|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Moses article.|
|Moses has been listed as a level-3 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Moses is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
- 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)
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.
After I 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 . 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 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)to indicate that the "7th-century" descriptor of the
- 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)
Mainstream and not mainstream
The article starts by saying that : "Apart from a few scattered references elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures, all that is known about Moses comes from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The majority of scholars date these four books to the Persian period, 538-332 BCE."
Where the source is someone - Jean-Louis Ska - saying that this is the majority opinion, but without any proof.
"The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century BCE Kingdom of Judah. Moses is a central figure in the Deuteronomist account of the origins of the Israelites, cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses. The mainstream view is that the Deuteronomist relies on earlier material that may date to the United Monarchy, so that the biblical narrative would be based on traditions that can be traced roughly to the 10th century BCE, or about four centuries after the supposed lifetime of Moses."
There is a contradiction. The mainstream is either that the Deuteronomy was written on the 7th century BCE from sources going back to the 10th century or during the Persian period.
Furthermore, the article takes the "documentary hypothesis" - here the existence of a "Deuteronomist source" - as fact, which is not. In the last decades a throng of evidence as accumulated disproving the idea of different documents as sources of the Pentateuch and the idea that the books were written by a single author or group of authors is gaining credibility.
And something else: "Some scholars, like Kenneth Kitchen and Frank Yurko suggest that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest."
This is not Kenneth Kitchen position at all ! He supports the reliability of the Biblical text and that the events unfolded more or less as described in the Bible. He does not suggest there may be a historical core beneath the traditions, but that the books were written at the time that they say they were written and reflect actual events. The dramatization is just in style and in the narrative forms of the time, not in the events themselves.