Talk:Brook of Egypt

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt 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.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Location identification

There are a number of fairly recent scholarly or semi-scholarly sources which identify the "Brook of Egypt" with the Wadi-El-Arish, such as the Hammond Atlas of the Bible Lands by Harry Thomas Frank and Roger S. Boraas (revised edition, 1989), the Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible by Carl G. Rasmussen (1989), and the MacMillan Bible Atlas by Yohanan Aharoni, Michael Avi-Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and Ze'ev Safrai (3rd edition, 1993), Furthermore, the passage 1 Kings 4:24 describes Solomon's empire as extending "from "Tiphsah to Gaza", but it would be difficult to cite any Biblical passage which unambiguously describes any historical Israelite or Jewish kingdom as extending to any branch of the Nile. Not to mention that the verse Genesis 15:18 calls the Euphrates gadol "great", but conspicuously refrains from calling the River of Egypt "great". And most other passages use Nahal (not Nahar), and the word Nahal does not mean "big river".

The Pelusian arm of the Nile as a seasonly flooding stream would most definitely fit in with the typical usage of Nahal in Biblical Hebrew. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Shihor seems to be mainly a poetic synonym for the Nile, and so is not necessarily the same thing as Nahal Misrayim at all (except that the Chronicler seems to have confused the two, long after the fact, when expanding 2 Samuel 6).

As explained in the current article its clear from Joshua and Isaiah and as well as a translations as border in the Septuagint that Shihor is the border elsewhere typically called nahal mitzrayim, so logically they are the same. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So unless there has been some dramatic new discovery in the last 15 years, this article shouldn't be so dogmatically emphatic. AnonMoos 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When reading up for the edits I made on the article I couldn't find any article (excluding cranky fundamentalist sites) that gave a reasonable argument supporting the Wadi El Arish as the Brook of Egypt, everything that used this identification was simply citing previous claims. I considered putting in a section that gave pro arguments for the identification but scrapped the idea as it looked like lip service to a thouroughly irrational view.

Also no one is saying any Israelite kingdom had direct rule as far as Egypt or even the Euphrates, so there is no contradition between the borders of the Land of Israel and Solomon only have direct rule as far as Gaza. Also no one is stating that the main body of the Nile was the border, the argument is that its the Pelusian arm which (relative to the sparseness of settelment in the Sinai) is "close" to the Wadi El Arish anyway except at its start.

If you can put in arguments in favour of El Arish and / or against the Pelusian arm of the Nile, go for it, its not my article :) but I reckon people will moan if the only arguments that can be given are irrational. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Basically looking at the hard evidence:

Nahar Mizraim is traditionally the Nile and indeed Nahar (a true river) cannot be applied to Wadi El Arish. This by itself does not rule out Nahal Mizraim being a different river, although it requires the interpretation that Genesis gives a different border to Exodus. However considering that the crossing of the Red Sea is traditionally considered the departure from Egypt the idea of the Exodus border being Wadi El Arish does not make sense. The fact that the Nahar Mizraim is not described as gadol whole the Euphrates is simply indicates that the true size of the Nile was not known to the writer who thought the Euphrates was a much larger river. Nahal is not appropriate for the Nile in modern Hebrew but in Biblical Hebrew the meaning indicates a seasonly flooding river very appropriate for the Pelusian arm, in fact even for the Nile as a whole whose name is in fact understood to be derived from a form of the word Nahal.
Nahal Mizraim is the border of the land to be conquered and in Joshua the conquest clearly goes to the Shihor, Shihor is equated with Ye'or in Isaiah and the latter is the Nile.
Although many different terms are used in the Septuagint there are cases where Potomos Aigyotou is used for Nahar Mizraim, Nahal Mizraim and Shihor Mizraim showing that they were all understood to be the same at the time of Septuagint translation. Also potomos like Nahar indicates a true river.
In all the Aramaic targums, Nahal Mizraim is rendered as Nilus, indicating at the time of the targums this was still the understanding.
Akkadian Nahal Musri is associated with Pelusium.

Any argument that the Wadi El Arish is the intended meaning as opposed to a much latter reinterpretation does not have a leg to stand on. Kuratowski's Ghost 20:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?

