Talk:The Exodus

1510 BC?

The traditional Catholic Christmas liturgy actually suggests a precise date by intoning that Christ was born 1,510 years after the Exodus. I was curious to see where this notion comes from. Even if it isn't accepted by current archaeologists, it seems to indicate a once-common notion. Can anyone comment on this? (I suppose that would actually be 1514 BC, wouldn't it?)

I am in no way a scholar on this, but I would suppose that it is actually closely tied to the approximate 1525 date. Jesus was most likely born in 8-6 BC. The reasoning for this is in the account of Matthew, the astrologers from the east first visited Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. The account also states that Jesus was child, and does not use the Greek term for baby. Furthermore, Herod ordered the execution of all boys under the age of two to be put to death. Assuming that Herod did not die in the following years and that Jesus was getting close to the maximum age limit (3yrs), this could put Jesus' birth as early as 10 BC. But the latest likely year of birth would probably be 5 BC. Hence the 6-8 BC. If we instead assume 10 BC, add 1510 to get 1520, we are now very close to the 1525 approximation. BobertWABC (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"Material culture" and Interpretation section

Two problems I spotted in the article. First, the phrase "material culture" is used throughout the article, without ever explaining what it means. Most commonly it is used in the form "proto-Israelite material culture". Without a clear definition lines like the following one from the Interpretation section would leave many scratching their heads:

• It would appear we have what may reasonably be described as proto-Israelite material culture transitions which can be dated with reasonable accuracy, and occur at unexpectedly late dates.

Based on the comments here it I'd hazard a guess that the phrase comes from edits by ThaThinker (talk). Perhaps he or someone else could convert the phrase into something less "jargony" per Wikipedia:Explain jargon. I note that material culture actually redirects to the Archaeological culture article, which seems to be a clearer phrase to me, however the article itself actually muddies the water for me on whether we should be using the term at all. I think the phrase needs to be changed, but I don't know how.

Also, "It would appear we have" and "what may reasonably be described as" seem to be redundant phrases that both serve the same purpose in the line above; to weaken the assertion that follows. There is no citation for that paragraph, so it's not clear where this came from, or if it is original research or a case of synthesis, neither of which would be good. Furthermore the Interpretation section is loaded with weasel words that need sources and some other unsourced claims. I have marked a number of items there with "fact" and "views needing attribution" tags. -- HiEv 20:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a hot issue of debate, but a good definition of material culture: material culture is the artifacts, both portable and non-portable, that are identified with a given archaeological site and stratum. The relationship between material culture and ethnicity or social culture is not always clear or easy to define. In modern Hebrew material culture is used and an exact translation of the English phrase: תרבות חומרית Material culture is the term generally used in archaeological literature. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the "Interpretations" section just be deleted? As noted above, there's a distinct lack of citations, and doesn't seem particularly neutral. The third paragraph is definitely the worst, as it constantly uses "we" in a strange fashion. Lord Seth (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think deleting is the way to go here. It doesn't say anything new, rather it seems like a last ditch effort for the author to plug his/her opinions once again. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I deleted the aforementioned "third paragraph". The Interpretations section probably still needs attention but I got rid of the worst of it. Lord Seth (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We still have "Most archaeologists working on the territories of ancient Israel now support chronologies differing from the biblical Conquest of Canaan by some centuries, and if it turns out they are right, we may have to revise our historical view of the Exodus accordingly. In spite of what appears to be a discrepancy of archaeology with the Bible, the work of archaeologists does suggest the reality of the overall 'sweep of events' - e.g. an arrival in Canaan by this proto-Israelite material culture some centuries before the time that Solomon and David are believed to have lived, and Egypt had been known to enslave Semites." etc which is simply an editor's OR or maybe WP:SYN and certainly not encyclopedic, I'll delete that now. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Velikovsky

Should not the Velikovsky mention be expanded considering his dating results in Egyptian and Israeli history matching up to some degree? For example there was known to be large Asiatic slave population of possible Semitic origin living in Egypt during the 12th dynasty which vanished in the 13th, "abandoning their tools and other possessions" according to Petrie. Archaeologists have found evidence of nomads wandering the Sinai destroying cities in this period and this dating also allows the Biblical Jericho and Gibeon to match up. Regardless that the chronology is not accepted I feel some mention of events that are reconciled should be made purely because it is of interest that many events do line up. Wayne (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The section The_Exodus#Greatly_lowered_Egyptian_chronologies is all that needs to be in this article until such point as any of these revised chronologies gains mainstream acceptance.

