Talk:Moses

Template:WP1.0

Semi-Protected Biography of Living Person?

This page is locked to prevent modification of the biography of a living person?

Really?

I'm pretty sure none of the Abrahamic faiths regard Moses as still living. So - is this a Scientology thing? Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.5.105 (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This page is semi-protected because of vandalism.

It is NOT "locked to prevent modification of the biography of a living person".71.109.146.207 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, though, the BLP semi-protection template was used, which could cause it to appear that way. I've changed it to the vandalism semiprotection template. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Sea vs. Sea of Reeds

It is strongly recommended that those who can actually edit this article, change the references "Red Sea" to "Sea of Reeds" or incorporate the "Sea of Reeds" in the text when ever "Red Sea" is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.80.152.175 (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also there are references which suggest that Moses was able to predict solar eclipses. That is how his staff turned into the largest snake that ate all the others. The snake was the "length of the cast shadow". Egyptians used analemmas to time their agricultural processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.128.42 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical longevity template

This template ought to be deleted outright. It is not of encyclopedic value and is pure trivia. Why is it featured so prominently here? Why is it here at all? Why not a template listing Biblical figures by the number of times they are mentioned in the Bible, the number of spouses or children they had, or simply by alphabetical order? The template is WP:UNDUE. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You have deleted this from both Moses and Jacob with the same talk comment and not taken my hint to centralize discussion at the ongoing mediation. Because this issue is relevant to some 80 articles, please continue there. JJB 05:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a rationale for keeping the template on this page. We are discussing the content of this page, here on the talk page related to that content. Please explain why it should be included here. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 05:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MULTI, please centralize discussion as above. This template and its sister appear in 82 articles. JJB 05:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be 82 articles too many. What was the rationale on the last article it was added to? "This template appears in 81 articles?" You have not provided a rationale for this list of essentially irrelevant data. Vote to remove this trivia. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it really doesn't belong here. I'm not convinced it belongs anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I note that no editors are talking about applicability to Moses, but only to general applicability as if this is already a WP:TFD and as if WP:NOTVOTE doesn't apply. The question is whether comparison of Moses' age to other Biblical figures is appropriate. Well, sure enough, this article quotes Easton's Dictionary on that very point. I've also seen it argued that the 3-year gap with Aaron assigns Aaron a "fourth clan" among the traditional three Levitical clans. Comparison with Joshua (110) is also prevalent, and the Talmud has exceeding detail on age comparisons and significances. Even the primary text, such as in Moses' personal genealogy in Ex. 6, makes clear that age comparison is significant by listing ages only for Levi, Kohath, and Amram, rather than anyone else who is not a direct forebear of Moses. I'm not bothering to search sources right now because they are so widespread it takes awhile to find the most reliable. Now you could make a different case, as G hints, and say that the template was misplaced or should be on hide status, which might have standing in undue-weight and are fine solutions, as no undue weighting was intended, only graphic/text flow. In short, ample sources indicate such a comparison is encyclopedic, and this template has amicably and stably served that function since its inception. JJB 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realised that you had created it, but I am still very dubious that it belongs anywhere. And it links to a heavily disputed article, Longevity myths, which I don't thinik is a good idea. It is transcluded to 43 articles, I don't know where your figure of 82 comes from but it's wrong. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Doug, it is correct, please read the first link I posted, where your continuation of this topic should continue per WP:MULTI, unless you have something to say about Moses. JJB 16:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB content in individual articles is decided on the talk pages of those articles. You're creating a diversion here with WP:MULTI. There is no consensus to include this trivia. Please remove it.Griswaldo (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

G, per WP:TALK, "Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about (other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." I am the only one talking about Moses, you are cutting-and-pasting arguments. We have followed each other well so far in this discussion on trimming longevity articles, but now you are pointedly breaking basic talk rules and not sticking to the subject. The fact is that "Aaron 123 Moses 120" and the like are very well-sourced subtopics for this article. There is in fact no consensus to delete from this article, only to do something that should be discussed by a wider group, as I first said. You are also not interacting with my compromises to demote or hide the template. JJB 17:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