Kuratowski, I can't find any source that identifies any branch of the Nile with the Brook of Egypt. I have heard that wadi el-Arish is no longer considered valid either, but this article which is focused on the ethnography of the Late Bronze/Iron I transition in Canaan casually refers to the Brook of Egypt as the Nahal Besor on pages 11 and 12 when describing the Philistine settlement, and comments on the "traditional view" of it as wadi el-Arish on pge 12. The identification of it as Nahal Besor is based on the geography given in the Bible that identifies Nahal Mizraim with the southernmost border of Philistia; historically, the Philistines had their southern boundary at the Nahal Besor.

Where in the Bible is the southernmost border of Philistia even discussed let alone identified with Nahal Mizraim? Kuratowski's Ghost 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, your interpretation depends on identifying the Shihor of one biblical statement with the Shihor of another, which is not necessarily correct. Shihor simply means "dark river" and is not necessarily a proper name.--Rob117 04:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my interpretation - it is commonly understood as a proper name in those verses, thats why its translated "Shihor" with a capital S. Suggesting otherwise would be "original research". Identification with the Pelusian arm of the Nile goes way back to commentaries such as Halevy and googling I see its also mentioned in Clarkes, although there doesn't seem to be anything good online on the subject. Identification with the Wadi El-Arish has been debunked repeatedly so I don't see how it can still be included as a viable opinion in the article, the very fact that Shur lies west of it makes it illogical. Identification with Nahal Besor suffers similar if not worse logical problems and seems to be a fringe view. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing is confusing actually. You may have some good points, but other geographical references mark it as the boundary between the Philistines and the Amalekites, who lived in Philistia and the Western Negev/Eastern Sinai respectively. The Yam Suph ("Sea of Reeds") is presumably a reference to the Red Sea, which is part of the border of Israel in the south, not in the west. The only thing that contradicts the wadi el-Arish identification is your connection with Shihor, which is not necessarily a proper name.--Rob117 04:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which verses are you referring to regarding the borders of Philistia. The southern border obviously meets up with the western border. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I doubt Nahal Besor is a "fringe" view. The article I linked to is from the 1994 book From Nomadism to Monarchy (edited by Israel Finkelstein; the article in question is by Itamar Singer), which is a standard reference work used and referred to by biblical archaeologists. Note that this is from before Finkelstein proposed lowering the chronology, so it has nothing to do with his recent unorthodox views. Richard Friedman's 1987 work Who Wrote the Bible? identifies the Brook of Egypt as el-Arish in a casual manner; this work is a standard introduction to biblical textual criticism. The fact that el-Arish is identified with Nahal Mizraim so casually suggests that it has not been as thoroughly debunked as you imply. While I think it could plausibly be identified with either Arish or Besor, nowhere besides this article have I heard the Nile interpretation; and the fact that relatively recent scholarly literature still identifies it with one of those two rivers causes me to be skeptical of the Nile identification.--Rob117 04:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find good material justifying Besor please feel free to add it to the article. Presumeably it is part of a view that interprets the post-Exodus borders as being much smaller than the patriarchal borders (something which is not justified simply from the Biblical text.)

The history of the interpretation as El-Arish also shows that it is based on error, the first time the term is used it is a translation of Hebrew Sukkot used by Saadia Gaon. He identifies the Nachal Mitzraim with the "wadi of El-Arish", Sukkot being the place on the border with Egypt where the departure from Egypt was said to have occurred. Only later does one find that pilgrims mistake modern "El-Arish" as Sukkot hence the name for the latter and its wadi. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were some major errors in the article which I attempted to fix. Saadia Gaon wrote 2-300 years before Rashi or any of the other commentaries who suggest it's the nile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.35.162 (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadav Na'aman

Just curious- does the article cited by Na'aman identify Nahal Mizraim with the Pelusiac Nile? If so then it would constitute peer-reviewed support for this view.--Rob117 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been a while since I expanded this article, at the time I put the reference in as a source for Assyrian name Nahal Musri being associated with the invasion of Pelusium.

Its difficult to find anything that deals directly with the subject and makes any explicit statement. Many old Christian commentaries state simply that its the Wadi El-Arish while others show that this identification makes no sense at all (like the article now does). If Wadi El-Arish makes no sense then what are we left with - the primary sources of the Bible which all point to it being the Nile as the article shows, as well as early translations and commentaries that identify it as the Nile. Also the later Egyptian Jewish commentaries which despite calling it "Wadi-El Arish" place it in the vicinity of the Pelusian Nile not the later El-Arish (although shedding light on the how the midentification came about). Kuratowski's Ghost 23:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nahal Musri" in Assyrian texts refers to the wad- el-Arish, and the "town of Nahal Musri" to the village of el-Arish

At least according to Archaeology of the Land of the Bible Volume II by Ephraim Stern, part of the Anchor Bible Reference Library.