Speaking as someone who has done a great deal of work in the area myself, I do not expect my work or anyone else's to appear in Wikipedia when it's still fringe. That's not what Wikipedia is for. If you're interested in more info on the subject, though, you could try this. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

NEO CANAAN EGYPT : In grael sequalogy - back to the smithsonian having similar regards COMIX!, through radio city - finding this time 'he he', that Morgan Freeman is Ramasees, Samuel L jackson is Orpheus, "wonders tutenkahmun",, and lawrence fishburne is morpheus is pharoah --- direct meditated proof of this, is that the bible says pharoah-ae-ramasees in some Jamsein ways, leading to find well if egypt is still here, then these guys must be too --- somewhere who is at in this way, oh, i see, VARIANT ORPHEUS BARAK O BAMA, : --- but the obvious one is now that being older or elder and not being bill cosby - because of familiarity instead of kings - has that Morgan Freeman is ramasees as it comes, LLL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.175.167 (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. That's... intense. Can I have some of whatever you're having? -LisaLiel (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was going to delete it but decided maybe I just didn't understand so I assumed good faith. I think it safe to say we wont add any of that to the article (unless he has a RS). Wayne (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Latest Archaeological Finds

An article from the Supreme Council of Antiquities discusses the latest finds here. They confirm the accounts of the pharaohs and leave no room for the Exodus to have happened before the reign of Ramesses II. The archaeological evidence seems to support the Exodus being based on the expulsion of the Hyksos. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know French. This is English Wikipedia. Could you give a brief explanation of why there's "no room" for the Exodus to have happened before the reign of Ramesses II? For example, why could it not have happened at the end of the 6th Dynasty? -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh sorry. Go to this site and copy/paste the url. You get a reasonable translation of the page. I'm not saying Zahi Hawass is right, but he is credible and represents the current state of knowledge. Wayne (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But that's entirely based on the idea that Thera had something to do with the Exodus. Which is sort of circular reasoning. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everything about the current dating of the Exodus is circular reasoning. And the absence of Hebrews in Egypt except in the 12th and 13th Dynasties seems to be no problem for the folks conduncting the reasoning. Neither the Hyksos period nor the following dynasties (18+19) had any relevant numbers of Aamu dwelling in Egypt (and the Hyksos elite themselves were mainly Indo-Europeans and not Semites).Cush (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Repetition

There are frequent cases of repetition in the article where things are stated that had already been stated in a manner as if they had not yet been stated even though they had. Okay, that was a little blatant and it isn't so obvious in the article, but it is there. In particular, the Hyksos expulsion is re-introduced several times. The article could be shortened and become easier to read if those instances were cleaned up. BobertWABC (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of Paul's Dating

The article currently states:

In the New Testament (Acts 13:18,20), Paul says after the 40-year Wandering, the period of the judges lasted 450 years, but still does not take into account the reign of the kings Saul and David, which suggests a total period of at least 580 years. Josephus gave 592 years as the time between the Exodus and the Temple.

This seems a significant misunderstanding of his statement in Acts 13:16-20:

Acts 13:16 So Paul stood up, gestured with his hand and said, "Men of Israel, and you Gentiles who fear God, listen: 17 The God of this people Israel chose our ancestors and made the people great during their stay as foreigners in the country of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. 18 For a period of about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. 19 After he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave his people their land as an inheritance. 20 All this took about four hundred fifty years. After this he gave them judges until the time of Samuel the prophet. (New English Translation)

Paul's reference to 450 years seems to include the 400 years spent in Egypt before the Exodus, plus the 40 years wandering in the wilderness, plus 10 years conquering the nations of Canaan. The time of the judges is explicitly stated to be "after this" and no attempt is made to describe its duration.

Based on this, I'm going to rework that section. TexasTwister (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The King James Bible and modern translations seem to differ on the 450 years. In the King James the 450 years refer to the period of the judges. Youngs Literal Translation has "And after these things, about four hundred and fifty years, He gave judges -- till Samuel the prophet", which is ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjvermeer (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New Conquest of Canaan article or add section below to Exodus page?

