Talk:The Exodus Decoded

Ian Wilson, 'Exodus Enigma'

I don't have a copy, but you do get lots of this discussed in Ian Wilson's 1985 book "The Exodus Enigma".91.111.29.190 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Limnic eruption

I'm not sure that the there is enough evidence to support a claim of limnic eruption. Furthermore, while volcanic activity has indirect causal relationship by providing the source of gas-rich water inflows, volcanic activity is not the direct cause of a limnic eruption. Limnically active lakes are noted for lack of direct lakebed volcanic activity. A different trigger like landslides into a lake, excessive rainfall into a lake is noted as a more likely trigger. Also, where are your references for this claim? Finally limnic eruptions are a lake feature, none of my research indicated that this was also a feature of delta. I am less than inclinced to believe that a delta water system could support the thermal layers required to allow gas build up needed for a L.E. Revmachine21 11:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The documentary provides experts that seem to disagree with your findings. The article here isn't claiming they are true, it is relating what the documentary said. References are not needed for that because the article is about what the documentary stated. You may or may not have reason to personally believe the findings of the documentary are in error, but either way it is not really relevant to this page.--GenkiDama 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Point taken, but that documentatary certainly sounds like complete bollocks. Reader beware! Revmachine21 06:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of his location of Mt.Sinai

To see and a read list of criticism Mt.Sinai go to hashem-el tarif in wikipedia under comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.60.200 (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Funny that it's being criticized as well, it's one of the very few points in the documentary that are actually plausible. I actually want to see the research on that one.

brill (talk) 03:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs a Criticism Section

Jacobovici is obviously pressing a religious agenda, probably in an attempt to refute Israel Finkelstein's (and others) conclusion that there is no archeological evidence to support the myths in the Torah (and Joshua), including the Exodus.

Jacobovici's thesis is so full of holes, so speculative, and so archeologically and historically far fetched that it should be considered in the same vein as Erich von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. TimeDog 18:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Bietak has already written a scathing criticism of this theory, and apparently Redford has denounced it as well. I own a copy of Bietak's article published in BAR, and I'll get ahold of it to begin writing somthing, however someone should look for Redford's comments as well. Thanatosimii 05:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a criticism section, and I have started one drawing on criticism of the documentary at Biblical Archaeology Society. I will leave it to someone else to mention the specific criticisms. --Skb8721 15:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section is a good start, but I don't think the discussion on the message postings is becoming of the article. No matter how far-fetched Jacobovici's thesis is, it's best to stick to the scholarship. Anyone can claim to have trumped up credentials on a public forum.Imdugud 19:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Some real references?

All the "references" for this article are links to the posts on the message board at historychannel.com, these are circular references.

Perhaps a valid critique, but I removed a "cite needed" tag inexplicably affixed to the word "detailed" before a weblink. We need a citation from outside that a link is detailed? Was this an error, or someone's attempt to make sure the article was tagged as having uncited material? 66.188.89.52 22:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I started this article. I also started one of many short-lived articles about the documentary Zeitgeist. My Zeitgeist article was deleted because all of the references circled back to the Zeitgeist official webpage. As noted above, this article does exactly the same thing... and yet, it is going strong. I don't want this article to get deleted, but I think that all of the same criticisms that led to the deletion of my Zeitgeist article could be lobbied against it. I can think of three possible reasons why this article is alive while Zeitgeist is dead: 1) Exodus: Decoded is an affirmation of Biblical ideas while Zeitgeist is very critical of religion. I would hate to think that the religious right asserts censoring control over Wikipedia, but its not impossible. 2) Exodus: Decoded was televised while Zeitgeist was web-released. I think Wikipedia's notability standards are surprisingly biased in favour of conventional, commercial media to the neglect of free, web-based content. The Exodus: Decoded talk page is not, of course, the appropriate place to rant about that. and, 3) The Exodus: Decoded merits deletion, but has fallen fortuitously through the cracks. I am not going to nominate my own article for deletion, but unless more reliable sources evidencing the notability of this documentary are found, perhaps someone should.142.167.185.83 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Overly Critical

I feel like this article is being overly critical of this documentary.

