Talk:The Exodus

Exodus: Myth or Fact?

The disclaimer should read: This article is about a story related in the Bible. The lead needs to address this point. The "founding myth" misdirection is not encyclopaedic.Absolutely Certainly (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

But it is a founding myth and depicts fictional characters, like Moses. Dimadick (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The absolute lack of independent mention of the story's events or consequences, from any contemporary culture... the lack of any archaeological evidence that anything happened, and the established historical fact that no quantity of Israelites were ever enslaved in Egypt at all (writings of the time say they were in Babylon, never Egypt)... this strains any credibility of this story to the shattering point. An epic tale, sure, but demonstrably pure fiction. --Terminator484 (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Terminator484: Now, there are good and bad arguments for the Exodus being unhistorical. The Normand conquest is not archaeologically corroborated, we just know about it from writings. There is nothing unusual with Canaanites enslaved in Egypt, just there weren't two millions of them. Yup, that would mean that the majority of Egyptians were in reality Canaanites. That is what is impossible, not that Canaanites sought refuge next to the Nile during droughts and famines. And Egyptians would not have reported about being vanquished by Canaanites, but they would have needed paperwork for the most daunting economic and demographic crisis in their history. And most scholars would grant that some elusive real event is behind the Exodus myth, but the numbers are way out of proportion. Even the Roman Empire, at the peak of its power, did not have 600 thousands soldiers. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually true that the Norman conquest lacks archaeological evidence - Norman coins, Norman-style castles, Norman-style weapons, and more, begin from 1066. Achar Sva (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Bayeux Tapestry, though not exactly archeological. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually it is part of the material culture that archaeology studies. But as has been pointed out, besides the accounts not being written centuries later, there is a huge amount of archaeological evidence anyway. Maybe not for individual battles, but for the conquest. Also see [1]. Doug Weller talk 09:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

How is this different than the resurrection of Jesus? There is absolutely no archaeological evidence that Christ was resurrected. See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic. Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth. To call the Torah a myth is to call all of Christianity a myth. In the end, the Wikipedia pages (and its editors) need to be neutral and unbaised and not choose empowering language for one religion, while choosing damaging language for another religion. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Take it up over there. Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

"Scholars refer to the Exodus as a myth" is deceiving. You should say, "Some scholars..." Or to be completely honest, you should say, "SOME hand selected, biased scholars refer to Exodus as a myth." 67.221.133.45 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Every person is biased in one way or another, I don't know why you cite that as an argument. Every mainstream Bible scholar agrees that the story of the Exodus from the Bible is largely inaccurate, although some mainstream Bible scholars concede that there might be some grain of truth behind it. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is an arbitrary term. It is also poisoning the well before considering "non-mainstream" arguments from scholars that have largely equal credentials through reputable publishers about the same evidence that "mainstream" scholars have written about. KevinT24 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In the jargon of the Wikipedia Community, "mainstream" is not opposed to "minority view, but credible"; it is opposed to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"Furthermore, to call the Exodus story a myth is to call the entire Torah a myth." I would endorse that statement. Nothing historical in that narrative. Dimadick (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I wish that all Wikipedia articles reinforced this basic concept, i.e. that the Biblical narrative is NOT history as the study of history is understood and undertaken in the post-17th-century non-religious, enlightenment rationalistic approach to it in Western society. Unfortunately, that is far from being the case. And furthermore, we also seem to be entering a period where the enlightenment rationalistic approach to the study of societies is being finally overwhelmed and overrun by conservative, reactionary forces. That is my own feeling, at least. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the Torah? 75.99.91.246 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I have. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why then is this a "myth" and not a belief? The resurrection of Christ is listed as a belief. The specifics of language matter. The language you are choosing is favoring one religion over the other. This is and has always been anti-semitic. 75.99.91.246 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You can fill a library with mainstream academic books which call Exodus a myth, yup, this includes books written by Jewish professors, including practicing Rabbis. Resurrection of Jesus as a founding myth, while technically true, does not get the same amount of space from scholars, being them Christian or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: I am sure Egyptologist Manfred Bietak would disagree with what you states, since he supports the historicity of much of the Biblical narrative. Check his publications: [1][2]. Potatín5 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@Potatín5: You got something wrong: as Achar Sva said, Wikipedia does not render the truth, but the balance of scholarly opinion. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

@tgeorgescu: Since Manfred Bietak's opinions are scholarly opinions, I think it is important to take his views into account in order to establish a fair balance of overall scholarly opinions. That's all I say. Potatín5 (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

We have statements of scholarly consensus already in the article. You are not characterizing Bietak correctly:

We therefore posit that the biblical tradition arose out of the various movements (into and out of Egypt, as noted above), presum-ably at different times and under different circumstances. As we noted earlier, history is always more complicated than a single episode or a single account, but the tradition frequently memorializes, commem-orates, and indeed celebrates only one main narrative. Such is what occurred in ancient Israel: the story is stylized as the descent to Egypt by a single extended family, Jacob and his children; the slavery of the main group engaged in brickmaking for the building of Pithom and Ra’amses; the miraculous hand of God bringing plagues against Egypt; and, finally, the Exodus from Egypt of the core group, which would traverse the Sinai and settle in Canaan.

