Talk:The Exodus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New Book[edit]

An interesting new contribution on exodus research.

Did I Not Bring Israel Out of Egypt? Biblical, Archaeological, and Egyptological Perspectives on the Exodus Narratives (Eisenbrauns 2016) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Date of the Exodus.[edit]

I added a section giving Josephus Flavius' chronology for the Exodus, which is circa 1558 BC. This is valuable information from a very early and generally relaible source, and yet is was deleted by the editors. Why? This is an interesting assertion by Josephus that equates very well with his parallel assertion that the Israelites were the Hyksos (as per the paragraph in the Hyksos section). The quote from Josephus is cited, as is the aposite section in Wiki that support this additional information. So why was it deleted? It has been replaced in the Exodus dating section. Tatelyle (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Tatelyle (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

According to the person who reverted you: Because you deleted well-sourced information and replaced it with information that seems to have been gleaned by combining information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of the sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, having looked at the edit myself, I can say that placing dating speculation before contextual information about dating (and our inability to realiably do so) is a poor structural choice. Given the nature of the article, I would not be surprised if someone felt that you were attempting to minimize doubt about our inability to date it in an attempt to undermine the modern consensus that it never happened. Please understand that I'm not accusing you of this myself: I'm perfectly content to believe that you are working at improving the article for the sake of improving the article. But this can be a contentious article, because it documents a marked split between the expert view (that the Exodus never happened) and a widely held popular view (that the Exodus did happen), and editors are often quick to react to any perception of POV pushing on such articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the section. It still includes the Josephus dating, and should address any other concerns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • after this revert by Zero0000, I double checked the source and I have to agree that it's not a summary of what Josephus says, but a synthesis of several different things he says. @Tatelyle: I would suggest you rewrite it, using direct quotes from a reputable translation of the source (being sure to put them in quote marks!) if you want this put back in. Bear in mind the changes I made to the ordering: Josephus' writings do not belong before the statements outlining the troubles with dating. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
pinging @Zero0000: for anything they might have to add.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I checked an edition of Antiquites and found that the editor noted that Josephus gave at least two different values for the number of years between the Exodus and the destruction of the Temple. Moreover, there is no accepted date for the destruction of the Temple so it makes no sense to combine the two. A reliable secondary source which discusses Josephus' chronology might be worth a brief mention but combining bits and pieces from the primary source like this is not. Zerotalk 21:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I strongly recommend not using Josephus. He was in no position to know anything about the exodus (he lived more than a thousand years after it happened, if it happened at all), and he had a program (trying to prove that the Jews were older than the Greeks). Stick to modern scholarly sources. PiCo (talk) 07:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
**Pico** So you are saying that Josephus is unreliable, because he lived a 'thousand years' after the Exodus. But modern historians are much more reliable because they live 3,500 years after the Exodus. How do you square that circle? Remember that Josephus had the original Torah or Tanakh from the Second Temple (courtesy of Vespasian) dating from 600 BC, which is much earlier than any modern Torah, so he had access to data that is no longer extant. (Which is obvious if you read his 'Antiquities of the Jews', which differs significantly from the modern Torah or Tanakh). And he had access to all the other historians he mentions, like Manetho, whose chronicles are also no longer extant.
**Zero** The date for the construction and destruction of the Temple is reasonably well established. The accepted Wiki pages date Solomon's reign to 970 - 930 BC. The date for the destruction of the Temple is 587 BC, as derived from many sources, and this gives a date for construction of about 997 BC, possibly because King David started the construction of the Temple. So we have a 50-year span for the construction of the Temple of between 1,000 BC and say 950 BC - as is approved in other Wiki pages. A 50-year chronological peg is not bad for this era. 592 years before this date gives the Exodus a range between 1590 and 1540 BC. And all of this is from secondary sources and from approved Wiki pages. (Or is Wiki not to be trusted as a Wiki source?). (Yes, Seder Olam Rabbah gets a mention in Wiki, when his date is clearly wrong. But because he is an approved secondary source his erroneous date is worth a mention, while Josephus' assertions and analysis are constantly deleted.)
Quite clearly Josephus Flavius is a secondary source. He is chronologically removed from the Exodus and is providing an analysis of the accounts by primary sources, of which he cites many but primarily Manetho. Josephus agrees with some of what Manetho says, but disagrees with other sections - which constitutes an analysis. Josephus is not simply quoting Manetho. So 'Professor' Josephus is a secondary source, every bit as much as Professor Finkelstein is. (It is highly likely that his assertion that the Exodus was 592 years before the Temple is based upon his parallel assertion in 'Against Apion' that the Israelites were the Hyksos people, and so the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus.)
So we have a series of Wiki sources and secondary sources (ie: Josephus) that point towards an earlier date for the Exodus, which is certainly worth a mention. And if you do not like the phraseology in my amendment, perhaps you could rewrite it. But please do not simply delete it because you cannot accept an earlier date for the Exodus. What Josephus says about the Israelite Exodus being the Hyksos Exodus makes a great deal of sense, but there is a dearth of modern historians who will talk about this, presumably because it is politically/religiously unacceptable. But I thought that Wiki would be above such partisan opinions and omissions. Josephus is most definitely a secondary source, when it comes to his historical account of the Exodus (which does not agree with the biblical account), and so his assertions are as valid as any modern theologian or historian - if not more so. Tatelyle (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
*** Alternate wording ***