207.118.9.58 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Agreed. The turquoise mine being used to dispute the accuracy is especially telling. The last sentence starts with "It has been noted...", with no regard to who notes it, or more importantly, why they find it to be that way. It also admits to the usage of the term El, but provides no explanation as to why it was found where it was, or why it was written in Pre-Hebrew Semitic writing.

The documentary may be completely false. I still find it to have better research and insight than those who dispute it.

~~I just made an effort to reduce the over-critical feel. I had to take out a lot of interesting critism that I happen to agree with because it is, uncited opinion. Still needs a lot of help, so be bold, neutrality lovers, be bold! 142.167.173.61 02:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

--I noticed that one criticism mentioned was about how the Bible describes walls of water and how it wasn't explained. However, the documentary does speak briefly of how there would be tsunamis that would recover the land bridge. I can see how most people would miss it, but it does explain the walls of water that are recorded in the Bible.

--I do agree that there are some previous facts and studies that weren't addressed in the documentary, but do keep in mind this WAS made for TV. There most likely wasn't time to address every little detail and fact. The documentary is 2 hours long just hitting and describing the main points of his thesis alone. I don't know if there is a paper or report published on his findings or not, but I'm sure it would be more informative and wouldn't have that distractingly abusive use of special effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.48.106 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

--I actually know where some of the research came from and know that it has not yet been published. I also know that Jacobovici pretty much used the research to make his own story. However, we will have to wait because the author hasn't prepared it for publication and likely will not do so for a few years at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brillpappin (talk • contribs) 03:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dating

Someone should note that the dates given in the Torah and the Bible also suggest c. 1500 BC as the date for the Exodus, the same as Jacobovitch's conjecture.

Not necessarily.

According to the Ussher Chronology of the Bible, the Exodus took place at 1491 BC, close to Jacobvitch's conjecture. Even though the Ussher dates are not neccessarily scientific, someone should still make note of the similarity, since the modern view of Bible (and Torah) chronology is partially based on Ussher's calculations (at least according to the Bible chronology article).

I saw the documentary and i agree with his findings.

The documentary is full of embellishments and lies, and purposely avoids much evidence against the thesis.

Jacobovici is listed as the producer

I noticed that Jacobovici is actually listed as the producer but the article states that it's his research (how many producers do you know with archaeological skills?). There may be more to the story in terms of evidence despite the obvious religious bent.

This is clearly a criticism article, not a description page of the documentary. Which is bad for the credibility of this article, as anyone can see. The whole article could be a "criticism section" of a new and more complete article. I would tell to anyone who would like to edit it: be impartial.

"Higgaion" blog as a citation source

Many of the citations on this article (mainly on the 'Criticism' section) cannot be considered reliable, since they link to what appears to be a blog site that states an opinion and nothing more. "Higgaion" is not an academic/scientific or certified archaeology site. The writer over there simply does not like Jacobovici's film, and uses personal language/opinion to oppose the documentary. Wikipedia articles cannot rely on blog sites as citation sources, and therefore I will remove them if no tangible reason is presented.

In addition, Wikipedia is not a criticism arena. After reading the article, it seems clear that the writers of the 'Criticism' section also had their own agenda, as if they were trying to discredit even legitimate/challenging findings. Negativity will not work here, and I am giving you all a notice. A major rewrite/reorganization is coming. John Hyams (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The documentary in question is not an actual scientific theory. The producers never published their hypothesis in any scientific publication, and therefore their hypothesis never went through peer review. The ideas in the documentary were pretty much completely ignored by the scientific community, and received 0 mention in any scientific press, as far as I know. So the criticism section is on the same level of reliability as the documentary itself.

Moreover, Higgaion is written by an Associate Professor of Religion at Pepperdine University, an expert in the field. There is actually no rule saying Wikipedia articles cannot rely on blog sites. Wikipedia:Verifiability however states that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Higgaion fits the criteria perfectly, and therefore is perfectly acceptable in this article. Flyboy Will (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This "Higgaion" site does not fit that criteria "perfectly". I do not understand how you can say that. It's a plain blog site that uses obvious negative language. Moreover, the fact that it was written by an Associate Professor of Religion only proves that it is heavily biased. Regarding the rest, this is all your opinion. The documentary brings pieces of a puzzle together. They cannot be easily dismissed. No documentary is ever published as a scientific theory, you can ask any BBC producer, or even the History Channel if you'd like. The Wikipedia article is to report about the existence of the documentary, its contents, and criticism (yes, I don't say without criticism) - based on reliable citations. It is not our place to judge, to state that a TV documentary is not a scientific theory. We should remain objective and without negativity in the writing. I dispute the neutrality of this article, and I think it requires rewrite and re-organization. John Hyams (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me take this step by step.