I'm wondering...what do other editors think...should we create a dedicated article to the Conquest of Canaan? Maybe just a redirect of "Conquest of Canaan" to this page The Exodus. This could then be used as a stub in several articles dealing with the issue, including The Exodus and the history articles on the United Monarchy and Divided Monarchy. Regardless, here's what I think is a useful addition to your article or a unified article on "The Conquest of Canaan". There are references but they may not show up on the discussion page. You can see them if you click "edit this page" but all (except one) are based on this article: Israel Finkelstein, "The Great Transformation: The 'Conquest' of the Highlands Frontiers and the Rise of the Territorial States," Pp.349-365 in Thomas E. Levy, ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, Facts on File: New York, 1995 (one of the "standard" texts we are using at the Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. I. Finkelstein from Tel Aviv University is known as an out-spoken critic of the Conquest of Canaan and the very existence of the United Monarchy of David and Solomon, but his data on Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements is very interesting...see below. This section can be expanded with other sources, etc.:

I agree that a 'Conquest of Canaan' article would be worth having. Be careful of using Finkelstein however. His new chronology and his views on the conquest are marginal to the point of fringe. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe? The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for a Conquest of Canaan, hell there is not even real evidence for Israelites as the Torah describes them. It is just a biblical story, and there is no need to create a new article and inflate an issue that is hollow. A section in the article about the Tanakh would suffice. After all, this is not history but religious teaching. Cush (talk) 06:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)\

Yes fringe. Since you're not familiar with the relevant scholarly literature, you're unaware of this fact. The rest of what you wrote is merely POV ranting. Other editors here actually refer to the relevant scholarly literature and provide academic references when making their points. You don't do either. You just scream and rant. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Show me those academic references that are not in one way or another based on the biblical story itself. In the past 20 years I heave seen nothing that would have led me to assume anything out of the Tanakh to be accurate history. Show me the excavation results that confirm the bible in an unambiguous manner. Show me all the extensive Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Hittite records about "Israel" that surely must exist if the Bible is true. Show me any artifact that connects a biblical figure with real history. Show me hard evidence that Moses, Joshua, any Judge, Saul, Solomon really existed and that they were all Yhvh worshipers. We both know you have nothing to show, so stop expanding articles that do nothing more than restate what's already in the Tanakh and present it as history. Of course I rant, because I am sick and tired of reading religious junk presented as factual history. There is no need for a Conquest of Canaan article because there is nothing to say about that Conquest except that it lacks evidence. Cush (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

For academic references, you could start with Mazar, Halpern, Bunimovitz, Ben-Tor, Na'am, Lederman, Dever (all respected non-religious archaeologists). How many of these have you actually read? If in the past 20 years you have 'seen nothing that would have led me to assume anything out of the Tanakh to be accurate history', then you're clearly unfamiliar with the relevant scholarly literature. How many of the scholarly journals do you read regularly? How many of the standard works have you read? If you were familiar with them, you would be familiar with the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Hittite records about Israel that exist, as well as artifacts connecting Biblical figures with real history. I don't have to show you any evidence that 'Moses, Joshua, any Judge, Saul, Solomon really existed and that they were all Yhvh worshipers'. This is not a forum. Nor does this article simply 'restate what's already in the Tanakh and present it as history. It does absolutely nothing of the kind. If you have any WP:RS to add, please do so. If on the other hand you're going to simply use this Talk page as a place for personal rants, then you need to leave. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What's debated re Finkelstein is his dating of the large-scale architecture at Meggido and Hazor - he dates the walls gates etc about a hundred years later than is conventional, putting them back from the time of Solomon into the time of the Omride kings of Israel. Therefore irrelevant to discussion of the date of the Conquest. His discussion of the pre-Davidic period in "The Bible Unearthed" is quite mainstream and can be used without fear of getting into controversial interpretations. (And Taiwanboi is something in IT, not an archaeologist or a biblical scholar - don't let him bully you :).PiCo (talk) 05:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not the only part of Finkelstein's work which is debated. His interpretation of the Iron Age ceramic assemblage is critical to his chronology, and it is this which has come under specific criticism by a large number of scholars (including Mazar, Halpern, Bunimovitz, Ben-Tor, Na'am, Lederman and Dever). This is related not only to his chronology, it's also related directly to his views on the Conquest, with which not even Dever agrees despite having similar views and agreeing largely with Finkelstein that the Israelites were indigenous Canaanites. Finkelstein's discussion of the pre-Davidic period in 'The Bible Unearthed' is not all simply 'quite mainstream', which is precisely why it has been contested by a significant number of scholars. Furthermore I am not bullying Cush, I am holding him accountable. I am in IT, but I am a regular reader of the relevant scholarly literature, I own a large number of the standard works in the field, I own several of the standard scholarly journals, and I have a JSTOR account which enables me to stay current with the latest academic debates. I am informed on this subject, whereas Cush is not. I am also far more read and better informed on this subject than you are. That's why I'm able to cite so many sources in the relevant scholarly literature when I contribute to articles such as this, whereas most people don't (Cush for example). I also cite from the entire range of scholarly literature on this subject(Maximalist to Minimalist), whereas others only cite sources sympathetic to their personal views and prejudices (you for example PiCo). --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

