Talk:Ipuwer Papyrus

Things to add

(Currently this article is a stub)

• Where is the papyrus currently? see below at official name
• What is Ipuwer (personal name, place name...)?
• Who is Jon Van Seters?
• Is there disagreement about the interpretation of the papyrus?
• Anyone have a picture of the papyrus that we can use?

I have provided the Van Seters reference (his credentials will not be easy to obtain). There seem to be alternative views on its placement in history.

Ipuwer seems to be the narrator.

I could not find a picture for GFDL use.

There are many online sources discussing its interpretation, but I had not the time to find out an authoratitive view from an established Egyptologist. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Official name

Leiden Papyrus #344 according to xenohistorian.faithweb.com/africa/Ipuwer.html. While I don't consider such a web site authoritative I will (at least provisionally) accept their word for the offical name. RJFJR 23:05, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I could not access the museum's catalogue link from work, but this would confirm its location. JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Exodus"

The identification with the Exodus is not generally accepted by scholars. This Egyptology site refers to the Exodus association as that of "fringe historians."

I think this should be made clear in the article.--Rob117 21:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think "fringe historians" is a POV term. I have replaced it with "some", which indicates clearly that these are in the minority. I have also provided some links supporting my assertion that religious organisations seem to prefer this "fringe" interpretation (no surprise).

As I said above, we need an authoratitive review from a credentialed Egyptologist to be represented. Anyone an idea? JFW | T@lk 18:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

these "religious organizations" are themselves "fringe". I don't think the Catholic Church has a position on the papyrus. These seem to be American born agains or Bibilcal literalists. Mainstream Christians would not give a damn about whether this papyrus documents Exodus. I am a bit tired of the assumption that it is "no surprise" people are crackpots as soon as they follow the Christian religion. Lots of Christians are perfectly sane. dab (ᛏ) 13:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Catholic Church non-fringe and a respectable Jewish author yes-fringe? I'm not sure why you are attacking my comment; I placed it in "quotation marks" because others have labeled this interpretation in that way, not because I was suggesting that the views were fringe. My point was actually that the religious organisations were likely to prefer the interpretation that confirms the historicity of their belief. JFW | T@lk 17:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Church represents a billion people. One Jewish author is one Jewish author. If Judaism as a whole didn't think this papyrus important, but Michael Scanlan considered it vital it'd be the same deal.--T. Anthony 10:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ramses II not the Pharaoh of the Exodus

• Ramses II had a long and prosperous reign. There is not the slightest documentary or archaeological evidence that he drowned in the sea, or that he had to deal with anything like the Plagues of Egypt or a massive slave revolt.
• The only evidence that ties Ramses to the Exodus is the statement in Exodus 1:11 that Pharaoh forced the Israelites to build the city of Raamses. However, archaeologists know very well that this was built c.1720 BC, 500 years before Ramses II, and the megalomaniac Ramses II changed the name to his own. Thus, Exodus 1:11 is evidence against Ramses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus.Das Baz 15:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Exodus and Thera-Santorin

Several people have dated the Thera-Santorin eruption to the time of the Exodus. Thus, theories connecting Ipuwer to either the Exodus or to that great volcanic upheaval are quite congenial and compatible with each other. Das Baz 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Date of papyrus

I read some interesting information on one of the links: "It is impossible to give a date for the composition of this document. The surviving papyrus (Papyrus Leiden 334) itself is a copy made during the New Kingdom. Ipuwer is generally supposed to have lived during the Middle Kingdom or the Second Intermediate Period, and the catastrophes he bewails to have taken place four centuries earlier during the First Intermediate Period." Apparently it is said that the events that happened were during the First Intermediate Period. It should be updated to say so.

Fiction based on Fiction?

If the Biblical account of the Exodus is fiction, and Ipuwer is fiction, there could still be a connection between the two. Fiction writers do borrow from each other. But if one of the two is historical, chances are good that the other one also is historical. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the exodus?

Hi, while the article mainly talks about the exodus, the importance of this papyrus is certainly not its relevance to that! Cheers! 213.39.210.112 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Talk of Ipuwer/Exodus parallel is now only 1/3 of the content and can hardly be construed as giving undue weight to a positive match. Quite the contrary. The comparison table is provided to clarify to the reader what scholars are looking at and considering after it is stated in the article that they do not support the belief that the two texts in question are describing the self-same event, based mainly on dating and not so much a face-value reading of the texts. That textual parallels on its face do exist is not debated among scholars. See Enmarch's "The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem" for instance.

