Talk:Book of Exodus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Consensus of scholars

@Drewwesley: Since you claim the current citation is not "representative of all scholars worldwide", please provide scholarly references that support your claim. Bennv3771 (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is drewwesley. There's extra-Biblical support in findings regarding the Merneptah Stele that dates ~3200 years points to rivalry with the people of Israel. While I do not have a comprehensive list of prepared scholarly references, I question John Collins' selected pool of scholars and sense a bias that supports his view, which I respectfully feel you're using to assert yours. When I apply for a position, I choose personal and professional references who already find my character and quality of work favorable, there's a bias regardless of my actual character and work ethic (or lack of). Respectfully, debates regarding the historicity are extremely challenging for any of us because 1) none of us were actually there, 2) almost everything existing during that time has disintegrated, 3) we did not have the digital (or analog) recording technology we have now, and 4) we lack manuscripts. Just because I can't personally find extra-Biblical evidence of the plague of locusts or a conversation Moses had with Mariam, I cannot disprove their existence, nor (to your defense) could I supply recorded footage of it. If the Historicity of this book supports only one view with one man's reference, we should at least include other referenced viewpoints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewwesley (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Just say it simply, "it never happened, he never existed" is the CHOPSY and your mantra, and it is wrong from the POV of most faithful to the Bible Christians, Muslims, Jews, and it is a pity that you cannot see that. By the way, CHOPSY only came about in recent years, it was not around at WP's conception FYI. IZAK (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: This is a global encyclopaedia representing the sum of human knowledge, not a repository of the fringe POVs of epistemological minorities whom you claim without evidence represent the majority of the Abrahamic "faithful". GPinkerton (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Yup, WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I just clicked on WP:NOTTHEOCRACY and it redirects to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY which leads me to think that that is a violation of WP:NOTMADEUP by you! What's up? IZAK (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Therefore it is not a theocracy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

wrong from the POV of most faithful to the Bible Christians, Muslims, Jews

IZAK. That was written in haste, clearly. Your wording implies that it is wrong, not for 'Muslims, Jews, Christians' but only those among them who are 'most faithful' i.e., the minority in each who are fundamentalists. You shouldn't employ such generalizations. Muslims are not obliged to believe in the Bible, nor Christians in the Old Testament's putative inerrancy. The Catholic Church regards the OT as authoritative only with regard to moral and doctrinal issues, and in its seminaries and theological institutions, very much like non-sectarian Jewish scholars the world over in higher institutions of advanced learning, the historical nature of the text is accepted without qualm, since it is as obvious as the fact that Moses couldn't have written or transcribed the Pentateuch at Sinai as it describes his own death, and does so using a script that wasn't invented at the putative date of composition.Nishidani (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

"none of us were actually there" That is not how one can determine the historicity of an event. Scholars can evaluate the sources describing the event, their relative chronological proximity to the event, their relation to the archaeological record, their plausibility. Blind faith in the absence of any supporting evidence goes against the historical method. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

About CHOPSY only came about in recent years: you conflate the time since Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream scholarship with the time since I wrote WP:CHOPSY. So, yeah, it was normative for Wikipedia since many years before I wrote that essay. I only rendered it explicit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