F's "new chronology" relates exclusively to the 10th century, not before, and his views on the emergence of Israel are mainstream - as you yourself admit (Dever agrees with him). There are, of course, people like Kitchen who disagree, but that view is definitely fringe. Anyway, the point at issue here is whether a separate article on the Conquest is justified. I agree that it is. I'm not sure Cush should write it though - he seems a bit fringe himself (he likes Rohl). PiCo (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't contested that Finkelstein's New Chronology relates to the 10th century. But it does not do so exclusively. It is also related to his views on the Conquest, since his New Chronology is based on his interpretation of the archaeological data of the 11th century (the putative Judges era), which in based on his views on the Conquest. What relevant literature on this subject have you read? Please cite the scholarly journals you are currently following. Ironically, Finkelstein does not deny the existence of either David or Solomon, in complete contravention of people like Cush. I did not say that his views on the emergence of Israel are 'mainstream', and the fact that Dever agrees with them in part does not prove that they are mainstream (Dever disagrees significantly with Finkelstein's views on the emergence of Israel, and contests his interpretation of the archaeological evidence). I have not cited Kitchen at all, but Kitchen is absolutely not 'fringe'. He is as mainstream as they come. I agree that a separate article on the Conquest is justified, and that Cush should not be writing it due to his obvious agenda. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Three Models for the Emergence of Early Israel

In the archaeological literature there are three "classic" views of the emergence of early Israel, but all agree that there was a single, historical event that could be associated with the Israelite settlement of Canaan.

The first, held by archaeologist W.F. Albright and his students and adherents, understood the conquest as a military conquest by the ancient Israelites who entered and engaged the Canaanites of the Bronze Age and destroyed their city-states and settled to some extent on the sites of the Canaanite settlements. This first view is most commonly associated with the traditional view of the Conquest of Canaan by the ancient Israelites. Criticisms of this view include the archaeological finds that suggest the settlement was a gradual process that lasted for an entire century, and that the material culture of Iron Age I sites suggest a similarity to the previous inhabitants of the Late Bronze Age in Canaan.

A second view, held by archaeologist A. Alt interpreted the Israelite settlement as a gradual peaceful occupation of Canaan, starting in the highlands, and only then engaging the Canaanite city-states. After this the nation state was consolidated and expanded towards the lowlands. Israel Finkelstein's criticism of this view is similar to that of the first, in that, he indicated there was no archaeological evidence to connect the "incoming population" to other people groups or locales in the ancient Near East.

The third view, proposed by archaeologists G. Mendenhall and N. Gottwald, interpreted the settlement in terms of a "Marxist social revolution." The destruction of the previous Canaanite-city states was due to a clash between social classes, in which, a hierarchical established class was brought down by those seeking social equality, in essence destroyed from within. This view requires a population migration from the lowland sites to the highland sites, for which there is no direct archaeological evidence.

The most dramatic increase in archaeological sites in Canaan during the biblical period took place during the Iron Age I and II periods, while the most notable decrease of sites occured during the Late Bronze Age. Israel Finkelstein reported that in the central hill country of Canaan the transformation was from 248 sites in the Middle Bronze age to 29 sites in the Late Bronze Age and rose to 254 in Iron Age I and increased further to 520 in Iron Age II. Iron Age II (980 BCE - 732/701 BCE) through Iron Age IIIA (732/701 BCE - 586 BCE) is generally believed to be the period of the United Monarchy of Solomon and the Divided Kingdoms of Judah and Israel among many archaeologists working in Israel today. In the transjordan plateau, a total of 96 sites in the Middle Bronze Age dropped to 32 in the Late Bronze Age and rose to 218 in Iron Age I and increased further to 262 in Iron Age II. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to add this chunk from the Merneptah Stele. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki links

I am going to try and fix the interwiki links here. Currently some articles are about the Book of Exodus. Only articles that discuss the exodus itself should be linked here. I'll also correct it in other languages. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Y Done --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'Mainly stylistic'

I understand that the 'Dating the Exodus' section needed some revision, especially since it was very chatty and short on references, but PiCo your last edit was not 'Mainly stylistic', and removed quite a bit of material instead of rewording it. Previously the section was rightly flagged repeatedly for supporting references for its statemetns. Now the 'Biblical chronology' section doesn't have any references at all, and it doesn't have any citation tags either, which it certainly should. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