New Version for "Dating the Exodus"[edit]

Since MPants says that historical dating should be given precedence, I have moved the biblical sentence to the end - so the historical analysis can go first and set the scene.

However, I cannot let the assertion that Jericho was unfortified stand. What Finkelstein says is that: "In the case of Jericho there was no trace of a settlement of any kind in the 13th century BCE ... There was no sign of destruction ... Thus the famous scene of the walls tumbling down is a romantic mirage." (paraphrased from p81-82 of The Bible Unearthed). What Finkelstein means is that THERE WERE NO WALLS IN THE 13th CENTURY BC. In great contrast Wiki says: "The city was surrounded by extensive defensive walls strengthened with rectangular towers .... Kathleen Kenyon reported that 'The defenses ... belong to a fairly advanced date in that period' and there was 'a massive stone revetment... part of a complex system" of defenses (pp. 213–218)' ". Clearly, if the date for the Exodus is much earlier (as Josephus maintains), then the statement that Jericho was unfortified is in error. Jericho WAS a fortified city in the 16th century BC.

Also, the assertion that the Israelites were 'escaping from Egypt to Egypt' is in error for the same reason, as that again depends on the era of the Exodus. This may be true for the middle 18th dynasty, but it is not true of the Hyksos Exodus era. And Josephus clearly states that the Israelite Exodus was the Hyksos Exodus.

      • New wording is as follows... ***

Dating the Exodus[edit]

Attempts to date the Exodus to a specific century have been inconclusive.[1] William F. Albright, the leading biblical archaeologist of the mid-20th century, proposed a date of around 1250–1200 BCE, but his so-called "Israelite" evidence (house-type, the collar-rimmed jars, etc.) are continuations of Canaanite culture.[2] The lack of evidence has led scholars to conclude that it is difficult or even impossible to link the exodus story to any specific point in history.[3] Finkelstein and Silberman also place the Exodus in the 13th century BC and debate the accuracy of the biblical account. They state that Jericho was unwalled and does not show destruction layers consistent with the Bible's account (e.g., Jericho was "small and poor, almost insignificant, and unfortified (and) [t]here was also no sign of a destruction". (Finkelstein and Silberman, 2002).[4] This assessment is based upon a 13th century chronology for the Exodus, and does not apply if the Exodus took place at an earlier date. It is universally accepted that Jericho was a fortified city before its destruction in the 16th century BC.

Although controversial, earlier dates for the Exodus are given in several texts. The biblical Book of 1 Kings 6:1 places the Exodus 480 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, and based upon the accepted date for King Solomon's reign this places the Exodus in c. 1446 BCE. However it is widely claimed that the time period in 1 Kings merely represents twelve generations of forty years each.[5][6][7] In a similar fashion Flavius Josephus says the Exodus occurred either 612 or 592 years before the construction of Solomon's Temple, placing the Exodus in 1578 or 1558 BCE.[8] This earlier date would equate the Israelite Exodus with the era of the Hyksos Exodus, and agree with Josephus' assertion that the Israelites were the Hyksos people (as discussed below).