If the Exodus is based on "various movements" in "different times and under different circumstances," its obviously not the biblical account. Even if you were characterizing Bietak correctly, the fact remains that we have statements of WP:RS/AC that the vast majority of scholars no longer hold the biblical narrative to be historically accurate. A majority of scholars believe that the exodus has a historical basis, another large group believes that there is no historical basis, and a third, very small group (characterized by fringe per the AC cited in the article) believe it happened more or less like in the Bible.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Evidently, Bietak is not arguing for a literalist reading of the account, but he contends that the main elements of the narrative were real or had some historial basis in a group of enslaved [proto-]israelites in the Late Bronze Age. And he does never use the word "myth" to describe the Biblical narrative. Potatín5 (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

That's why the most accurate description for the Exodus is "mythologized history" instead of "myth". But to most traditionalist Christians this is not an important distinction. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't written just for traditionalist Christians. Mythologized history is has a very different connotation that myth. If Mythologized History is the most accurate description then that is what the article should state. 67.80.112.24 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

All Bietak admits above is that there were movements into and out of Egypt - the rest he says is styalized. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Beliefs are held in specific concepts. A long mythological narrative does not entail a single belief, but a whole collection of them. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Your contention sounds more Foucauldian vs. actual historiography. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 11:20, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

See Resurrection of Jesus page, which describes that as a "belief". Inconsistently, labeling this a myth, appears purely anti-semetic.

"Belief " and "myth" are — one could say — synonyms. To quote Wiktionary: A myth is...

A traditional story which embodies a belief regarding some fact or phenomenon of experience, and in which often the forces of nature and of the soul are personified; a sacred narrative regarding a god, a hero, the origin of the world or of a people, etc.

(emphasis added by me)

Or to quote the Wikipedia disambiguation page on "Myth":

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in society

So, what's the problem with calling it a "myth"? Where do you see an inconsistency? And how is talking about mythology "anti-semitic"? Nakonana (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't your contention just a classical argument from silence (or ignorance)? See Fallacies | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AppealtoIgnorance) Cameronferguson81 (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Isn't your contention evidence for the existence of Bigfoot? We have about as much evidence for his existence as for the existence of Moses: None at all. Dimadick (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

You would have to establish that analogy before it would be convincing. Ty. Cameronferguson81 (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Cameronferguson81: That would be true if it were his contention. We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. When even scholars who do not deny that Moses existed affirm that he is irretrievably lost to history/archaeology, that should give you pause. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: According to this source published by Harvard University Press, Moses was in all likelihood a historical figure. Potatín5 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

First read the rest of that paragraph, to understand what these authors are actually saying about any alleged historical Moses, and the Exodus he allegedly lead. Second, use a dictionary to comprehend what the word "consensus" actually means. Then look up "proverbs, stories and songs", and reconsider why experts use the label "Mythologized history". Wdford (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

" We render the academic consensus for what it is, we do not second guess it. Our own arguments are futile, we render what mainstream WP:RS say. " The peer-reviewed literature suggests you are wrong here and logicians would conclude you have made a fallacious statement. See Douglas Walton Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 1997), 239-242. KevinT24 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To claify, are you saying on the talk page we cannot discuss different views? Or question the philosophical assumptions in the discussion on the talk page? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is simply a system for churning WP:SOURCES. Not for indulging in WP:OR. That is: my opinion does not matter, your opinion does not matter, only the opinions of mainstream full professors matter. We may discuss assumptions in so far this helps distinguishing between mainstream sources and WP:FRINGE sources. We are not called to produce research based upon our own assumptions. Nor to challenge the assumptions of Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If individuals cite the approved university presses, then you can talk about those subjects in the "talk" section? Cameronferguson81 (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussions in the talk page are usually meant for solving problems with the article. If there are newer WP:V mainstream insights, just add them to the article or request an edit to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia source I can look at to see what the policy is for the talk page? Its explicit limitations and purposes?

Back to the appeal to authority. Individuals viewing any page on Wikipedia should know that they should come to any conclusion on their own in dialogue with a wide array of reputable experts. This is the logical way to approach these subjects and appeal to expert arguments (including consensus). See Douglas Walton, Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach, 2nd Edition (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 209-245; John Ziman, Reliable Knowledge: An Exploration of the Grounds for Belief in Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 126. KevinT24 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The frank statements in the Wiki article and by many readers saying there is zero evidence confuse me. Why so desperate to make the story of Jewish slavery in 13th c. BCE Egypt a lie?

Arrogance and fear clearly don't pair well with true curiosity and common sense.

Please pick apart this interesting article for me.

https://armstronginstitute.org/238-evidence-of-the-exodus#:~:text=Evidence%20of%20such%20migration%20is,in%20the%20Nile%20Delta%20area. 152.208.21.62 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say there's evidence, but there are many maybe and probably.