I say that the Higgaion site fits the criteria because it's exactly as the Verifiability describes it. It is written by an expert in the field (professor of religion) with published work in the field (google brings up some articles and a book). So it matches the criteria.

Whether the criticism is biased or not is actually not important. It exists, and meets the verifiability criteria, and therefore can be listed in the article. Altogether, I'm not even sure how to address a claim that the criticism is biased. I can't see any evidence of bias in the source, but rather a thorough review of the claims made by Jacobovici. I don't know how anyone can infer the motivation behind factual criticism. All that matters from a Wikipedia point of view is that the criticism exists, and comes from a source that meets Verifiability criteria for self-published sources.

"No documentary is ever published as a scientific theory". That's actually not true. Vast majority of documentaries are firmly based in existing research. Exodus Decoded is rare in the respect that makes a large number of claims with attempts to prove them right there in the documentary, with the documentary itself being the only source for the claims. Most documentaries present information in a completely different format, with either illustrated witness testimony, or retelling of existing published theories accompanied by interviews with experts in the field. Exodus Decoded does nothing of the sort. It is actually, based on Wikipedia criteria, a self-published source as well (since it is not based on scientific peer-reviewed publications), and a Fringe Source to boot, since it presents a wildly novel theory unsupported by any existing scientific research, and not since accepted or even addressed by mainstream science.

"It is not our place to judge, to state that a TV documentary is not a scientific theory." What do you mean? It's just stating the obvious. Besides, I'm not adding it to the article, I'm saying it in the Talk page. Exodus Decoded is not a scientific theory because it does not fit the essential criteria to qualify as such. It's not even a scientific hypothesis. It makes a large number of claims, many of which run counter to the scientific method. They're not based on review of breadth of available evidence, and finding a logical conclusion; on the contrary, the claims are are hand-picking evidence that matches pre-existing notions. It's the exact opposite of science.

"I dispute the neutrality of this article". You might misunderstand the term "neutrality". Neutrality doesn't mean that a Wikipedia article can't be negative. Neutrality means that an article must "represent fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This is what the article does. It represents all significant views on the theory, coming from sources of equal standing. The documentary itself is a self-published fringe theory with no reliable scientific backing, made by a person with no background in archaeology, Egyptology, history of religion, or history of the middle east; the criticism is largely from a self-published blog by a professor of religion. The "without bias" part of the neutrality criteria does not mean that the sources themselves can't possibly be understood as having no bias, but rather that their portrayal in the article should not add any extra bias by a Wikipedia editor. And I believe the article presents a fair summary of the criticism, without any inferred bias towards the source. Flyboy Will (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

blog site that uses obvious negative language: Our articles are required to be NPOV, not our sources. Ford MF (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ford: not if by the citation/source you are trying to make a "scientific" or an impartial claim.