Possible sources and parallels[edit]

Ipuwer Papyrus

Manetho and the Hyksos[edit]

The Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 320 BCE) wrote a history of Egypt in which he told how the Egyptians blamed a plague on foreigners and expelled them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, took them to Canaan.[9] A similar and more famous story is told by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BCE), chief priest at the Temple of Ra in Heliopolis, which is preserved in two quotations by the 1st century CE Jewish historian Josephus.[Notes 1] In the first volume of Manetho's History of Egypt, as retold by Josephus, Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their invasion and dominion over Egypt, their eventual expulsion, and their subsequent exile to Judaea and their establishing the city of Jerusalem and its temple. In the second volume Manetho defined the Hyksos as being the Hyksos or "Shepherd Kings" or "Captive Shepherds" who invaded Egypt, destroying its cities and temples and making war with the Egyptian people to "gradually destroy them to the very roots". Following a war with the Egyptians a treaty was negotiated stipulating that these Hyksos Shepherds were to exit Egypt. It is Josephus who identifies the Hyksos with the Jews, not Manetho.[10] [11] Josephus says:

"[The Hyksos] kept possession of Egypt five hundred and eleven years. After this ... the other parts of Egypt made an insurrection against the shepherds ... the shepherds were subdued and were driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres named Avaris ... Despairing of taking the place by that siege [Thummosis] came to an agreement with them: that they should leave Egypt ... After this agreement was made, they went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than two hundred and forty thousand; and took their journey from Egypt, through the wilderness, for Syria. ... where they built a city in ... Judea ... and called it Jerusalem. In another book Manetho says, “That this nation thus called shepherds, were also called captives in their sacred books.” And this account of his is the truth. For feeding of sheep was the employment of our forefathers ... and as they led a wandering life in feeding sheep they were called shepherds. Nor was it without reason that they were called captives by the Egyptians, since one of our ancestors, Joseph, told the King of Egypt that he was a captive.

In his analysis of the accounts by Manetho, Josephus is equating the Hyksos people and Exodus with the Israelite people and Exodus. And in paragraph 26 he calls the Hyksos 'our people'. [12] However, Josephus strongly disassociates the Israelites from Manetho's second story, which tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people", led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses, although the identification of Osarseph with Moses in the second account may be a later addition.[13][14]

The stories told by Hecataeus and Manetho are clearly related in some manner to the biblical account of the Exodus, and the era of the Hyksos Exodus equates well with Josephus' early date for the Exodus. However, it is impossible to tell whether these accounts bear witness to actual historical events or whether they are a polemical response to the Exodus story, or indeed whether the Exodus story is a response to the Egyptian accounts.[15]