Also, there is no evidence that Yahweh worship existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Israelites existed in 1446 BCE. Or that Hebrew language existed in 1446 BCE. If an Exodus happened around that time, it wasn't Yahwistic and it wasn't Israelite. While we can't deny that it was the Exodus, it wasn't Jewish in any form or shape. In this case, it was an exodus of Pagan Canaanites, not of any Jew, Hebrew, or Israelite. So, it were part of the "national" history of the Pagan Canaanite ancestors of the Israelites, but not a part of history of the Israelite ethnic group. Even if we admit that Osarseph was a monotheist, he wasn't an Yahwistic monotheist. If Osarseph's only existing god is a real god, then the Abrahamic god is a fake god. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how the existence of Yahweh' cult is relevant to the historicity of the Exodus. Whoever invented Yahweh could have added his name in old legends. Dimadick (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The point being: maybe it was a legend Israelites inherited from their ancestors, but there is no reason to think that a 1446 BCE Exodus included Israelites. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead contains no summary of account

Why does the lead contain no summary of the Exodus? Also, its historicity is quite secondary to its religious significance, so I think that paragraph should be last. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Zanahary, there is Book of Exodus for the story, The Exodus is about its historicity (mainly). tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Sources and parallels of the Exodus is the article about the myth’s origins—but even that article should have a brief overview of the narrative. This article is about the narrative called the Exodus, whose content spans a number of books besides the Book of Exodus. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm not the decision maker in that respect. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Uh, okay! I’ll work on the lead. Open to thoughts from anyone with input. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Out of Date

The information in the "Origins and Historicity" is way out of date. It is obvious that the contributors and editors have not kept up with the results of archaeological excavations in the Nile Delta over the past few decades, especially the work by James Hoffmeier and Manfred Bietak. This material is now readily available in archaeological publications and has been much discussed at conferences such as those of ASOR and the SBL. This is not the fault of the editors and contributors alone -- in general, the Biblical studies community has fallen behind on absorbing and integrating this data.

One thing has not changed: there is still no evidence for a mass revolt of Israelite slaves at any time during the New Kingdom. However, we now know that much of the population of the Delta during the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom was West Semitic (the broader ethnic group to which Israel belongs) and that the geographic descriptions found in the Bible accurately reflect conditions during the 15th to 11th centuries BCE.

I recently tried adding references to a few recent studies that attempt to integrate this material. They were rejected by an editor who claimed that TheTorah.com is not a reliable source. The editor in question is a specialist in Eastern European affairs whom, as far as I know, has no expertise in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology or Biblical History. I used those sources only because they are the most readily available to readers who do not have the time or energy to comb through piles of research papers. I question how one defines a "reliable source" on a topic as contentious as biblical studies; is a source "unreliable" simply because it expresses an opinion different from that of the editor? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

First, Wikipedians are not supposed to be experts, they just have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES, see WP:CITIZENDIUM for details.

I can grant you the point that there were Semites in Ancient Egypt. There just weren't millions of them, and there weren't any Israelites until 1210s BCE (that's technically when Israelites have been shown to exist). Let me spell it out clearly: before 13th century BCE there couldn't be any Israelite in Egypt, since according to the known evidence they did not exist yet. And yup, in the 13th century BCE and earlier, there were Semitic temples in Egypt, just there were no Yahwistic temples. Those Semites were polytheists and they did not worship Yahweh. What's the evidence for any Yahwist being in Egypt before 1250 BCE? I bet there is none. There's is a mention of "Ywh in the land of Shasu", but the Shasu were not Israelites. And saying that Yhw=Yahweh is not completely supported by evidence. Redford speculated that Yhw is the ancestor of Yahweh. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Two of the articles that I cited were written by leading experts in the field: Gary Rendsburg of Rutgers University and Israel Knohl of Hebrew University. The citations themselves were rejected as "unreliable" by an editor simply because they were published on the website of thetorah.com. Isn't that "citing sources"?

Incidentally, neither of those papers claim that there were Yahweistic temples in Egypt, or even that the West Semites of the Delta would have identified themselves as Israelite. Certainly it is true that the first reference by name to Israelites by the title "Israelite" comes from the 13th century! What makes you think the articles in question claim differently? Archaeobuf (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Those two scholars seem to be at the maximalist/conservative extreme of the scholarly spectrum. Wikipedia usually renders mainstream Bible scholarship. While conservative scholars may be WP:CITED, their arguments should be rendered with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What difference does that make? I added those citations to a section on "Possible Historical Origins" which explicitly notes that is presenting controversial and uncertain hypotheses! How can one possibly discuss "possible historical origins" if one categorically rejects the work of scholars working in that area as "unreliable"?

Besides, they are not "maximalists". If you want to understand what a maximalist is, look at the web-site of the Associates for Biblical Research (https://biblearchaeology.org/).

I will, however, review the policies concerning WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to see if there is some other way they can be cited. They should be. Archaeobuf (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What I think is not relevant. What are the WP:RULES and customs at Wikipedia, that's relevant. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if those are the rules, then this entire article violates them far more aggregiously!

Talk about unattributed points-of-view, consider this far more opinionated and completely unattributed statement for the article: "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons." Archaeobuf (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We actually have WP:RULES for that, too, see WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Those rules read "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." This article doesn't follow them!

