?

Image:Superche.jpg
Che!

[edit] Book of Exodus

Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed.

[edit] Authorship

I am not Jewish (I am Roman Catholic though) so I am not well versed on the issue of who is claimed to be the actual author of the Torah or even specifically of the Book of Exodus. In parochial school religion class mainly dealt with the issue of the stories in the Bible, rather than the archeological or historical authenticity of the Bible.

The "authorship" section concisely talks about the issues of "who" the author of the Exodus book is. However, there is no talk at all about "when" the Book of Exodus was written. Is there any answer to this that anyone could provide or point me to. I think it is an important point for those who are more interested in the historical aspects of the Torah and the Exodus text, rather than the religious aspects or teachings therein.

         Forget this question.  My answer was found in the informative article "Dating the Bible."  Excellent read.

[edit] Ramesses III/Ramesses IV and "non campus mentis"

I suspect that the Pharaoh mentioned in the Exodus is probably Ramesses III or IV, based on the following:

  • Egypt dominated Canaan around this time period, up until around the end of Ramesses III's reign and the entirety of Ramesses IV's reign (such a hegemony has archaelogical evidence, at least in Egypt itself, concerning Tel Megiddo and other places)
  • There was a massive famine in Egypt towards the tail end of Ramesses III's reign, apparently due to an eruption of Hekla in 1159 BCE
  • Family politics during the reign of Ramesses III were rough (there was an assassination plot involving the harem of Ramesses III), which could give reason why a prince would want to get away from the royal house and Egypt altogether
  • there was work going on at Pi-Ramesses (Exodus mentions "Pithom and Ramesses" during this time period
  • There was an incursion of Sea Peoples during Ramesses the III's reign, which may have something to do with the legend of Moses parting waters of the sea
  • Alternatively, Hekla, which likely generated a tsunami (but probably not one touching Egypt or the Levant), or some disaster much more ancient, could've given rise to the legend (such as Thera in the 1600s or 1400s BCE and/or reported meteorites hitting Arabia as far back as 2200-2400 BCE), along with reports of "pillars of cloud by day and towers of fire by night"
  • Accounts of such disasters may have been embellished, stylized, and/or garbled up in a "non campus mentis" manner (people forgetting exactly how history happened and in exactly what order, but remembering the basics - it happens to high-school and undergrad students all the time and might also happen in oral traditions), thus explaining the misplacement of the fall of Jericho and other misplacements
  • The journeys of the Sea Peoples themselves may have worked their way in during the retelling

In summation, the scholars involved in dating the events in the Book of Exodus (or the events that inspired the Book of Exodus) may have been looking a tad too early by suggesting Ramesses I and II. Furthermore, Ramesses the IV was a fourth or a fifth-born (I think), not a first-born, and the lack of a first-born in the royal house might've worked its way into the story of the 10 Plagues, along with the (obvious) Hekla-related "darkness" and possibly some biological problems related to that "darkness". 204.52.215.107 20:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Krakatoa, when it made its caldera-forming eruption, caused darkness and/or added a yellow-tinged sky to its immediate vicinity for a few days, extending over the isle of Java. Other parts of the world reported green and blue suns and brilliant sunsets; an earlier eruption, Tambora, is said to have caused the Year without a summer by adding particulates to the atmosphere. The 20-year event apparently related to Hekla was a time of stunted tree-ring growth, suggestive of even greater tampering with the atmosphere and/or climate. I suspect what the Egyptians likely experienced was something like a green (or yellow, or some other color) haze, or a slightly to somewhat darkened sky, along with cooler than usual temperatures. This period coincided with the end of Ramesses III's reign and all of Ramesses IV's reign. 204.52.215.107 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
See Dating of the ExodusRktect 21:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative Theories

In one of the latest revisions, someone has put an additional section called alternative theories. I was wondering if the person who provided this new section provide links to source material and evidence. Also I want to ask for clearification about the first line of this paragraph where it says that the Exodus is only described in the Old Testament. What exactly was the author's intent with this sentence: does he mean that the Torah does not support the Great Exodus of Hebrews? And if so, could he again provide evidence because I was under the impression from some of the links to Jewish translations (at the bottom) that the Torah also gave evidence of this.

[edit] Red Sea

The article says 'who have by this point reached what is referred to as the 'Reed Sea' (often mistranslated as the Red Sea). Fortunately for the Israelites, they are divinely guarded, and are able to passage of Red Sea,'.

If it was really mistranslated as 'Red Sea' why is 'Red Sea' used in the next sentence? Also, where exactly is the 'Reed Sea'.--Jcvamp 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--the reed sea is a marshy wetland area just west of the red sea. It has since been mostly dried up (though it is now mainly just a large number of very small wet areas) since the building of the suez canal. Cheesecake42 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The article on Pharaoh of the Exodus is short and is duplicated in this article. Merge Zargulon 15:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge Merge the article Pharaoh of the Exodus in this article, unless the article is expanded. --RebSkii 18:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leave as is

Because of its controversy there is a lot of scope for expanding it, so I believe it should not be merged.