It was so bad that I felt we were better off without it. But if you want to take the tabula as being razed and start again, I have no objections. PiCo (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Later thoughts: As I've left it, that section has two paragraphs, one on the dating of Exodus given in Kings, the second on implications for the history of Egypt. The second para would be better off in some other section, if anywhere - and might be better off simply deleted. On the other hand, the material that I deleted from the original concerning the NT on the date of Exodus is relevant and can go back in. PiCo (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Identity of the anonymous Pharaoh

Regardless of Eusebius' expertise or lack thereof, there was no good reason to remove this entire section. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the entire article should be deleted. It is mostly religious (Jewish) POV. BTW, cf. Tutimaios. Cush (talk) 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What nonsense. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

True. The entire Torah is nonsense. Cush (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a Talk page, not a forum for you to air your personal prejudices. If you are unable to adhere to Wikipedia policies, then don't post here. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy is to not post POV and use primary sources uncritically. But that's what all the articles about biblical stories do. Judaism is POV (in fact it's plain bias), including all its scriptural basis. So stop whining. The Tanakh/Bible is not a history book, it is a religiously motivated effort to create an alternative history that creates significance for the adherents of Yhvh among the attested cultures of ancient times. There is no trace of the biblical Israelites in the historical or archeological record. No traces of an Exodus from Egypt (in any currently held chronology), no trace of a Conquest, no trace of the events of the Judges era, and not even real evidence for the Monarchy eras prior to, say, 850 BCE. It's all just circumstantial hints that are abused to confirm biblical claims. So cut the crap about my personal prejudices. Cush (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What did I just tell you? This is a Talk page, not a forum for you to air your personal prejudices. If you are unable to adhere to Wikipedia policies, then don't post here. If you have any evidence that this article is not conforming to Wikipedia policies concerning POV and primary sources, please post it here. If on the other hand you simply want to keep ranting, I'll follow due process accordingly. The very fact that you think 'all the articles about biblical stories' simply 'use primary sources uncritically' shows you're completely ignorant of the relevant scholarly literature. Are you seriously going to make that claim concerning the literature written by Dever, Silberman, Friedman, and Na'aman which is cited in the article? --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If we can get back to the identity of the anon pharoah: the Biblical text gives no clues whatsoever for identifying him, so how can it be done? Only by getting a date for the exodus. In other words, the pharoah will be identified via the exodus, and not vice versa. PiCo (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The date of the Exodus depends on the chronology one applies to Egyptian history and its subsequent synchronization with the biblical account. The fact that Manetho mentions the pharaoh who raised Moses as Khenophres and the pharaoh in whose reign the exodus took place as Tutimaios should make one think. Especially since the names he gives are not the standard names that are used in stories about Egypt (such as "Sesoosis/Sesostris") but reflect rare actual pharonic names, namely Khaneferre and Dudimose. These both are kings of the 13th Dynasty, which incidently is also the only time frame in which a large number of Aamu in Egypt is attested. Excavations at Avaris have shown that this center of Aamu settlement in Egypt was suddenly abandoned by highly egyptianized Aamu (which would be the Israelites) at the end of the 13th Dynasty only to be resettled by not egyptianized Aamu a few decades later (which would be the first wave of Semitic Hyksos). Placing the Exodus in the 18th or 19th Dynasties does not go well with the absence of Aamu in that time, and identifying it with the departure of the Hyksos does not go well with the fact that the later Hyksos were not Semites but Indo-Europeans. Cush (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is not a page for a discussion of the subject, but how to improve the article. Cush, right or wrong, you need reliable sources, not your own arguments. Doug Weller (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That's funny, given that the only source for this article is the Bible, which is definitely not a reliable source. Cush (talk) 07:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller, you're absolutely right. Thanks for saying that. Cush, take note. --Taiwan boi (talk) 07:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gematria, Chronology, etc.

PiCo restored some edits today that I was happy to see were reverted by Steven Anderson. Rather than have this go back and forth in edits, I'd like to raise these issues here.

The first issue is a claim, sourced to Ted Hildebrandt, that the 603,550 males between the ages of 20 and 60 who left Egypt and were counted in the first census derives from the phrase benei Yisrael, kol rosh (misquoted by Hildebrandt as bene Yisrael kol ros, which has a gematria (letter value) of 603,550. But despite there being a source for this claim, it's like finding an otherwise reliable source that says 2 + 2 = 5. Because the gematria of that phrase is actually 1234 (I'd originally edited it to say 1114).