I don't disagree with the statement; I think it is true that "Most mainstream scholars do not accept the biblical Exodus account as history for a number of reasons.". I'm just wondering why that statement is treated as an exception to the rules! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Such sourcing is cited in the article, in the lead, in footnotes 4 and 5 and arguably also in 1 through 3. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Having had a chance to review the "WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV" rules, it seems to me that adding a citation to a statement that already reads "with some instead dating it to the twelfth century BCE under Ramses III (20th dynasty)." to an opinion which does indeed date it to the twelfth century BCE complies with the rules. Ditto with the statement "The 17th dynasty expulsion of the Hyksos, a group of Semitic invaders, is also frequently discussed as a potential historical parallel or origin for the story.". So why were the added citations rejected?

Don't get me wrong: I understand the underlying problem here of maintaining neutrality on a controversial subject such as this. But rejecting references to scholars whose viewpoints are identified as controversial only adds to bias! Archaeobuf (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The citations were rejected because we need to use high quality academic sources. Not a popularizing website, even if it is written by academics. It is not peer-reviewed. Also, most of the things you added citations to already had citations that were better.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the existing citations are way out of date; and TheTorah.com is peer-reviewed, although not to the extent that, say, JNES or JBL is peer reviewed. Furthermore, the existing citations are way out of date. If you prefer, I can cite Israel Knohl's original book; but since it is in Hebrew I doubt most wikipedia readers could understand it. I could also cite Rendsburg's original article in Vetus Testamentum from 1992 (out-of-date) or his more recent article written jointly with Manfred Bietak from 2021. Would that meet Wikipedia's standards?

Also, I notice that the article refers under "see also" to Simcha Jacobovici's 2006 documentary "The Exodus Decoded". Hardly a peer-reviewed source!

Please don't get me wrong: I really do understand the problems of maintaining neutrality in a topic such as this, where there is absolutely no concensus. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... no. In the mainstream academia the consensus is that the Exodus is either totally bunk or very dissimilar from the events related in the Bible. We have WP:RS for that. Evangelical colleges and universities will disagree, but we don't consider them "mainstream". Orthodox Jews will disagree, idem ditto. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, why is that relevant to a section that is explicitly discussing theories that try to make historical sense out of the exodus? Should that entire section be deleted because it does not comply with what you call "mainstream concensus"? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Minority views are not banned from Wikipedia, but they don't get lion's share. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

But don't they have to be represented accurately and in an up-to-date fashion?

Incidentally, I've heard Rutgers and Hebrew University called many things, but "Evangelical" is not one of them. And I think most Orthodox Jews would be horrified by the theories which Knohl and Rendsburg expound. Archaeobuf (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not opposed to briefly mentioning there are other opinions. But the consensus/most scholars claim is pretty well sourced. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So what does that have to do with citations added to a section which is explicitly discussing alternative viewpoints? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

In other words, there are multiple views about how the Exodus really happened, but what all mainstream views have in common is positing that the story from the Bible is inaccurate. And Joel S. Baden claimed on YouTube that, wait, there is not one story of the Exodus, there are at least four in the Pentateuch, and they differ very much from each other. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaeobuf -- if you'd like to draft something, it might help us to understand exactly what you're proposing. Like tgeorgescu, I would not be opposed to brief mentions of alternative theories like Knohl's. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

OK; how do I draft something and to whom should it be submitted? Archaeobuf (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is you simply present it here on the talk page for comment, to see if it gains a consensus of editors. I think in the abstract what you suggest is fine, but as they say, the devil is in the details. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Will do.

I started out just trying to add a few citations, but I would like now to think the whole problem through and try to get it right. Give me time. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

All true; but what does that have to do with the rejected citations?

I might also add that all three articles that I tried to cite agree that what really happened is very different from the story in the Bible (at least as commonly interpreted). So by your definition, these are all mainstream! Archaeobuf (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

For Baden's argument see Canaanites Were Israelites & There Was No Exodus - Dr. Joel Baden on YouTube. Check the transcript, search for "pentagonal" (i.e. Pentateuchal). The argument starts at 0:03:55. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What's that got to do with citations added to a section dealing with alternative theories?

I have to confess that I have not read Baden's magnum opus, "The Exodus; A Biography". The amount of material written on this subject is voluminous, and it is impossible to digest it all. My understanding, however, is that Baden's position is basically an upgraded version of a theory first proposed several decades ago by George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald, holding that Israelites emerged from Canaanites. It is one of several such models currently used in the archaeological and biblical studies communities to understand the origins of Israel, all of which are considered hypothetical and unproven. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong. Israelites emerged from Canaanites is not Baden's theory by a long shot, not even as him reviving the work of scholars deceased long ago. It it THE consensus view in the mainstream academia. Mainstream Bible scholars have various views about how Israelites emerged from Canaanites, but they all agree that the Israelites did emerge from Canaanites. That is, indeed, the only game in town, except for WP:FRINGE scholars. And of course, several sources to that extent are cited in our article. I advise you to read this (it is not a long article). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh? What about the Shasu theory? The Syrian immigration theory? The re-sedentarizing nomad theory? Why do you keep trying to equate me and the scholars whose work I was trying to cite to Biblical inerrantists?