. Tatelyle (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 151.
  2. ^ Killebrew 2005, pp. 175–77.
  3. ^ Killebrew 2005, p. 152.
  4. ^ Finkelstein & Silberman 2002, pp. 77–79, 82.
  5. ^ Shea 2003, pp. 238–39.
  6. ^ Moore & Kelle 2005, p. 81.
  7. ^ Thompson 1999, p. 74.
  8. ^ Josephus Antiquities & p. 8:3:1 p. 20:10:1.
  9. ^ Assmann 2009, p. 34.
  10. ^ Droge 1996, pp. 121–22.
  11. ^ See Against Apion 1:14
  12. ^ See Against Apion 1:26
  13. ^ Droge 1996, pp. 134–35.
  14. ^ Feldman 1998, p. 342.
  15. ^ Gmirkin 2006, p. 170.
Tatelyle, I have told you on your talk page that Josephus is WP:PRIMARY since he isn't a modern historian. Wikipedia goes by contemporary scholarship. Wikipedia editors are in no position to evaluate the truth claims of Ancient historians. We trust contemporary historians with doing that job. And indeed, per WP:CIRCULAR Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. To give you an inkling what's wrong with that theory, see File:Egypt_1450_BC.svg and [1]: the Israelites have flown from Egypt to Egypt. After the Egyptians defeated the Hyksos c. 1550 BCE, Egyptians were left without competition (at least in Canaan). The gist of our work at this article is quoting contemporary mainstream scholars: if you can't do that, we're done here. See also WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu. Josephus is 1,500 years removed from the Exodus, so how can he be considered to be a primary source? Show us where a secondary source has to be a modern historian - or are you making this up as you go along? Indeed, the secondary source example given in the Wiki manual is the 'History of the Kingdom of Voxu' dating from 1615. If you cannot show me where secondary sources have to be modern, I am taking this matter straight to Wiki arbitration. And your assertion that Josephus' chronicle cannot be used in Wiki without a modern historical filter is utterly fallacious. If you look at Wiki entries, Josephus is used on numerous occasions as a reference even when he was almost a contemporary primary source. Look at the Wiki entry for Herod the Great, for instance.
Your 'modern secondary source' reasoning is worse than circular. You will not allow Josephus to be quoted for reference, even though modern historians depend upon Josephus Flavius for their historical analyses. But you will allow Finkelstein and Silberman's comments to stand, even though they were too dumb to see any possibilities outside their 13th century BC academic bubble. So Finkelstein and Silberman are hailed as being correct by Wiki when they say Jericho was an undefended village, when the ancient texts clearly state that Jericho was a large walled city. Thus the ancient texts are a fantasy - apparently. But we know that Jericho was a large walled city in the era that Josephus says the Exodus happened, but we cannot cite Josephus because he was contemporary with these events - even though he lived 1,500 years after these events. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?
And to show you are 'correct' you show us a map of uncertain provenance that incorrectly shows 'Egypt' controlling all of the Levant during the 15th dynasty File:Egypt_1450_BC.svg. But you obviously have no idea that the land of Egypt was divided during the Second Intermediate Period, and the Hyksos controlled Lower Egypt. Which means that the 'proper' Egyptians only controlled Upper Egypt and not much more, and had absolutely no control over the Levant. And nor did the Egyptians control the Levant at the start of the New Kingdom, because the Hyksos controlled Judaea, just as Manetho says. So the point of showing this map was?? Tatelyle (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Tatelyle, you're wasting your time if you think you're going to succeed at getting around the requirement that Wikipedia relies primarily on contemporary academic sources, or if you think you're going to succeed in getting WP:SYNTH material into this article. It doesn't particularly matter if you think Finkelstein is dumb, or if you think Josephus is on par with a modern historian. Wikipedia has a way of doing things. We're not here to find the truth. We're here to represent what contemporary scholarly sources say. If you're not here to do that, and if you instead insist on cooking up your own dates from Josephus, then you won't get very far here. Arguing about whether something is "primary" or "secondary" doesn't change the fundamental situation we find ourselves in here. Wikipedia has quality standards for what counts as a reliable source, and Josephus isn't one. Alephb (talk) 23:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I concur. Tatelyle, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. You aren't gonna change the ground rules of this website. The choice is yours: obey WP:PAGs or be blocked and eventually banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Quote: "Wikipedia has quality standards, and Josephus isn't one." Except that Josephus is quoted throughout Wiki as a source, so Wiki standards and goalposts are not worth the screen they are printed on. Tatelyle (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome to read WP:RS again. In the meantime, if you try to violate WP:SYNTH and homecook your own dates via Josephus, a WP:FRINGE character who teaches, among other things, Young-Earth Creationism, your edits will continue to be reverted by other editors. If you persist, you'll probably be blocked sooner or later. It may or may not be all that you hoped Wikipedia would be, but it's how Wikipedia is. Maybe it's crazy. Maybe it's evil. But it is what it is. If other articles are misusing Josephus and mistaking him for a reliable source, then that's a problem. But I would recommend not trying to spread that problem to this page as well, because you'll just be wasting your own time. Alephb (talk) 00:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Tatelyle, look, Bart Ehrman quotes Papias of Hierapolis because Papias' testimony is notable for historical reasons. But then Ehrman adds that Papias is untrustworthy in almost any verifiable respect. So, the fact that you're seeing many quotations from Josephus should not deceive you to think that we consider Josephus as having written WP:RS. The gist of your argument is that you want to break the ground rules of Wikipedia with impunity. No experienced editor is going to allow you to do that. The irony is that many dates have been advanced by modern scholars, so one does not need to go as far back in time as citing Josephus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Despite the consensus of the Wiki community, Tatelyle is just going to ignore it all. I've already reverted two edits by the user, and I feel this will just be reverted back. If he/she does revert again, I think a block would be necessary on the grounds of WP:NOTHERE. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The 'consensus' here has allowed commentary on Manetho's assertions WP:RS (?) and on the Tanakh's assertions WP:RS (?), but not on the assertions by Josephus Flavius (Judaism's greatest historian). Which is illogical, at the very least. So the matter has been sent to dispute resolution. Tatelyle (talk) 10:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
The dispute resolution page is here: [1] Tatelyle (talk) 10:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