JJB, you are simply ignoring what others are saying and wiki-lawyering in the worst way here. I'm not really up for this right now. I'll leave you with your WP:OWN mentality to argue with other people. Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pure unadulterated trivia. In fact it's worse than trivia, as it adds an age scorecard. There is no relevance to such a massive block of age-related scores and implied, but silly relationships to the article. IMO, it's an embarrassment to have it here, and maybe anywhere. Note your addition to Longevity myths: "In fall 1955, Guinness World Records began maintaining a list of the verified oldest people . . ." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT trivia. Get a brain, and use it. Age, and especially old age, is NOT trivial. Did you know that 44% of the US national budget goes to the aged (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security)? Did you know that 80% of claims to age 110+ in the Social Security records are false, thus implying massive fraud? Did you know that age verification of extreme age claims dates to the 1870s, not the 1950s? Life insurance companies and actuaries are very interested. Did you know that most scientists consider claims above age 130 to be mythical? Even at age 115, 99% of claims made are false. Even at age 110, a majority of claims made are false, even in the U.S. Age, to you, may be just a number...but to actuaries and insurance agents and government officials, it's money. To scientists, it's an issue of fact versus fiction. How can we demonstrate life extension, should it occur, if we don't know how long people live?

What significance does a Biblical template of longevity have? First off, it provides a useful example of the beliefs of a major culture...the Judeo-Christian culture...regarding longevity. Note that in Islam, we also have longevity: Jesus died at age "120" in the Koran, although the Christian Jesus died at 33 1/2 years. Why the discrepancy? A lot of this has to do with the fact that extreme age is seen as honorific and age "120" is the age that the Biblical Moses lived to. Islam denies the resurrection and crucifixion, so age 33 is out. But Islam still reveres the words of Jesus as a prophet, so a semi-mythical age association of "120" is made.

It's a shame that people like you can't tell the difference between a video game and encyclopedic material. Many, many Christian scholars have analyzed Biblical ages, pointing out that various ages are associated with sin and punishment or blessing and life fulfillment. Whether the template needs cleanup is irrelevant. That people like you deny its importance without even giving it a thought, shows that too often, arguments on Wikipedia have devolved into blogger-style disputes, rather than an honest discussion of content.Ryoung122 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Guys, quit arguing about it and nominate the darned thing for deletion. TfD is the place to hash it out. here, I'll do it for you.--Ludwigs2 19:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

there you go, have at it.

Mose's Name

Having studied the story of Mose's, as well as Hieroglyphics, I believe I can make some coherent comments. Pharoh's daughter first identified the baby by hearing it -mesu / -mose. Next she tried to see where he was: m' ssa (in the shallow water?), and m' sha (in the reeds?). This created several different spellings in Egyptian; not to mention further translations. Later, when he was written as a cartouche, he was referred to as the baby drawn out (of the marsh), because the Faroh's daughter's arm was added (perhaps this was the first formal reference).

reference: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=507558852701584314#

this isn't a "reference". Th--VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)e article is aware of suggestions of Egyptian etymology, something of the kind you seem to be suggesting. --dab (𒁳) 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC) ok.

Why are people so myopic and try to prove what's in the Bible by quoting the Bible? Chinese have a saying, "You can't see the mountain when you are in the mountain." To see the big picture, you have to step away. The bigger the mountain, the further away you have to step. The Jews wrote the Old Testement during their Babylonian Captivity in the 6th century B.C. They learned of the well-known old story of the Akkadian, Sagon the Great who, as a baby, was pulled from the river in a reed basket by a gardener. They took the story and made it their own and gave it to their "savior". Moses is not a "name", it's a title. Many Egyptian pharoahs had that title, i.e. Ramoses, Ahmoses, Tutmoses, etc., all well before the Jews wrote their books. If the leader of the Exodus is a "prince of Egypt", he was probably a well educated man and should be well versed in Akhanaton's monotheism claims. As he needed unquestioned obedience when he failed to bring his people to the promised land but got them lost in the desert, he proclaimed Yehweh, the old Israelite God of Host worshiped by Abraham, their one and only god for the band of wanderers. He never claimed Yehweh was the one and only "God" for all people. If you ever read the Bible, you will know that Yahweh is an extremely racist vicious bigot. He was not even able to keep the few tribes of Jews in line. The kingdoms the Jews created were very small and did not last very long. So much for this all mighty Yahweh. When he failed to protect his "chosen people", he blamed the Jews. Christianity and Islam gained supremacy by violence and massacre, the more pagants you slaughter, the greater your sainthood. Have you noticed that only little children sees the world in black and white and their parents are all powerful? That's the simple religion of this simple people to reflect their unsophisticated society. Grown-ups know better. That's why all civilized societies had polytheism where gods were many and complex to reflect their multifaceted cultures. --VimalaNowlis (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Mosaic Law