There is NO concensus about any of this among archaeologists and biblical scholars trying to understand the origins of Israel -- only questions. And that is the way scientific research proceeds. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You're barking at the wrong tree. I'm not in charge of the Bible scholars from WP:CHOPSY. There are enough sources which clearly make the point that all other theories about the origins of the Israelites have been relegated to the academic dust bin. Of course, tiny groups did flock to Israel, and brought with them stories about Yahweh and escapes from Egypt. But the Israelite conquest of Canaan has been thoroughly debunked, no scholar worth his salt believes it.

The fact is that we are all minimalists -- at least, when it comes to the patriarchal period and the settlement. When I began my PhD studies more than three decades ago in the USA, the 'substantial historicity' of the patriarchs was widely accepted as was the unified conquest of the land. These days it is quite difficult to find anyone who takes this view.

In fact, until recently I could find no 'maximalist' history of Israel since Wellhausen. ... In fact, though, 'maximalist' has been widely defined as someone who accepts the the biblical text unless it can be proven wrong. If so, very few are willing to operate like this, not even John Bright (1980) whose history is not a maximalist one according to the definition just given.

— Lester L. Grabbe, Some Recent Issues in the Study of the History of Israel, 2007

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the idea of a massive conquest of Canaan by Israelites arriving in mass from Egypt at the end of the Late Bronze is not consistent with the currently available archaeological or documentary evidence. But the stories do exist, and that raises the question, "how did these stories arise"? On that, there is no concensus. Furthermore, Israelites clearly inhabited Israel and Judah during the Iron Age, and that raises the question, "where did they come from"? On that, too, there is no concensus.

Besides, what does that have to do with the core question here: citing the work of scholars who are attempting to figure out the answers to those questions in a section dealing with such issues? Archaeobuf (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I take mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP at face value. It is not any of my business to second-guess it. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's go to bed; we are going around in circles. I will do as Dumizid suggested and try to put together an update to this section that brings it up-to-date with current research, and post it to the talk section for review. That will take me a while, and even then I am not certain that an unbiased review is possible. Archaeobuf (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

To spell it out, yes, we are biased for mainstream scholarship, and we are biased against WP:FRINGE scholarship. These words have Wikipedically shared meanings which are explained in WP:RULES.

Baden is known as a champion of the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, but of course he does not claim to have invented NDH, and in fact NDH is a return to the old (initial) ways of DH, meaning plot threads only. I don't think his take upon the origin of the Israelites amounts to original research, rather than restating stock knowledge. There is a trend in the academia that when one is lower on the pecking order, they are mostly busy with summarizing and evaluating the points made by more important scholars. Because somebody still has to teach the basics to the students. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What does Baden's opinion on the New Documentary Hypothesis have to do with properly citing sources in a section dealing with theories about the Exodus? Archaeobuf (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

An Egregious Misquote

According to the article, "the Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history, dating the exodus to the 2666th year after creation (Exodus 12:40-41), the construction of the tabernacle to year 2667 (Exodus 40:1-2, 17) ..." It attributes this statement to Dozeman & Schechtman 2016 .

The bible does not advance such claim at the cited locations (or anywhere). I do not have a copy of Dozeman & Schechtman in front of me, but I doubt very, very much that they said it did. Someone needs to recheck the source.

Quite possibly Dozeman & Schechtman quoted some medieval or early modern computation of the biblical chronology, and their statement was either misunderstood by a contributor to wikipedia or else simplified down to the point where it was no longer correct. The modern concensus is that the biblical chronology of events before the reign of Rehoboam is too vague and inconsistent to reconstruct what the biblical authors thought, although there is some evidence for symbolic patterning in P. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't claim consensus without offering a source. In any case, the "egregious misquote" is exactly what Dozeman and Schechtman say in the section on historical context:

A central question in the modern interpretation of Exodus is what historical events may have given rise to the elaborate narrative of the book of Exodus. The biblical writers certainly wish to anchor the exodus from Egypt firmly in history. They date the event to the 2666th year (Exod. 12:40-41) from the creation of the world, or year 1 (Gen. 1:26-27). The construction of the tabernacle takes place in the 2667th year (Exod. 40:1-2, 17). Biblical writers state further that the Israelite period of enslavement is 430 years (Exod. 12:40-41), making their arrival in Egypt the 2236th year (Gen. 47:9). Jacob and his family settle in a specific land within Egypt, Goshen (Gen. 46:28; Exod. 8:22; 9:26), also known as the “land of Rameses” (Gen. 47:11). (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 138)

I trust Dozeman and Schechtman's citation of these Bible verses for these dates over your interpretation that they don't support it.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I did not have a copy of Dozeman and Schechtman in front of me. It appears, however, from your quote of what they said, that they are not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not responsible for their error, but it is responsible for choosing reliable sources and propagating misinformation.

These are the actual biblical quotes (JPS translation; all others are substantially similar):

Ex. 12:40    The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years; 41 at the end of the four hundred and thirtieth year, to the very day, all the ranks of the LORD departed from the land of Egypt.