Stern says this but be careful of circular reasoning: "Nahal Mizraim is Wadi El-Arish (cos hey Easton's etc say it is), Nahal Musri is obviously a cognate of Nahal Mizraim, therefor Nahal Musri must be El-Arish, therefore we have Assyrian texts confirming that Nahal Mizraim is Wadi El-Arish ...." Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Age occupation has apparently been uncovered at el-Arish, according to this book, so the claim that there is no settlement at the site prior to the Hellenistic period is false.

Other than a monument placed along the road (not evdience of any settlement) I'm not aware of any structures found near El-Arish dating before the Ptolemaic period ... can you elaborate. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Assyrian invasion of Pelusium by Sennacherib mentioned by Herodutus apparently refers to a different event, if it occured at all (do we have any contemporary records of Assyrian invasions of Egypt before the reign of Esarhaddon?) Herodotus's account may even be derived from an Egyptian retelling of the biblical account of Sennacherib's invasion of Jerusalem.--Rob117 02:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound right at all we have accounts from Sargon and Sennacherib. What you say about Herodotus is pure "original research". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goshen

Just curious on the Goshen question: Joshua 15 includes a long list of places given to the tribe of Judah. My NIV and my NJPS Tanakh (and I'd presume the original, but I don't understand Hebrew), in verse 51, read "...Goshen, Holon and Giloh — eleven towns and their villages" and "...Goshen, Holon, and Giloh: 11 towns, with their villages." respectively. No consideration is given about this Judean town in the article; should there be? I don't know enough about this to do anything, other than what I did: because the question isn't fully addressed, I thought we shouldn't necessarily link the first occurrence of Goshen to the Land of Goshen — that's why I moved it to the second sentence. I'd like to see someone bring in some source that discusses this question at all. Nyttend 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article is incorrect. The Bible does not equate the Shichor (and therefore Nahal Mitzrayim) with the Ye'or (Nile)

Isaiah 23 speaks about the coast-land of Phoenicia, and how "on great waters the seed of Shihor, the harvest of the Nile, was her revenue; and she was the mart of nations."

That does not equate the two rivers. It seems to show how commmerce was conducted involving goods coming out of Egypt via the Nile and originating from the Shihor (which may have been somehow connected to the Nile).

And in Joshua 3, the Shihor is explicitly mentioned as being BEFORE Egypt, not in Egypt itself (as the Nile is). Furthermore, it is defined there are as the boundary of the territory occupied by the Philistines, the northern boundary being Ekron.

There is no basis for the notion that the Shihor and the Nile are the same river.

205.68.95.65 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're right, or, at the very least, that the article has no citations demonstrating that the Shichor is the same as the Nile. I've removed the unsubstantiated claim. Alephb (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pelusian arm -- original research

A lot of this article reads as if it were a personal essay seeking to argue that the "Brook of Egypt" mentioned in the Bible refers to the "Pelusian branch," i.e. the very far right edge of the Nile delta. But Wikipedia does not host personal essays arguing for personal opinions. Instead, it summarizes (with citations) the views of experts.

And yet, for all fourteen mentions of the Pelusian branch, not a single citation is given to an expert who claims that the Bible's "Brook of Egypt" is the Pelusian branch. There are two citations given related to the Pelusian hypothesis. There is a citation confirming that Assyrians mention a "Nehal Musri", and a citation confirming that the Pelusian branch was seen as the ancient eastern border of Egypt. Those two citations would be relevant if one were writing a dissertation to argue for the Pelusian interpretation, but as long as there is no citation confirming that any contemporary experts by the Pelusian interpretation of "Brook of Egypt," they don't belong in this article.

Accordingly, I will be removing claims about the Pelusian branch from this article. Anyone who can find appropriate citations supporting the claim that contemporary experts support equating the Brook of Egypt with it is welcome to add the stuff back in. Alephb (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Epiphemeral"

This doesn't seem to be an actual word. I found this (poorly prosodied) poem: "In short, in matters epiphemeral and fiducillary heinious, / I am the very model of a modern Stable-Genius.", which is clearly a nonsense verse. On the other hand, this book uses it in a neurological context, and here it has something to do with culture? Epi- is a prefix, but I don't think phemeral is. epi- + ephemeral would produce *epephemeral, modeling on epencephalic.__Gamren (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]