Will and the rest: The exodus story by itself is also a non-scientific story, and yet there are no similar attempts on its page to discredit it. The documentary includes interviews with numerous University professors, PhD owners, and religion experts. For some reason, all of them are not mentioned here in this article. Where are their names? Why not use their names as citations in favor of the puzzle presented in the documentary? I call this a biased approach. The article requires a section in favor of the findings, mentioning the names of all the professionals who have participated in this documentary. The article tries to present this documentary as the invention of a single person, Simcha J., but he is not the only one in this documentary. John Hyams (talk) 22:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On a purely meta level, making no comment on the specific subject of the debate here: people--scientists even--are perfectly entitled to say that a particular theory is utter balls. And as an encyclopedia we are well within our mandate to report that critics think a particular theory is balls. What we cannot do is write an article that says a theory is balls; we are here to merely enumerate the ball-sayers and their objections. We are an NPOV project reporting on a POV world. Ford MF (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! I fully agree with that. John Hyams (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Chris Heard aside, the problem with this article is obvious: there is FAR more criticism on the documentary than there is about what the documentary actually says! The article is providing counter points to points that are not even enumerated! That in and of itself seems NOT NPOV. A far more reasonable thing would be to say "Professor <insert credentials here> has raised a number of criticisms about documentary [reference to blog]." Athemeus (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel there is disproportionate amount of pro and contra, then the solution is obviously not trimming the contra, but padding the pro. Flyboy Will (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what I feel. It's empirically true. A simple fact for you is that the criticism section is actually longer than the rest of the article. Prior to the criticism section, a quick copy/paste shows a word count of 1170. The criticism section is 1566. How do you justify a criticism section longer than the rest of the article as NPOV? As far as padding the pro, this is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a bulletin board. 96.231.129.142 (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again, what's described in this article is a fringe theory or pseudoscience, according to Wikipedia's own definition. As such, we're not required to give equal weight to opposing viewpoints. See Apollo moon landing hoax as an example of a fringe theory (significantly more notable than this one), and compare the weight of pro and contra arguments there. The balance in the article is comparable to the balance of information about the subject. All that exists on one side is a film in which a filmmaker with no background in archaeology or middle-eastern studies makes a series of claims not backed by any scientific research, not published in a reputable scientific publication, and not submitted for peer review. On the other hand, we have several scathing reviews by scientists with experience in the field. The size of the criticism section, compared to the light weight of the rest reflects a very notable fact that literally every claim made in the documentary was challenged.

Trimming the Criticism section would therefore seem to me like a POV attempt to hide the number of inaccuracies pointed out by scholars. Any pro-NPOV attempts to balance out the information would, to me, consist of padding the other side of the article with equally notable sources backing the film's claims. Remember that the criticism section often doesn't just refer to an opinion of a website author, but are references to widely accepted scientific views, such as the dating and consequences of the Santorini explosion (extensively researched subject on which there is a significant consensus); dating of Egyptian pharaohs; translations and interpretations of documents mentioned in the film; etc. The scholars aren't just criticizing the film based on their opinion, but they are weighing it against the mainstream scientific consensus. The fact that somebody said something on film is not nearly enough to give it equal weight with mainstream scientific view. Flyboy Will (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Verification needed" tags in the Criticism section

I have no idea why these were added. The criticism section is thoroughly sourced, and each of the lines to which a Verification Needed tag was added has a verifiable source on which each claim was based. Therefore, I believe the tags are not needed, and moreover are misleading. Here's an explanation of all four tags. They can be verified simply by clicking the source at the end.

• "Jacobovici uses circular logic" is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=228, which has the following passage: As with his “scientific” explanations for all the other plagues, the logic is circular: “The biblical text describes such-and-such, which could be explained by thus-and-so; therefore, thus-and-so happened, causing such-and-such.” The only evidence for the scenario is the notion that the alleged phenomena could produce effects similar to those described in the Bible. Yet even this latter claim is fraught with difficulty, for—contrary to Pellegrino’s assertions—the picture painted by Jacobovici and Pellegrino does not in fact match the biblical description;
• "Biblical scholars" line is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=141, an article written by a biblical scholar;
• "Jacobovici greatly distorts the Biblical description" is sourced to http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=458, which contains an extensive explanation of how Jacobovici's description of the Ark differs from the Biblical narrative.
• "Altogether, there's absolutely no proof of any kind that any supporters of Moses left for Greece". Again, the line is sourced in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyboy Will (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Page name

A minor point perhaps, but if the documentary is called The Exodus Decoded, should the page not have that same name (i.e., including the article)? This seems the convention with other book and film names which incorporate an article. Mooncow (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability?

Does this product of utter egyptological ignorance have enough common attention to justify an article? CUSH 21:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because a lot of uninformed people will be impressed by it and come here looking for further information. We should give it to them.PiCo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The name "Mose"

The suggestion that Moses was named for the Egyptian suffix Mose (which I've seen in various places) is criticized because it doesn't match the Hebrew pronunciation "Moshe". The problem with this is that the letters Sin and Shin differ only in the position of the dot. But marks such as this dot are a modern invention. So how does Heard know it wasn't originally pronounced "Mose"? This suffix followed the name of an Egyptian god, so a hypothetical non-believing ruler would use the suffix by itself.