Ex. 40:1    And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying:

Ex. 40:2    On the first day of the first month you shall set up the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting.

Ex. 40:17    In the first month of the second year, on the first of the month, the Tabernacle was set up. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

So because you don't like how they add up the numbers for the creation, they aren't a reliable source? That's not how WP:RS work. You can find these numbers in many sources, in particular the 2666 is a symbolic number and is related to the foundation of Solomon's Temple. Not sure where you are getting your information from, but it's certainly not the consensus. The Bible can't be cited for itself, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE - we rely on secondary sources like Dozeman and Schechtman, not editor's interpretations of what the verses mean.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

They are making a claim about what they say the Bible says, not what someone computes from the bible.

I don't disagree that many fundamentalists claim 2556 to be the year since creation in which the bible places the Exodus. That is not the same thing as saying that the Bible says that.It doesn't. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

2666, not whatever you said. And Dozeman and Schechtman are not fundamentalists. The specific dates for the exodus, along with the careful numbering of the people, encourage a historical interpretation of the story. But the vague references to geography and the unrealistic number of the group indicate that the book of Exodus is not history. (Dozeman and Schechtman p. 139) What's your source for the consensus that "The Fortress Commentary on the Bible" is not correct? Both Dozeman and Schectman are respected scholars, and Schectman even has a profile at "the Torah.com" [2], which is evidently your preferred source of information.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not say they were fundamentalists; they certainly are not. But they misrepresented a fundamentalist computation as being what the Bible says.

Are you saying that when someone grossly misquotes the biblical text, their error has to stand because one is not allowed to cite the relevant biblical text itself? How does that make sense?

The issue here is not whether the Exodus is real history, it is the accuracy of a supposed biblical quote.

May I suggest rephrasing the statement in the article to read "Dozeman and Schechtman claim that the Book of Exodus itself ...". That way it will be clear that wikipedia is simply quoting their opinion without confirming the accuracy of the biblical quote. Archaeobuf (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Are you going to provide a source or keep relying on your own interpretation of the biblical text?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You can find the same numbers cited here (preprint for a chapter in a volume we use elsewhere in the article "Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective" 2015: The narrative of the exodus story plays out in the second half of the second millennium BCE—to be precise: in the year 2666 anno mundi, according to the chronology of the biblical text, which is 480 years before the dedication of the Solomonic temple (cf. 1 Kgs 6:1). The chapter cites "Hughes 1990" "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions". That refers to this book: Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology. Journal for the study of the Old Testament. Supplement series 66. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Perhaps you should take up your objections with Hughes. This number is very commonly cited, as a simple search on Google Scholar will show.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Schmid does say the date is "according to the chronology of the biblical text", but nowhere does he claim the bible says so explicitly. Instead, he cites Hughes as follows: "For the details of the chronology, also regarding the different textual versions, see Hughes 1990"

Hughes himself makes it clear that he is attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source, and spends several hundred pages doing that. I haven't read the whole book, or indeed had time to do more than glance through it. However, i doubt very much that he claims the bible SAYS the exodus occurred 2666 years after creation. If he does, please provide the source.

So it looks like your backup sources themselves do not support the claim made in the wikipedia article that Ex. 12:40 and 40:1-2, 7 say the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM. And upon rereading your quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, I'm not sure that is what they claim, either.

Slight changes of wording have crept in during the process of citation and recitation that have changed a correct statement (namely, that according to some reconstructions of the Priestly chronology the Exodus took place in the year 2666 AM) to an incorrect statement that the bible SAYS the Exodus took place in that year. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

We cite reliable sources that interpret the text as indicating that. I trust them more than I trust you - you’ve yet to cite any scholarship for your position.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, Archaeobuf, insofar as I feel like I am missing an inferential leap somewhere along the chain here, but it seems plain to me that the current text is not a misquote of Dozeman and Shectman, whatever else it is. And yet again, you're just giving us your take on the matter "I doubt Hughes says that, so prove it to me" is not how things work. I tend to think you're right, that there's a better way to put this, but your arguments to this point have been unpersuasive from a Wikipedia standpoint. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestion for how you would reword it? My issue with a simple fix at the moment is that the main point, that the Bible tries to locate the Exodus as a historical event with dates and locations, is not in question. Just the chronology.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree with your unease, we have a reliable source that says one thing, and you (and me, to some extent!) saying "doesn't seem right to me." In the absence of something more than that, however, I think the best policy is to retain the current wording unless and until we can find sourcing that sheds more light. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me think about that for a day or two.