Lisa, since this is the first removal of material on this page, i shall make additional review of the sources. However, you must note that [WP:RS] is not equal to [WP:NOR], so the provided reason for removing my edit is not entirely solid by mentioning them both. Never the less, i shall ignore your mistake, since [WP:RS] is legitimate claim in this case until the sources are reviewed. In addition, you are advised not to rely on such statements as as we have seen before, since you do not represent any judging body or wikipedian authority (refer to yourself as singular). Finally, i would like to remind you that [WP:5P] clearly says you do not own the article and must avoid of personal attacks (Wikipedia is free content - no editor owns any article; Wikipeadians should interact in a respectful and civil manner - "...avoid of personal attacks"). I hope you understand.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Life of Moses

How about disentangling the Exodus story from the later legends and putting them in two separate sections? PiCo (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

makes sense, also The Exodus has its own article, and we do not need more than a brief summary of that for the purposes of this article. --dab (𒁳) 14:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Name, again

In my view name Mosheh is clearly an epithet of a "deliverer", which makes perfect sense in view of the Exodus tradition. Nevertheless, the Hebrew text itself gives an aitiological myth for the name, deriving it from the scene where the baby is drawn out of the river.

We should also keep in mind that the name Mošeh is only recorded in the Masoretic text. Strictly speaking, the Hebrew text of antiquity just records mšh, and you can't analyze that for grammatical form. But I don't think there is any doubt that the name was Mošeh from at least 300 BC, and probably also in 500 BC when the text was redacted, because the LXX rendition is Mωϋσῆς.

Following Gesenius, the article is simply saying that the traditional explanation, verifiably dating to antiquity, is "the one who was drawn out", while modern etymologies may prefer "the one who draws out", i.e. "Saviour", but then there are also other modern etymologies which follow Josephus in comparing Coptic (Egyptian). --dab (𒁳) 12:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I like all this, but I read that Mose was a common name in Egypt... Isn't that an epithet?

Yes, as far as I know Mose is only recorded in Masoretic maybe someone smart could compare the dates for when cartouches were used to see if the dates match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.136.5 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Moses isn't a historical character. If you find a cartouche sensationally mentioning Moses, you should announce the discovery in scholarly literature, not on Wikipedia. Egyptian ms is an element in names such as Tuthmose, Ahmose etc. The "mose" spelling is just the conventional Egyptological pronunciation. There is no reason to assume that it has anything to do with Hebrew Mosheh. --dab (𒁳) 18:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Biblical narrative section

The section contains this sentence: "According to Genesis 46:11, Amram's father Kehath immigrated to Egypt with 70 of Jacob's household, making Moses part of the second generation of Israelites born during their time in Egypt." This seems like OR to me. After all, between Jacob coming to Egypt and Moses leading the Exodus are (according to Exodus 12:40) 200 to 400 years. ≡ CUSH ≡ 09:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Also, the narrative section is far too long and needs to be shortened to about half its present length. It isn't the point of this article to retell the biblical narrative in every detail. There are enough online bibles, and people can simply go and read the Book of Exodus if they are interested in the narrative. --dab (𒁳) 16:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Paul222148, 27 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} From the article on Moses - According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born in a time when his people, the Children of Israel, were increasing in number and the Egyptian Pharaoh was worried that they might help Egypt's enemies. Moses' Hebrew mother, Jochebed, hide him when the Pharaoh ordered all newborn Hebrew boys to be killed.

The above passage should be amended to read "hid him" not "hide him" Paul222148 (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Moses' wife or wives

My understanding is that there's some debate as to whether Moses had one, two, or three wives. Is this in fact the case? If so, it seems as though it bears mentioning in the article. I'm no expert in this field, and would be interested to hear someone with more authority weigh in. Mattymatt (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please add circa date of Moses' life