Amarna theories[edit]

Regarding dating the Exodus, it is basically wrong not to put the Amarna period first on the list of potential dates. This is by far the most defensible date from both historical and Biblical perspective, even without considering the connection to Egyptian monotheism. It is also the very oldest theory posited by anyone claiming to be a historian of any kind (Manetho or his translators, Josephus likely relying on him but also on other lost sources), due to the story of Osarseph and the claim that he changed his name to Moses. It is also the only theory that any archaeologist whatsoever has ever stated much of a case for. The following was the text I added that some POV censor chose to revert, pretending that archaeologists writing op-eds in their own field in major newspapers on extremely controversial topics that will destroy their careers if they are wrong, citing facts that are undisputed and heavily referenced in other articles, is somehow not valid. Religious Jews and Christians as a rule do not like the Amarna theory as it clearly relates the origin of their faith to Egyptian monotheism, thus they try to crapflood this valid theory out of the way with lots of nonsense from pious "scholars". However here is the case as I had stated it in my version:

Reign of Tutankhamun (1330 BCE)[edit]

Conditions at the beginning of the reign of Tutankhamun closely match those described in Exodus:

  • a large mudbrick city having been just constructed by slaves of Akhnaten in two years at El Amarna, a site with little straw, and being abandoned with his religion
  • a disenfranchised monotheistic priest class displaced by followers of the old gods of Saqqara & Luxor being restored
  • extremely specific predictions of disaster - recorded on his restitution stele - claiming "old gods would punish him if they were not given back their old rights and positions:
    • Hapi, the androgynous god of the Nile, would make its waters undrinkable;
    • Kermit, the goddess of fertility, would release her frogspawn to swarm over the land;
    • Osiris, the god of corn, would not prevent the locusts from consuming his cereals, and
    • Ra, the sun god, would refuse to shine."[2]
  • strong resemblance (cherubim, carrying poles) between a pharoah's battle shrine and the portable Mishkan or Tabernacle that went into the desert with other riches - from a city that was abandoned
    • extremely strong similarity between the treatment of this portable shrine and the Temple rituals (inner and outer room) at Jerusalem.