I still think you are missing the point, though. My issue is with the accuracy of a biblical quotation, not the validity or invalidity of the chronology. The secondary source quotes a primary source (Ex. 12:40, 40:1-2, 7) which simply does not say what the secondary source claims. At the same time, it fails to quote the actual source for its chronological data (plagiarism). That combination would be an "F" on any school paper. Archaeobuf (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Plagiarism? That's quite an accusation - Dozeman and Schectman have a list of sources at the end of the chapter. As for saying "it doesn't say what it says" - maybe it doesn't literally say "2,666 years after creation," but it is easy to arrive at that date just by following the chronology as it is laid out in the Pentateuch. I'm beginning to wonder if you're WP:here to build an encyclopedia or are just trying to stir up muck with these sorts of accusations. We don't care about your opinion on academic reliable sources here, and your attitude suggests that you don't understand that we don't get to make calls about scholarship ourselves. As I've told you many times, if you have sources that disagree, you need to cite them.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You are right; I got too worked up. Just because Dozeman and Schechtman did not cite their source in the little snippet semi-quoted by wikipedia does not mean they did not cite it elsewhere.

I've been trying to avoid getting into the Biblical Chronology debate, because that is not what I think the issue is. Discussions concerning the Biblical chronology for the Exodus were quite common in the earlier half of the 1900s, before they were largely abandoned as hopeless.

Consider, for example, the following quote from H. H. Rowley, "From Joseph to Joshua: The Biblical Traditions in the light of Archaeology", The Schweich Lectures, 1948, pages 77ff:

"Once again we find that genealogical and other similar information preserved in the Old Testament does not accord with I Kgs. vi.1. For we are told that Nahshon, who belonged to the period of the Exodus, was separated from Solomon by six generations. This is quite inadequate to cover a period of 480 years ...".

Then on pp. 86 ff: "That the 480 years of this verse are not easily reconciled with the framework of the book of Judges and the supplementary figures found elsewhere to cover the rest of the period between theExodus and founding of the Temple is well known ..."

Overall, Rowley devotes about 20 pages to the question of the Biblical cronology.

I could cite additional examples from Albright, Bright, Wright, and others from that era, all of which came to the same conclusion: The biblical data is internally inconsistent and self-contradictory.

I fear you will simply reject these sources as "unreliable", since despite what you say you do indeed pick and choose which scholarship you quote and what you do not. So I would suggest we return to Hughes, whom you yourself quote. He is quite specific that he was attempting to reconstruct the chronology of the Priestly source; since when is the Priestly source the sum total of the Bible? And why did it take him 300 pages to reach his conclusions? Archaeobuf (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, this seems a mismatch to me: what the chronology actually was is not the same inquiry as how it was presented. We are talking about how the author(s) of Exodus chose to relate the historicity of the story they were telling; the actual historicity thereof is a different inquiry. Do you have any sources that would go more specifically to that? Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The sources I cited all dealt with the internal chronology of the biblical account and what its authors meant, before they addressed the question as to the actual date of the Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

If we are talking about the internal logic of the Book of Exodus and its author(s), then discrepancies that arise in comparison to Kings or Judges are quite beside the point, it would seem to me. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously, you are not familiar with the structure of arguments as to the internal chronology of Exodus. They start with Kings and work backwards. And yes, that is a large part of the problem. Archaeobuf (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Obviously. Dumuzid (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

You were right after all. See my response to Ermenrich below. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, for a more recent source concerning the difficulties of reconstructing biblical chronology, you might want to take a look at William Propp's comment on Ex. 12:40 in The Anchor Bible Commentary: Exodus. Archaeobuf (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say that the exodus is not dated to 2,666 anno mundi? You can’t point us to other problems with biblical chronology and not address the subject at hand.—-Ermenrich (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Anno Mundi is a mythological concept, anyway. Or, if you prefer, a theological concept. And it seems that different books of the Bible have different chronologies. That isn't a problem so long as it's specified which of those chronologies is meant. Wikipedia makes no claim that that chronology would be accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me take the simplest possible approach. The Wikipedia article "Seder Olam Rabbah" reports a calculation according to which the Exodus took place in 2448 AM or 2450 AM.

Most of the difference is due to textual variants and different interpretations of Ex. 12:40, the very text which Dozeman and Shechtman cite as proof for their date of 2666 AM. Here is what Propp had to say about it (Exodus, Anchor Bible Series, p. 365 Textual Note to Ex. 12:40), which I cited above:

"4QExodb and some Syr MSS have "in the land of Egypt", while other Syr MSS support MSS. This is a minor matter. More serious is the LXX variant "in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan", paralleled by Sam's more logical "in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt" (cf. also Kenn 651, "in Egypt and in the land of Canaan and in the land of Goshen") see also previous TEXTUAL NOTE. The tradition that 430 years is the duration from Abraham to Moses also appears in Jubilees; Bib. Ant. 9.3; Demetrious the hronographer; the Qumran Testaments of Levi and Qohat; the vision of Amram (Grelot 1975); Josephus Ant. 2.318 (contrast Ap. 1.299); Gal. 3:17; Tg. Ps. Jonathan; Exod Rab. 18:11, and various early church historians (see Dillman 1880: 120-21). The opinion of some commentators notwithstanding (e.g., Johnson 1969), the shorter MT is preferable. On ecn easily envision the pristine text undergoing progressive expansion, while it is harder to account for the MT as abbreviated (Kreuzer 1991). See further under NOTE.

"thirty ... and four hundred. Here and in v41, LXXB as a variant "four hundred, thirty five," perhaps reflecting a particular scribe's or group's understanding of biblical chronology (see Kreuzer 1991:258)."

