This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Bahá'í Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
I propose merging Criticism of Moses with Moses creating a single NPOV article on the topic. the Criticism of moses is very small and has only 2 sections besides references
Section 1- some criticism it's only 347 words, the current criticism is over 100 words so it wouldn't be that much bigger by including this criticism in the criticism section.
Section 2- Some mistakes of moses - is a book about moses, this can easily go in the "Moses in modern literature" section of the "moses" article.
The result of this merge will be a better article and an article that is less likely to give undue weight to any subject about moses. any help, suggestions, or feedback is not only welcome but of course appreciated. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support, agree with everything you said.Gonzales John (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I changed the identification from Pharaoh's sister to his daughter and clarified that this identification came from the Midrash, not the Book of Exodus iteself.
If this is in any way incorrect, please feel free to change it. But if you do, I would ask you to please try to separate out facts attributable to the Torah, since this is Scriptural for Christians, and facts attributable to sources outside the Torah. Apollo (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Re: Moses Identified as Crown Prince Tuthmosis
Authors Graham Phillips  and Riaan Booysen  have proposed, however, that Moses and Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the heir-to-the-throne of Amenhotep III, must have been the same person. Phillips concludes that the only set of circumstances in Egyptian history that uniquely matches that of Moses is the mysterious disappearance of Crown Prince Tuthmosis. Booysen argues that not only does Manetho link Amenhotep III to the Exodus (Moses as the priest Osarseph had served under Amenhotep who had a sacred scribe called Amenhotep, the son of Papis / Hapu) , but that Artapanus’ account of Moses being involved in the first burial of the Apis bull ,
“and Chenephres (the pharaoh of the Exodus) having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses,”
unambiguously confirms Moses’ identity as Tuthmosis. Crown Prince Tuthmosis, officiating as the High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, had assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull in the Serapeum at Saqqara . Booysen notes that while Manetho furthermore asserts that Moses had sent messengers to the rulers of Jerusalem, summoning them to join him in his war against Egypt, the El Arish Shrine text states that it was the king’s son who had sent these messengers  and The Story of Joseph and Asenath records that it was the king’s eldest son, i.e. his heir-to-the-throne, who had sent the messengers to the Israelites . All three accounts record that the Israelites had complied and invaded Egypt, and Moses is therefore linked to Crown Prince Tuthmosis by three independent accounts of the same event.
1. Phillips, Graham (1998). Act of God, Pan Books, ISBN 0 330 35206 7. 2. Booysen, Riaan (2013). Thera and the Exodus, O-Books, ISBN 978 1 78099 449 9. 3. Josephus, Against Apion 1.26 (238-242, 250). 4. E.H. Gifford (1903), Eusebius of Caesarea - Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.27. 5. O’Connor, David and Cline, Eric H. (eds), Amenhotep III – Perspectives On His Reign, ISBN 0-472-08833-5, p. 8. 6. Francis Llewellyn Griffith and Édouard Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, London: Kegan Paul, Trentch, Trubner & Co., 1887, pp. 71-73. 7. Cook, David and H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), “Joseph and Aseneth (XXIII-XXIV)”, The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 473-503.
QUESTION: Would it be allowable to include this passage under Moses, Historicity?Saddeleur (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
After I added a BC tag to indicate that the "7th-century" descriptor of the Kingdom of Judah mentioned in the Historicity section of the article was in BC/BCE not AD/CE, Dougweller left a message on my talk page which brought to my attention the inconsistency of the style that was used in the article, which had used both AD/BC and CE/BCE styles at the same time. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style, an article should consistently use only one of these, not both, except in quotations. Editor2020 cited the aforementioned guideline in enforcing this consistency by changing instances of the AD/BC notation to CE/BCE. However, the same guideline also states (as Dougweller mentioned on my talk page) that the established era style should not be changed without good reason and consensus. The first revision of the article used the AD/BC style consistently; a search of the talk page archives reveal no discussion suggesting changing this to the CE/BCE style, and a quick check of revisions of the article through each of the years since its creation point to no definite changeover from AD/BC to CE/BCE (though the latter was introduced into the article at some point). So by this "established era style" clause, the article should use the AD/BC style "unless there are reasons specific to its content" to use the CE/BCE style. I hope that the editors involved in this matter will have been pinged and will participate in this discussion. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article was completely changed to BCE, with BC entering again (not a change, an addition) in April 2010. Since that time it has remained mainly BCE with a couple of additions of new text with the BC usage. December 2008, 3 uses of BC, 12 of BCE. And they were added sometime between August 2008 and December 2008, as in August there were no mentions of BC, just the 12 BCE edits. August 2007, a year earlier, still just BCE. July 2007 - it was all BCE but changed to BCE but with the edit summary "restoring neutral BCE/CE notation (was switched to Christ-centric BC/AD a few months ago". BCE in October 2006, July The change seems to have taken place March 30th 2006, and it's been more or less stable as predominantly BCE since, with one change back to BC but that only lasted a few months. There have also been a few BC additions (as opposed to changes in nomenclature. So no, the established style has not been BC but BCE. We don't go by the first edit. Doug Weller (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)