(For those interested, the words convert to number as follows: 2 + 50 + 10 (benei), 10 + 300 + 200 + 1 + 30 (Yisrael), 100 + 30 (kol), 200 + 1 + 300 (rosh). That's 62 + 541 + 130 + 501, or 1234.)

PiCo reverted that because he said it's original research (i.e., I did the math myself rather than find a book that does the math for that phrase). I guess he has a point, technically speaking. But what do we do? I suppose we could get rid of the statement altogether, because a claim by Hildebrandt that's patently and obviously false, like this one, might be seen as rendering him a non-reliable source. Sort of like one who says that 2 + 2 is 5. I thought it would be less radical to merely add the caveat that Hildebrandt is factually wrong. That may have been the wrong choice. I'd love to hear what others think.

The other issue is the curious claim that the regnal lengths of the kings of Judah add up to 430. In fact, Jewish tradition holds that the First Temple stood for 410 years, and not 430. Granting that there are other traditions, outside of Judaism, there doesn't seem to be any sense to a claim that the period was artificially set to 430 years for schematic purposes when the most relevant tradition regarding that period doesn't say anything of the sort. The 430 itself seems like some sort of original research, though I don't know who by, because no source whatsoever was given for the claim. Rather than just delete the paragraph (which I probably should have done, since it's sourceless), I limited myself to correcting it. Again, I'd like to hear feedback. -LisaLiel (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since PiCo saw fit to revert again, I've removed the statement about gematria altogether. A source that can't do math isn't a reliable source. -LisaLiel (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. My apologies, I wasn't looking at the Talk page. Thanks for the Seder Olam and Thiels. I've still got no idea where Barr got his date from, but he's a respected scholar and must surely be basing it on something - but nevertheless I've dropped it as I can't explain how he arrived at it. I've also dropped the sub-sub heading "Criticism" - these aren't criticisms. they're attempts to understand and explain. As for Bietzel's gematria, you say he's an unreliable source, but looking at his CV, where his article is published, and the sheer scholarship, he seems to me to be as reliable as we need to have. Incidentally, in his footnote Bietzel suggests that he gets his reading of the phrase from the Encyclopedia Judaica - you might like to check that out, unfortuinately I don't have access to it and can't do it myself. I think this section is really starting to look good now, let's keep working on it. PiCo (talk) 06:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi PiCo. You should keep the main part of a section for simple statements of what the article is about, and additional sections for rebuttals/criticisms, if you think there are some. I've moved your material criticizing the Exodus into a more approrpiate section.

As far as Bietzel's reliability, it's a funny thing. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, had a Ph.D. in psychology and would certainly be considered a reliable source in that field. Would you be willing to have him cited here as a mainstream source for archaeology and chronology? Bietzel's expertise clearly does not extend to gematria, so for the purposes of the rather silly claim that benei yisrael kol rosh has a gematria of 603,550, he is not a reliable source. This should not be construed to be prejudicial to other citations by Bietzel where appropriate. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I'll undo the indent because it makes iot easier to write multiple paragraphs. I've taken a day to think about your comments and give a thoughtful answer. I'll do it in dot form, taking them one by one.

• "keep the main part of a section for simple statements of what the article is about, and additional sections for rebuttals/criticisms, if you think there are some." Basically I agree, but I disagree that the material about the problems with the chronology of Kings constitutes criticism. I'd say instead that it's simply attempts to deal with those problems. Can you explain to me in what sense you believe it's criticism? - perhaps we're not using the word with the same understanding of its meaning.
• Structure of the section (this is not a point you made but it leads on from the first point): I think we've got the first sentence right - "According to the 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple in the 4th year of his reign." This is the basis of the Biblical chronology for the date of the Exodus. But the first thing the reader is going to do after that is ask, Ok, so what date in history was the 4th year of Solomon? The answer isn't to talk about Seder Olam Rabbah, which is a secondary source, but about the interlocking reigns in Kings down to the destruction of the Temple at a fixed/known date, which is a primary source. That's why I think the second sentence in this paragraph should be about the reigns in Kings, with a third sentence about the problems that exist with accepting this at face value. Seder Olam Rabbah should be the next paragraph.
• Bietzel's reliability: I know that you're something of an expert on Biblical chronology. Bietzel, it seems to me, is also an expert on Biblical studies - he has respectable degrees, holds a tenured professorship, is published in peer-reviewed journals, and has authored/edited important books. In short, he's a qualified Biblical scholar, unlike Velikovsky. So I'm perturbed that you disagree with him over this gematria. He refers to the Encyclopedia Judaica 7/369-70, which I take to mean volume 7, pages 369-70. I can't be sure that this is what he's actually saying, as I don't have access to the EJ. If you do, could you please look this up and tell us what is said there?