Rosenberg further suggests that this date can be reconciled easily with Exodus 12:40 claiming 430 years in Egypt - since 1760 BCE - and the theory that the Israelites came to Egypt with the semitic Hyksos, as proposed by Josephus Flavius, which modern scholars place within decades of that time. An also, that if the Solomonic Temple was built 12 generations after the Exodus (I Kings 6:1) and these are actually 30 not 40 real years, 360 years after 1330 is 970 BCE, again within decades of modern estimates.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Map (1350 BC): [2]. Does the map tell you something really obvious? Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe this map does: [3]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Or this: [4]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
First, you do know that some scholars have suggested dates even earlier than Tutankhamun for the Exodus? Do you intend to rule all mention of them out? Almost all are relying overmuch on Biblical timelines notably the 40 year generations, but "430 years" is not a period seemingly derived from that as it's not a multiple of 40.
The maps plus the 12 generations (360 years according to Rosenberg vs. 480 in Biblical translations) it took to establish the Temple all suggest that the Biblical narrative is avoiding mention of taking over Egyptian territory or provinces, and aggrandizing and characterizing the Israelites as one unified people genetically, all to suit the Persian expectations or requirements for national recognition, and suggests a longer struggle to conquer the region, possibly a clandestine effort rather than a "national identity" being there from the start, subverting formerly Egyptian cities one by one, starting in a period of chaos after Amarna when Egypt was under severe internal stress and could not control these outlying areas. One has to reject EITHER the very exact 430 years given in Exodus 12:40 and the 1750 BCE date given to Hyksos arrival AND the Kings 6:1 claim of 12 generations given until the Temple was founded (for which 40 year generations rather than 30 make it even earlier and when the Egyptians are not in any period of internal chaos or turmoil), OR one has to reject the narrative that says Israel was a well organized state from the beginning rather than a bunch of rebels who slowly turned an Egyptian region into their own empire. If it took 12 generations to establish a Temple, very clearly, it took a long time to gain control of the area, so there is really no problem with them arriving in nominally Egyptian territory and taking 360 or 480 years to establish more than base camps and temporarily conquered cities.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
One has to make sure to define the event he/she means. An army of 600 000 fighting men was never seen in the Ancient world and it was enough to conquer the whole Egyptian Empire, the whole Canaan and the whole Hittite Empire. If 600 slaves have escaped, then that's another matter, another event, one might say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
That is completely correct. Basically no one accepts 600,000 fighting men, but such a claim is consistent with aggrandized claims to impress the Babylonians/Persians. The Osarseph story places the number squarely in between at 80,000 lepers and other outcasts. lso the entire East Med region plunges into chaos for centuries within about a century after Amarna so there are plenty of opportunities to take over. This is the late Bronze Age "dark ages" when several whole civilizations collapse, and Egypt pulls back to the Nile and ceases to assert control over territory that Semitic peoples are taking over, and came from in the first place. The whole Egyptian control of the region comes from Hyksos alliances such as marriages, so why can't it collapse at this time in favor of Israel? The Bible would not mention fighting Egyptians for a very obvious reason: they wrote their history to present it to the Babylonians / Persians, who would have used any such admission as evidence that they were not a legitimate state but a bunch of terrorists who stole Egyptian territory. You have to understand how those empires assessed legitimacy to get that. It was standard to require claims - similar to modern land title claims - that the rulers were descended from particular forebears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
OK: says who? We need WP:SOURCES for verification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg, who is a Senior Fellow at an Israeli archaeology institute but who seems to not have published his book yet. And of course all the Osarseph commentators who believe the story (like Josephus Flavius and Menatho and its names that almost certainly come from Amarna period or Hyksos peoples. And everyone that copied Menatho and thought it credible that he had said that Osarseph renamed himself Moses - despite there being no Greek copy of the Book of Exodus for him to read (did he read Hebrew?). Oddly there wasn't much said about this theory between the very old (3rd BCE to 1st CE) and very new historians, probably because it's controversial to suggest that the Bible deliberately left out any mention of struggles with Egyptians or Hyskos once they got to Canaan, and assigned weird extinct tribe names to the Israelites' enemies so as to deny that they had taken anything from the Egyptian or Hyksos empires, when it's very clear from all sources that they did. When you think about it, it's just totally not credible that Israel never had to fight anyone in 12 generations from either of the two great empires that existed on either side of them, not even colonies or outposts. That in itself suggests censoring all mention of those empires to avoid getting into uncomfortable situations when talking to their ambassadors in Babylon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Great! No empirical evidence, no scholarly sources, this means no allowable edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Gabriel Rosenberg[edit]

What do you think of this author, an Israeli archaeologist and self-professed "proud Zionist" who suggests that Judaism arose in context of some fusion of Egyptian and Hyksos traditions in the Amarna period. [3] [4] [5]

He puts it loud and clear: "Evidence there is none". Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Judaism arose after 500 BC, which is a bit late for a fusion of Amarna and the Hyksos.PiCo (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
To put it briefly, Wikipedia is a website meant for rendering mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (at least in such matters). Wikipedia will render Rosenberg's view if and when it becomes a mainstream scholarly view. Not beforehand. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, do you know how to load external internet files into Wikimedia? I'd like to have that map of yours as a possible resource - PiCo (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
And our poster from the top of this thread really should read our article, and then read the books that back it up. First find out the mainstream view, then you'll have context to read more widely. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know how to load them, but isn't it copyrighted? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, ok. PiCo (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Here's a present for you - our friend would love it :) PiCo (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=Notes> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Notes}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^