I'm surprised this page doesn't once list the alleged date, circa 1400 BCE, of Moses' life (Ex. 6:16-20). That's one of the most basic and important starting points of any biography. Here's a ref link for it. http://www.jewfaq.org/moshe.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadon (talk • contribs) 18:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

please read the article. Moses cannot be established as a historical individual and thus doesn't have any lifespan. All we can say is what Talmudic scholars have said about the question. We give such a calculation in footnote 67. It could be discussed more prominently if you provide better references to Talmudic texts. Your jewfaq.org reference is worthless. It says "Moses was born on 7 Adar in the year 2368 from Creation", but it doesn't say who said so. This may or may not be the Seder Olam date. If it is, the correct BCE date would be 1391. This calculation may date to the 2nd century BCE. But we need scholarly literature to substantiate this, we cannot rely on educated guesses based on a google search. I think the best place to discuss this would be the Pharaoh of the Exodus article, which deals with attempts of placing The Exodus (and hence Moses) in an Egyptological context. The short answer is that such attempts have failed. --dab (𒁳) 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the "In Judaism" parts of this article need improvement. The Moses in Rabbinic Literature article is a joke. Also, dates for Moses in Early Christian tradition would be of interest. Jerome apparently places the birth of Moses at 1592 BC. Needless to say, these sources also have the birth year of Abraham, Noah and Adam. They are interesting in their own right, but they have nothing to do with historicity. --dab (𒁳) 13:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you... but can't we please add at least some range of dates for Moses? Prehaps, 14th through 15th century BCE, and if you like include something explaining that it's only an alleged date without historicity. Jadon (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was a little annoyed with your jewfaq.org "reference". By all means we can add traditional birth years, i.e. the one of Seder Olam, the one of Jerome, and others if you can identify them. But this needs to be referenced properly and presented in the correct context. If you can provide this, I do invite you to make the addition. I do not think it makes sense to present a "range" of dates, because these aren't scholarly estimates with error bars, they are discrete values from identifiable traditions. Note that this is not a biography article, it is an article about a character in the Torah and its reception in later tradition. As you can see from Pharaoh_of_the_Exodus, the actual range of suggestions spans the 17th to 13th centuries. But these suggestions aren't all notable, and not all of them assume a historical Moses even if they assume a historical Exodus. --dab (𒁳) 19:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The bible records quite unambiguously that the Exodus occurred in Moses's 80th year, and that this (the Exodus) was in the year 2226 after Creation. Certainly worth mentioning. PiCo (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Moses being aged 80 at the Exodus and 120 at the time of his death can obviously be integrated in the "biblical narrative" part of the article. The calculation of the Annus Mundi of his birth is biblical exegesis and belongs under "in Jewish/Christian tradition". "The Bible" is not a single document, but a compilation of many unrelated documents. It is one thing to state what the Exodus narrative itself contains, it is another to report naive chronological calculations based on the genealogies of the patriarchs. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a reference for your claim that in Biblical chronology Moses was born in AM 2146 (2226-80)? I mean, I have just given the Seder Olam claim the benefit of doubt, but it's not like it's actually referenced. Ussher (1658) says AM 2385. Seder Olam Rabbah allegedly says 2368. Our Biblical chronology article says 2367 (also no reference). Now you insist on an "unambiguous" AM 2146? I have tried to accommodate these dates in a brief summary in the lead, but can you please bother to provide references (better than jewfaq.org) before calling for the inclusion of such stuff? --dab (𒁳) 13:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Per Masoretic dating, the exodus happened in 2448 AM (see The Exodus#Date). As Moses was 80 years old at the time (see Exodus 7:7), per the traditions of Rabbinic Judaism, he must have been born in 2368 AM, which corresponds to 1392 BCE. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I've corrected the Biblical chronology entries. -- Avi (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can believe that a man of 80 can bound up and down Mt Sinai like a mountain goat you should have no trouble with the ages of the Patriarchs.

The article on Biblical chronology is under the watchful eye of Lisa, who won't allow that the bible is anything but God's literal truth - it's a very bad article, and these two facts may be connected. For something a little more soundly based, try Jeremy Hughes's "Secrets of the Times". (Published by Sheffield Academic Press - he's kosher). PiCo (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab, perhaps I didn't answer your question very well. The fact is there's no point in trying to find a date in real history for Moses and the Exodus, as the chronology of the Old Testament is symbolic, not historic. It counts off time in units of 480 years, which is a theologically significant number (it's 4x12 raised to 100, all of which carried symbolic meaning - 4 symbolised the Earth, 12 was Heaven, and 100 was an intensifier, so that 480 means an extremely important event uniting Heaven and Earth). Thus it's 480 years from the Tabernacle to the foundation of Solomon's Temple (this is stated in Kings), and another 480 from then to the dedication of the Second Temple combining figures given in Kings and Ezra - which, incidentally, shows that the persons responsible for the chronology lived after the return from Babylon). There's therefore no point in trying to count backward from a historically secure date (586 BCE, the second year of Cyrus, the year Ezra gives as that of the dedication of the Second Temple) through those two 480 year periods to the year of the Exodus (and then back another 80 to the birth of Moses, if you're so inclined). If you want to talk about chronology at all, you have to recognise and respect what the biblical authors were trying to do - the bible is theology, not history. (The source is that book by Hughes, which is pretty exhaustive, but you can also look up standard references such as the Mercer Bible Dictionary).PiCo (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