[edit] pharaoh did not drown

According to the bible, pharaoh did not drown. He was the sole survivor of the army who chased the Jews in the sea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.19.128.151 (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Miraculous Signs

Some count two miraculous signs showing Moses' authority (water into blood, staff into snake), others also include Moses' hand becoming leprous as another indication of his authority. To sidestep this debate about the Bible, I've replaced "three miraculous signs" with just "miraculous signs" Ijkopl 19:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dating of the Exodus

I added this over in the book of Joshua section and it has relavence here: There is now a theory postulated by Dr. Gerald E. Aardsma and Dr. Emmanuel Anati that states the occupation of Palestine by the Israelites occurred prior to the late Bronze Age as had been originally theorized. Doctors Aardsma and Anati say they have found evidence to support Joshua’s conquest occurring in the early Bronze Age at around 2200-2500 B.C. They state that both a settlement bearing topographical similarity to the biblical city of “Ai” and the city of Jericho were destroyed in this time frame and that both sites had defensive walls at this time. In addition, it was found the city of “Ai” was burned to the ground at this time, which fits the events in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, it has been found that at this time the previous inhabitants of the areas around these cities gave way to a more nomadic people with different types of pottery than the original inhabitants and which developed into a pastoral society dominated by small villages. All of this would more accurately reflect what was recorded in the Biblical accounts of Joshua’s invasion, but it also conflicts with some of the Bible’s Old Testament chronology. Dr. Aardsma argues the Old Testament chronology must be an incorrect recording of the original chronological information.

This argument has a profound effect on dating the exodus since it would mean the Israelites would have left for Palestine just after the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, maybe even during its downfall. It would also push the age of the patriarchs back to about 2800-3000 B.C. which would mean any evidence of Joseph would need to be found in the Early Dynastic Period. I referenced Anati's article and Aardsman book over in the book of Joshua section. Last time I checked Anati's article was free to peruse online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.140.137 (talk • contribs)

I edited the Book of Joshua edition to reflect only Anati's work. He is a reliable source by his credentials and publications, but Aardsma is not. Anati is a recognized expert in prehistoric religions according to his biography [1], while Aardsma is a physicist who, in this subject area, has only self-published and Creationist credits. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. The edit cleaned things up and I hadn't known Aardsma was a non reliable source. I've been looking into this and it seems Anati made the first theory (along with another archaeologist who says that he doesn't think it was the Israelites) and Aardsma has used the theory since then, I would have edited the book of Joseph part myself because of this because Anati deserves the credit.

I added a page Dating of the Exodus with a couple dozen different theories. Anati is a source worth reading but he's contraversial (Dating of the Conguest to 2500 BC) and has a distinct POV. Eventually we should get all authors who have contributed a perspective on the page. One good place to start looking at the different expeditions which have investigated the various sites would be the BAR Rktect 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section title change from "Authorship" to "Composition"

I made this change because I believe the section needs to talk about more than just who wrote Exodus - it needs to touch also on the structure of the book, especially the "chiastic pattern" in the second half (it's important!) and things such as the Song of the Sea. Hope other editors can accept this. PiCo 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite of "Composition"

I've rewritten this section, making it much longer and giving it a somewhat differeent orientation. Originally it was simply a brief description of the documentary hypothesis; I felt that we needed to take into account all the more recent work which has been done on Pentateuchal origins - Wellhausen, after all, is well over a century old, and a lot of scholars have written since his time. I've tried to write it from a NPOV perspective, but adding an indication of what are mainsrteam views and what are not. The final subsection, on biblical minimalism, in incomplete - I'll get back to it. For consideration, but especially, I'd be grateful if other editors could add cite-needed tags wherever they see this as necessary. PiCo 06:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's document dissent from DH, but let's not get in the reader's way. The reader needs a nice, clear answer to who wrote Exodus when and where. Once we get across the basic, scholarly opinion, we can also address religious and dissenting scholarly opinions. Leadwind 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

== historicity ==--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is largely unsourced, and it's got a main article to do the heavy lifting. Can we just trim this down to one useful paragraph? Leadwind (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure - but the material in the section is only a part of what needs to be covered - it represents popular thinking on the subject, which is based on the preconception that the account is historical: no attempt is made to canvas the evidence. It needs to cover the scholarly side of things, from the pro camp (basically Kitchen and Hoffmeier) to the no camp (everyone else). Even the popular material could be usefully recast to focus on the various popular tv documentaries and give an assessment of their accuracy (very low). PiCo (talk) 10:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of this section, what's this about?

* Ramses II or Merneptah of the 19th Dynasty, around 1290 BCE, favoured by the large majority of both religious and secular scholars, although this contradicts several key aspects of the biblical account and neglects several recent archaeological discoveries in Tel el-Dab'a and Jericho.

The part I've placed in bold sounds suspiciously like a personal opinion. Where's the proof? --Taiwan boi (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It's two days later, and no one has substantiated the claim with any evidence, so I have removed it. --Taiwan boi (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

I redid the summary to make it a bit more complete - tried to keep to the text, with some footnotes on strictly textual matters, no interpretation. Any comments? PiCo (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian Night

Can someone work Egyptian Night into this article so that we can remove the orphan tag from Egyptian Night? Kingturtle (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Far better to delete Egyptian Night.PiCo (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)