I'm still investigating the material from Barr and will let you know what else I discover. PiCo (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Table in archaeology section

I've added a table to this section because I thought it would be useful to lay out side by side what was happening in Egypt and Israel over the period when the Exodus could have occurred. Grateful ant feedback. PiCo (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Dead Reckoning"

PiCo, you've tried over and over to insert this 430 year nonsense for the duration of the First Temple. Now you're justifying it in the text of a Wikipedia article by calling it a "dead reckoning" of the Hebrew text. Have you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? I really think you should. And if you have, please consider rereading them as a refresher.

Second of all, a "dead reckoning", while irrelevant, doesn't even give 430. It gives 369. Plus 36 years for Solomon (counting from his 4th year when he started building the Temple) gives you 405. The 430 number comes from an ambiguous number in Ezekiel. You don't know for sure what that number refers to; claiming that it's the duration of the First Temple is pure conjecture.

Third of all, a "dead reckoning" is silly, because the book of Kings relates interlocking regnal data of both Judah and Israel, and everyone who has ever studied the subject seriously (Tadmor, Thiele, etc.) recognizes that you can't just add up their stated regnal lengths.

PiCo, I get that you see it all as fiction, so adding the numbers is as good as anything else in your view. But that's your view. Maybe you should read WP:NPOV as well, because your view is far from neutral.

I've removed all of the material on criticism of the chronology of the kings. Even if it wasn't highly POV (you claim that simply adding the reign lengths of the kings of Judah and Israel "should" add up to a matching number, which is silly), the place for it is History of Israel and Judah, and not this article. I've also changed the first (and now only) paragraph of the section to be NPOV by including Thiele, Tadmor, Barr and Seder Olam. That's called being balanced. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked closely at the edits in question, but if what's going on here is an editor taking the bible, reading various parts of it, adding up the lengths of the lives or reigns of various kings and concluding that the first temple lasted a certain time based on that, that's as clear a case of original research as there could be. We don't do that on Wikipedia. We allow scholars to do that, then we report on their work if and when it becomes notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think PiCo is saying that Barr adds the years up like that. And since he's citing Barr, it's a little more complicated than that. The problem is, most of the work that's been done on the topic says otherwise. And while it may be okay to cite Barr, it certainly isn't okay to cite his conclusions as fact when they aren't even the dominant view in the field. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

For Steven J. Anderson: As LisaLiel says, it's not me who's saying this, it's James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford. I've been very careful to provide reliable sources for everything. Lisa, when I check on Barr, the reigns of the kings of Judah do indeed add up to 430, as follows:

• solomon 36 (from foundation of the Temple to death:40-4)
• rehaboam 17
• abijah 3
• asa 41
• jehosaphat 25
• jehoram 8
• ahaziah 1
• athalia 6
• joash 40
• amaziah 29
• uzziah 52
• jotham 16
• ahaz 16
• hezekiah 29
• mannaseh 55
• amon 2
• josiah 31
• jehoahaz 0
• jehoiakim 11
• jehoiachin 0
• zedekiah 11
• TOTAL: 429 (The extra year is Jehoahaz+Jehoiachin, 3 months each, rounded up)