It's not so much that the Ipuwer/Exodus comparison is too large, but that the other sections may need more information provided. Maybe you can remedy this by contributing sourced material rather than resorting to censorship of other sections in some kind of ham-handed, Marxist policy? 97.106.241.66 (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Prophetic Theme

Again we have large section that seems over-emphasised, especially as it references two writers who wrote almost a century ago. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. Its prophetic nature is sort of the whole point and purpose of the text. Breasted may be dated, but his work is still highly respected, quoted, and referenced in academic circles. What is sorely missing, however, is the political context of the text. Parkinson (2002) and Simpson (1972) explain it as thus, which I paraphrase in my featured article Ancient Egyptian literature: In Ipuwer, a sage addresses an unnamed king and his attendants, describing the miserable state of the land, which he blames on the king's inability to uphold royal virtues. This can be seen either as a warning to kings or as a legitimization of the current dynasty, contrasting it with the supposedly turbulent period that preceded it. Since this is a Twelfth Dynasty text (although surviving only from a Nineteenth Dynasty copy), the turbulent period described is the First Intermediate Period, which is mentioned in the article, but, again, lacks context.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. What we shouldn't have is an attempt to make Breasted more important by harping on this 'Dean of Egyptology' thing. I agree about the lack of context. This article would never pass muster in any scholarly forum. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. Breasted, although having scholarly credibility, is nonetheless quite dated, so there should be some recent input backing his assertions, preferably from a university press source. I find the enormous focus on the biblical Exodus to be a bit unbecoming for any serious encyclopedia entry on an ancient Egyptian papyrus text.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Exodus and WP:UNDUE