we clearly have a problem of communication. You keep explaining stuff, and I keep asking for a reference. The question of whether "there is a point" of calculating a BCE date of Moses imo is completely irrelevant. I am only interested in what the sources say. If the Seder Olam Rabbah in 160 CE calculated such a date, my position is that we can also report that date, regardless of whether there is a "point" in reporting that (of course the Seder Olam doesn't use "BCE", it uses the date of Alexander's conquest. Which we know was in 331 BCE, so it's easy enough to convert that). As for a discussion of "symbolism" and what not, you are on the right track, simply give the proper citation of Hughes, Mercer or whatever and you will have made a valuable addition.

You don't need to convince me that Moses isn't historical. But the Moses story is historical, it was written about 2,700 years ago. But of course there are historical people, such as the author of Seder Olam, who were convinced that he was, and it is perfectly appropriate to report what authors in antiquity had to say about Moses. This is why we have "Hellenistic era" and "Rabbinical Judaism" sections in this article. --dab (𒁳) 10:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Dating question

Currently, it is both 2011 CE and 5771 AM (in the Rabbininc Jewish tradition; assumed stated from now on). This means that 3761 AM was 1 CE. However, if I recall correctly, there was no 0 CE, and year 3760 AM corresponds to 1 BCE. As such, that would require subtracting 3761 from dates prior to 3760 AM to get the BCE analogue. This would make Moses's life from 1393 BCE until 1273 BCE. Am I mistaken? -- Avi (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You're correct about the lack of a Year Zero. The rest of it is beyond my limited arithmetic. I think the way to go is to consult a reliable book or website. Just out of curiosity, what do Jews who follow the traditional dating do with events that happened before Creation? (i.e., before 3700 BC or thereabouts?)PiCo (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All dating from that epoch and earlier is approximate anyway. As as for carbon dating and red-shift age of the universe and similar, to paraphrase you from the section above, if one believes in an omnipotent creator, how hard is it to believe that the universe was created already aged (less carbon 14 than should have been, photon streams megaparsecs long created simultaneously with the galaxies that ostensibly emitted them, etc.)? -- Avi (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

um, but the 2nd century rabbis didn't have carbon dating? This isn't about historical events, it is about traditional calendars and how they relate to one another. Also, we don't know the date of the Siege of Jerusalem (587 BC) from carbon dating, we know it from historiography. Figuring out the 587 BC date has nothing whatsoever to do with believing or not believing in a creator god. Neither has the task of giving a clean account of the various calendar systems of Late Antiquity. --dab (𒁳) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that God created the world very recently but with signs of great age is known as the Omphalos hypothesis (please forgive me if you already know this) - the wiki-article on it is quite good. As that article says, there's no way to either prove or disprove it - but on the other hand, it's not ver useful as a means of explaining the world and all things in it (because if God were capable of creating the world five minutes ago in such a form that it seems billions of years old, then he is also capable of creating me alone in that world, with the rest of you just figments of my God-given imagination... - this is known in metaphysical circles as solipsism, and is equally incapable of disproof or proof). PiCo (talk) 05:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, PiCo. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just explaining how I can simultaneously remain an Orthodox Jew with all that entails and yet appreciate, recognize, and reap the benefits of the marvels of modern science. Religion, in the end, is a matter of faith, after all 8-) -- Avi (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is also the problem of Gregorian vs. Julian years. This makes for a difference of two years over this period. Then there is the Missing years problem, which basically says that the modern Jewish calendar is off 165 (or 163? Julian? Gregorian?) years relative to the ancient Jewish calendar. It's complicated, which (as PiCo says) is why we should base it on literature instead of figuring it out ourselves. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delegation

Shouldn't more of the Moses#Moses in Hellenistic literature be moved to its "main" page? The section is as big as Moses in Hellenistic literature. There should just be a summary in the section.--Zakteh2 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)