Anyway, I thought Moses was supposed to be Akhenaton? 198.228.228.157 (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC) Collin237

"Credibility" section

"Jacobovici's assertions have been criticized by archaeologists and religious scholars." --- I find this sentence misleading, if not manipulative, and let me explain why. The arguments listed below were conclusions made by one person only, not by many scholars. The author recalls articles and books that did not address the theories presented in the film directly. He uses the books and articles in order to improve his own understanding of the topic and then he himself makes conclusions on the basis of the existing literature, not his own research project. On top of that, the majority of the articles cited by that professor also include theories which are difficult to verify. Therefore we can say that the film goes against the grain of the current theories on that matter but when we juxtapose two theories, in order to stay objective, we cannot prefer one theory over another or we will risk experiencing the Semmelweis effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonnus (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed with Simonnus. To exaggerate the credentials of two bible scholars publishing on blogs and defunct websites by calling them "mainstream scientists" (as editors are doing now), is misleading and manipulative. Dr. Chris Heard is a bible scholar at Pepperdine, and his website is defunct. Dr. Ronald Hendel teaches Jewish Studies at UC Berkeley, and his review is no longer available at the biblicalarchaeology.org site. No other criticisms have been cited. No archaeology journals have been cited. Yet editors have been referring to them as "Mainstream scientists". This exaggeration is not WP:NPOV, its misleading, and I'm removing it. There were quite a few other archaeologists interviewed by Jacobovici in the documentary. We should get records their responsa.Jaredscribe (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

About the Semmelweis effect see WP:BALL. See also WP:RGW. The argument of purely natural events was criticized by such Bible scholars as Shaye J. D. Cohen (in his Vimeo Harvard courses) and Israel Finkelstein (in The Bible Unearthed if I am not wrong), who basically say that their proponents saved the story, but ruined its meaning (namely God actively acting in history).

Also, for WP:FRINGE topics, we use WP:FRIND WP:SOURCES. We cannot be too demanding while the topic itself is not too demanding. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The heavy reliance on a defunct blog of a non-notable academic is not exactly neutral. Needs a major rewrite, or perhaps deletion of that section. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Catfish Jim and the soapdish: well, that raises the question if this article fulfills WP:N. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I would err towards assuming it satisfies notability guidelines. I think it would struggle to get consensus for deletion at AFD given the NYT review. What is certainly the case is that it doesn't require any in depth analysis. It's a popular history documentary. Real historians can't be bothered with stuff like this, and only the fringiest literalist biblical scholars would think it worth their while. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was expecting more discussion before it was taken to AFD... I can and do change my AFD !votes in response to debate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, there are a lot of books that mention this film... https://www.google.com/search?q=the+exodus+decoded+history+channel&rlz=1C1VDKB_en-GBGB938GB938&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjBrcDEr5fwAhVkSRUIHeIEADE4FBD8BSgBegQIARAL&biw=2560&bih=1249 All very fringy Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:11, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is explained by (mutatis mutandis):

What made Das Leben Jesu so controversial was Strauss's characterization of the miraculous elements in the gospels as mythical. After analyzing the Bible in terms of self-coherence and paying attention to numerous contradictions, he concluded that the miracle stories were not actual events. According to Strauss, the early church developed these stories in order to present Jesus as the Messiah of the Jewish prophecies. This perspective was in opposition to the prevailing views of Strauss' time: rationalism, which explained the miracles as misinterpretations of non-supernatural events, and the supernaturalist view that the biblical accounts were entirely accurate. Strauss's third way, in which the miracles are explained as myths developed by early Christians to support their evolving conception of Jesus, heralded a new epoch in the textual and historical treatment of the rise of Christianity.

— Wikipedia article David Strauss

So: nice try, but it is a POV that has been discredited centuries ago in the mainstream academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Does the film exist? Is it notable? That's all we get to decide here. Not whether its arguments are of any merit. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, all the sources now say is that it has spectacular effects and makes controversial claims. Barely enough for an article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles don't need to be in-depth critiques. They just need to be about notable subjects as per WP:GNG. Is WP:GNG flawed? Sure... Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 19:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)