This was raised above by an IP, and I and another editor have also commented on this more recently. Our policy states that "Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". Although we now have at least 3 editors this year agreeing that there is too much emphasis on the Exodus, one editor is continually replacing any material on this that I remove. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What is this "undue" weight? It's a valid area of interest regardless of personal opinions. The article admits Egyptologists "generally reject" that Ipuwer Papyrus and Exodus are describing the same event, not that noteworthy parallels do not exist if read at face value, which evidently shows that it is indeed a part of the discourse among scholars. How else can synchronizing the texts be generally dismissed if it's not being looked at? Nowhere was the side-by-side comparison taking sides one way or the other, but merely showing what scholars see. It's just raw information so why hide it? That you wish to remove the actual comparison from being looked at is a huge red flag and a blatant act of censorship. If the scholars can look at it and make up their mind, why shouldn't wiki readers? Your motivation to hide this valid area of study is questionable. And your reference to "several" editors also shows that you play loose with the facts. Unfortunately, you undermine the credibility of Wikipedia and only help to reaffirm the popular belief that it is a biased source of information. (User talk:97.106.241.66) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this. You clearly haven't read WP:UNDUE however. Several is 3, as I've written above. Emotive ords like 'censorship' and attacks on my motivation don't deal with our policy and guidelines and your latter statement is almost an accusation of vandalism. I suggest you read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have read WP:UNDUE and it clearly doesn't apply here. Maybe you should go back and re-read it and then what I wrote above and here. Perhaps you would you like to respond to any of the core issues I raised about how this subject is of interest to scholars, hence the citation about the general views of Egyptologists on it? Whether for or against is not the point. Censorship is censorship until you provide valid reasons for its exclusion, but now I see you have sent me a threat of being blocked (dressed up in flowery language of course). I have already provided valid reasons, and neutral, for its inclusion; again it is an area of interest in scholarly circles and is still discussed today, see Enmarch's "The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer ..." who, while rejecting synchronizing the texts himself, still discusses clear textual parallels (which he admits to) and the views held by other scholars (i.e., Kitchen, Velikovsky) and theologians; he did NOT exclude this aspect simply because he and other Egyptologists do not share the views of such scholars/theologian and neither should we here at WP - that's my point. This can be discussed with neutrality as I have done, no censorship necessary unless one has an agenda. That's why the "WP:UNDUE" theory falls flat, is invalid and suspect, and now you are threatening me with being blocked. Do not confuse inclusion with endorsement (non-neutrality). Personally, I take a more nuanced view, but this isn't about me. Your motivations are further suspect when recently someone had the audacity to remove large amounts of valid, neutral, scholarly material I had collated and you were nowhere on the scene for an hour 20 min, but within just 20 minutes of my reverting back to the info with the comparison table, you were back to deleting it. Very suspect indeed, but perhaps you have a valid reason. "Several" others have viewed the page since I added the table and had no problem with it either, so comparing numbers means nothing - it's about validity and accuracy, and even in a minority of one it must take precedence. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You still have some basic misunderstandings of our policy and guidelines, among other things, the need for consensus. Minorities of one very rarely take precedence (an exception might be violations of WP:BLP. See WP:Consensus. Your comments about timing overlook the fact that I was simply editing after I woke up (earlier than normal today). I have no idea why you call a content dispute censorship - although you say this isn't about you, you keep making it peronal. As for the 'thread of being blocked', 3RR is a 'bright line' rule you can't just dismiss. It's just a statement of consequences, not a threat. If you exceed it you will probably end up blocked, but not by me of course as I'm involved on this article. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the table that is the problem. We don't need 18 parallels to make the point that there may be parallels, and I'd challenge Becher as a source for this - very few web hits on his commentary, most stemming from this article, nothing I can find in any books or peer reviewed journals. This section should not rest on fringe or non-notable authors. That it does, and the size of the table, is why WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are relevant. If it's significant enough then you should be able to find reliable sources and not rely on the table. Dougweller (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Becher's website from which the table derives is cited on page 6 in the very scholarly article I cited from Dr. Enmarch just above. You obviously didn't read it. Another invalid excuse. How many more will you try? You only become an issue when your actions become questionable and your reasons invalid excuses to cover your agenda. And now, having just looked over Kenneth Kitchen's Wikipedia page, I happened to browse the history and was absolutely appalled to see how someone last year had thoughtlessly deleted a perfectly valid, sourced description of him, K.A. Kitchen, as "the architect of Egyptian chronology" by one of the most reputable newspapers in the world - and lo, the person who recklessly edited it out because of an unsourced personal opinion, (not unlike the one you tried for deleting the description for Henry Breasted), was - as you know - YOU, Dougweller. That's disturbing. Quite frankly, you should to be investigated as you have compromised your status as an "admin"-- you seem to be a fulltime wikipedia activist with a particular interest in minimizing/censoring information touching on biblical scholarship and related public discourse, not to mention how you were (are?) stalking me, looking for any other information you could delete as you did, quite a large volume in fact from the 'Global Brain' entry. Again, disturbing. Makes me wonder who your employer is. Now you see why it has gotten personal? 97.106.241.66 (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'd only read the Enmarch article referenced in our article, but all article says is "Numerous online examples, e.g. from a Jewish perspective M. Becher," - a trivial mention which doesn't justify the table. Why don't you take up my actions at WP:ANI if you are unhappy with me. I'm getting tired of your personal attacks. As for you claim I remove something from the Kitchen article saying it was unsourced, my edit summary made my reason crystal clear, I wrote "dl some hyperbole from The Times - misleading and not true - he may be the most prominent of those Christian writers who accept the Bible's historicity, but there are others with differing perspectives at least as prominent, eg Redford & Parker"l Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And if you think I've abused my Admin rights, go ahead and complain at WP:ANI. Put your money where your mouth is, as they say. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw your reason, that's how I knew it was unsourced and just a person POV; it was what grabbed my attention to it. If we believe that uncited personal POVs should trump a valid, publicly sourced entry, then nothing is safe on WP. Even if such a personal POV was sourced, that would only give fair rights to enter that POV into the article, not that the opposing sourced entry should be deleted. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, the citation in Enmarch's article includes the name of the web page and the very URL from which the table is found (you forgot to mention that part); Enmarch found it relevant enough to point people to the table I included on WP to clarify the issue being discussed - if it was "trivial" as you would like us to think, it wouldn't be pointed to with a URL in a scholarly article. I think I'll side with a scholarly article publicly published rather than a wiki activist with an axe to grind. Again, your personal opinions don't determine censorship of this relevant issue. You would do well to refrain from asserting your opinions to make this discussion less about you and more about the facts. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

More astonishing dirty tricks from Dougweller. Dougweller, as of June 23, 2010, added tags to the WP page associated with Rabbi Mordechai Becher (Gateways organization) to make it look dubious and in need of deletion/editing so that any citation of his name (as I have done above related to the present discussion) will come under suspicion. Very manipulative and speaks volumes about your character. Are you employed by an intelligence agency? Are you a disinformation agent? Are you part of a massive internet/media campaign to undermine any historical information related to Israel's foundation as a state as recorded in their national holy books by editing/removing from the public any outside evidence and related sources to it for some political agenda effecting middle-east policies? Your actions reek and you seem confident that you will not be disciplined by your superiors at WP, perhaps because, as seems to be the case, it's run by more spooks who give you immunity for your criminal behavior. Very very disturbing, but not at all surprising, just another case of the fox guarding the hen house. 97.106.241.66 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)