From Rowley, I should probably have cited pp. 66-73, which deals with the same issue. My mind was racing ahead.

Besides the issues in the text and interpretation of Ex. 12:40, there are significant differences between MT, LXX, and Samaritan in the chronology of the anti-deluvial and post-deluvial patriarchs in Genesis, which significantly affect the calculation.

So no, it is not accurate to claim the Bible says that the Exodus took place in 2666 AM. That is simply one interpretation of the Bible. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? We all know that 2666 AM is fiction. So it's not like we claim it were true. And that's the problem with the Bible, in general: we have absolutely no idea what the original text was. That implies there isn't any version of the Bible which is accurate. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You think it is OK for wikipedia to present incorrect information on the grounds that "we all know ... it is a fiction"? Who is "we"? Have you forgotten that at least some of your readers are fundamentalists who honestly believe the universe is approximately 6,000 years old?

My suggestion is that you turn the passage in question into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman. That way it will be clear that its contents represent their interpretation. That is not the impression which a reader currently receives.

Incidentally, I have since noticed that the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible" also claims the Exodus occurred in 2666 AM. At least it makes it clear that it is quoting the work of Thomas Thompson. I'm not sure why he gets (near) exclusive billing in that article. Archaeobuf (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaeobuf, please review our policy on original research. What you've put together is all very erudite and convincing, but not for Wikipedia purposes. Our sources may rely on the Peshitta. the Septuagint, the Targumim, Josephus etc. We rely on them to interpret these for us because they are reliable. Saying "I think this is how they got to their conclusion, therefore it is wrong" is simply beyond our remit. I would not be opposed to attributing that particular piece of information, but I am also pretty okay with it staying as it is. So I guess the onus is on you to form a consensus around your proposal. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This is getting very frustrating. Much of the public relies upon wikipedia to provide them with accurate, correct information. That is a big responsibility.

It is up to you to choose which sources you consider to be reliable. I have given you evidence that, in this case, the source which you chose is not reliable. As a compromise, I suggested putting its statement in quotes so as to make it apparent that the entire statement represents that source's opinion. Yet you insist on propagating information that is demonstrably incorrect? And since when is another wikipedia article someone's "original research"? Archaeobuf (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

You should perhaps look at WP:OTHERCONTENT as well. I am sincerely sorry if you're frustrated by Wikipedia processes, but we are after verifiability, not truth. If you'd like to make the case that the source is not reliable, you could certainly seek other opinions at the reliable sources noticeboard. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it appears to be quoting Ex. 12:40-41 directly, not Dozeman and Schechtman. That is a direct violation of wikipedia policy. Archaeobuf (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I am done here. When you have a consensus supporting your change, by all means make it. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

My impression that 2666 is in fact the scholarly consensus hasn’t been shaken at all by anything brought here. On the contrary. So the information is not “incorrect” and I see no reason to change it. At best, we can link to biblical chronology. That article includes multiple sources that all agree on that dating (despite the claim above that it only uses Thompson). We would have no difficulty replacing the citation to Schectman and Dozeman even if they were for whatever reason not considered reliable (and to be clear, the sole basis for claiming they aren’t reliable is that they use the 2666 dating that is also found in all these other sources on biblical chronology. So not a very persuasive argument).—-Ermenrich (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How long did it take the four of us to figure out that Dozeman and Schechtman were relying upon Thompson's reconstruction of the biblical chronology? At the very least, an additional footnote is needed here, either to Thompson, to Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible".

A typical Wikipedia user would first encounter what appears to be a direct quote of Ex. 12:40-41. If he were familiar with the Hebrew text or cautious enough to recheck the citation, he would become very perplexed, because the plain text of those verses in isolation does not support what Wikipedia appears to claim it means. A sufficiently sophisticated user would then return to the Wikipedia text, note the citation to Dozeman and Schechtman, and conclude that Wikipedia was actually citing Dozeman and Schechtman's interpretation of Ex. 12:40-41. If he or she was sufficiently sophisticated, he or she would then check Dozeman and Schechtman itself. At that point, he or she would become even more perplexed, because Dozeman and Schechtman apparently do not cite at that point the source for their interpretation (at least, they did not do so in the snippet which you quoted for me). Now the user has a personal research project on his hands to figure out what is going on -- or more likely, he or she would just dismiss the quote as unreliable, as I did.

I would suggest keeping the quote, but taking two steps to fix it:

1). Add a footnote to Thompson, Hughes, or the wikipedia article "Chronology of the Bible", preferably attached directly to the citation of Ex. 12:40-41.

2). Turn the passage into a direct quote from Dozeman and Schechtman, or at least begin the whole sentence with the phrase "According to Dozeman and Schechtman ..."

Incidentally, I greatly appreciate all the time which you editors have spent with me on this issue. I have learned a great deal about Wikipedia's procedures, its strategy for verification, etc. Had I known at the start what I know now, I would have started off with a very different complaint: namely, that the passage appeared to be quoting 12:40-41 directly and thereby misled the reader. Archaeobuf (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)