So it's not accurate to say that the 430 years is a POV, not even Barr's: it's a verifiable fact. Please note also that Barr and Thiele are doing different things. Barr is talking about sacred time, the mystical meaning contained in the raw numbers; Thiele is trying to interpret those numbers to arrive at a secular chronology. Thiele has a pov (an important one, that needs to be mentioned, but which is open to question and refinement), but Barr is simply pointing out what's there. There is no material critical of the chronology of Kings in what I've written - again, it's a simple, verifiable fact that the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah don't add up to the same number. If they did, there'd have been no reason for Thiele and others to do their work. Anyway, I don't find your reasons for deleting the material persuasive, and I believe that readers deserve and would appreciate the fuller explanation of what's in the chronology and why it's proved so difficult to arrive at a date for the Exodus from this source alone. By the way, may I thank you for the courteous way you've conducted this discussion. But if you think I believe the Bible is fiction, you're doing me a grave disservice. PiCo (talk) 05:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, you don't get to decide that "sacred time", rather than actual chronology, is what's relevant to the chronology of the Exodus. You can claim that Thiele has a POV, but it's a major POV that's dominant in the field. Tadmor is a major view as well. Barr is playing numerology games. You can mention him if you like, but you can't declare his "sacred time" thing to be the NPOV fact. The text you reverted was NPOV. It contained Barr and Thiele and Tadmor and Seder Olam. If you revert it again, the next step in dispute resolution would be a RfC. You can initiate it if you want, or I will. It doesn't matter, but you can't keep pushing one agenda to the exclusion of all other views here. -LisaLiel (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've also changed the name of the section from "The Biblical chronology" to "The Biblical date of the Exodus", since a section on biblical chronology in general belongs elsewhere. PiCo, if you want to go to History of ancient Israel and Judah and create sections about the chronology, possibly with a subsection about the "sacred time" theory, that's fine. But this article is about the Exodus. Giving the biblical date for the Exodus according to a number of views is fine. Insisting that the numbers are meaningless themselves and that they only reflect "sacred time" is not. That's one view among many, and is not the dominant view in the field. You can't keep trying to give it undue weight like this. -LisaLiel (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lisa: Here's your prefered version of the section on the Biblical chronology, and I just want to note for you why I believe it isn't quite what we need:

According to 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple, which was in the 4th year of his reign. Kings also lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple, which has been reckoned by various sources as anywhere from 380 years (Tadmor and Thiele) to 410 years (Seder Olam Rabbah, the traditional Jewish chronology) to 430 years (Barr). The destruction of the Temple can be dated on non-Biblical evidence to 587/586 BCE, and a simple arithmetical calculation -- 586 + [duration of the Temple] + 480 -- places the fourth year of Solomon's reign somewhere between 1016 and 966 BCE, and the Exodus between 1496 and 1446 BCE.

Basically it's not one I'd reject in toto, but it does have some problems. I'll go through it line by line.

• According to 1 Kings 6, the Exodus occurred in the 480th year before Solomon began to build the First Temple, which was in the 4th year of his reign. We can agree on this.
• Kings also lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple, which has been reckoned by various sources as anywhere from 380 years (Tadmor to 410 years (Seder Olam Rabbah, the traditional Jewish chronology) to 430 years (Barr Actually this combines two quite separate ideas:
  • first, that Kings lists the years for each king of Judah down to the destruction of the Temple - we can agree on this also.
  • second, that this period of time has been reckoned by various sources at 380 years (Tadmor/Thiele), 410 years (Seder Olam), and 430 years (Barr). This is highly misleading. Barr isn't reckoning anything, and he isn't the origin for the idea that the sum of the years given in Kings is 430. In fact the idea doesn't have a source, it's a simple statement of fact: if you add up then reigns given in Kings, it's 430. I demonstrated this in the table I gave yesterday (see above), and you haven't disputed it.
    • Given this, it's only Tadmor/Thiele and Olam Seder who do any reckoning. Tadmor/Thiele recognise the problems with the Kings chronologies (problems which are both internal, between the king-lists for Judah and Israel, and external, between Kings and the Assyrian chronology) and try to resolve them into a plausible secular chronology. Seder Olam takes a different approach, and tries to reconcile them within a religious framework based on, inter alia, the 70-week prophecy in Daniel. But both are interpretations based on the 430 year chronology explicit in Kings.
• The destruction of the Temple can be dated on non-Biblical evidence to 587/586 BCE Agreed - but note that Seder Olam doesn't accept this: it dates the destruction to 490 years prior to the fall of the Second Temple, i.e., 420 BCE (actually 423 - they didn't date the destruction of the Second Temple to 70).
• a simple arithmetical calculation -- 586 + [duration of the Temple] + 480 -- places the fourth year of Solomon's reign somewhere between 1016 and 966 BCE, and the Exodus between 1496 and 1446 BCE. Yes for two of our estimates, but the Seder Olam, which, because it places the fall of the First Temple in 423, must place the Exodus in 1313 BCE.

I'm sorry if you feel we need to take this to dispute resolution. So far as I'm concerned, we've been having a civilised and mutually respectful discussion. You seem to have been willing to listen to what I say and argue constructively with me, and I've certainly taken a great deal of what you've said on board, notably your references to Thiele and the Seder Olam. Might I therefore suggest, since there's no hostility between us, that we ask a mutually respected person to offer an opinion? Might I suggest that you (since it's you who feel we need to go outside this forum) approach Talk, an editor whom I certainly respect, for an opinion? PiCo (talk) 07:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)