The main problem as I see it is the disregard and disrespect for believers in God and in the authenticity of the Bible. There needs to be greater tolerance for people of faith. So when it says that the Exodus or the book of Exodus are "myths" this needs to be seen as offensive to readers and editors who believe in God and who regard the Exodus as fact not fiction or myth. Is a little bit of tolerance too much to ask for? Notice how as usual I am the only one who has to face this chorus of disbelief. Wikipedia is an excellent encyclopedia when it comes to all subjects except when it comes to "Bible studies" then the bible critics have the upper hand which itself is an issue of WP:UNDUE I think. IZAK (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Once again, please see wp:RNPOV: Several words that have very specific meanings in studies of religion have different meanings in less formal contexts, e.g., fundamentalism, mythology, and (as in the prior paragraph) critical. Wikipedia articles about religious topics should take care to use these words only in their formal senses to avoid causing unnecessary offence or misleading the reader. Conversely, editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view, or concern that readers may confuse the formal and informal meanings.. Myth is the established term, used by scholars, to describe these stories.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich don't be so one-dimensional. This is about religion and not Greek or German mythology and folklore. To call the beliefs of any religion a "myth" is to say that their belief in God is likewise a myth and mistaken and that is offensive to any normal person. Being offensive is not only to break WP policies but it is to deny the religious beliefs of human beings in the world. IZAK (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I take it you didn't read the policy linked? Myth is a scholarly term. That you are confused about it means and take offense is, per the above, not a reason to remove it. We're using it in its formal scholarly sense. Per MOS:WTW, myth is only to be avoided in its informal meaning, and WP:RNPOV is also explicit editors should not avoid using terminology that has been established by the majority of the current reliable and relevant sources on a topic out of sympathy for a particular point of view. We literally quote scholars calling the story a "charter myth" or "myth" or "founding myth". So the fact that you object to it being called a myth "out of sympathy for a particular point of view" (namely your belief that the Exodus happened and that the Bible is literally true) does not mean we are obliged to not call it a myth since reliable scholarly sources do.

Also, might I add: how does saying that a particular story in the Bible has been established as ahistorical (which is actually different from calling it a myth) mean that we're advocating there not being a God? That's an incredible leap of logic. Wikipedia takes no position on the existence of God or Vishnu or any other deity, it simply reports what reliable sources say about the development of the religions that worship them.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

It should also be added that the vast majority of people everywhere, and Wikipedia users potential or actual, not only disbelieve the purported literal truth of the Bible, but disbelieve in gods or a god as well. There is therefore no reason for a global encyclopaedia to give undue prominence to the minority of minorities that has somehow confused a fistful of scrolls for an uncorrupt message from the almighty they believe exists. GPinkerton (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Source please? According to The Pew Research Center, only 16% of the world's population is agnostic/unaffiliated or atheist. I also don't really think insulting the believers of the world when you're discussing with at least one is particularly wp:CIVIL.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

True believers and mainstream historians obviously contradict each other's camp. By definition Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream historians upon historical matters and when mainstream historians give the lie to true believers, Wikipedia sides with mainstream historians. All religions, each of them, is a minority worldwide. Most of the people of the world don't have the same religion, country and ethnicity as each Wikipedian. So, we're all minorities around here, there is no majority religion, no majority country, no majority ethnicity.

Xonq Yeah, I know what you mean about The Tao of Physics - I don't think we would look to use that as a reliable source for anything except as a primary source for assertions about what the author wrote in the book. The Atmospheres of Breathing book seems to be talking about qi as being metaphorically similar to fields in physics - I don't think it's saying that qi exists, and it is discussing in terms of biological energy again. The School of Oriental and African studies source is talking about 17th Century Chinese philosophy, and I don't think it's written by a physicist - I don't really understand why it's relevant. This is all interesting stuff, but I don't see how we could use any of it to support the idea that qi is, or even might be, an actual thing that exists. This is the problem with this sort of subject - we don't want to talk disrespectfully about people's belief systems, philosophies or whatever, and so long as these things are kept within the realm of spirituality we don't have to wrap them up with language about pseudoscience. But qi is something that people argue actually exists, that can cause or cure ailments, all that sort of stuff - that is intrinsicly pseudoscientific, and we can't shy away from mentioning it. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Can I ask what is actually at issue here? The thread begins with Drewwesley apparently disputing the source for line in the article that says the consensus of scholarship is that the exodus is a myth. The source is John J. Collins's "The Bible After Babel," which is universally recognised as a major work of biblical scholarship in other words, it passes the RS test. On page 46 (the citation we have in the article) Collins has this: "There is then a remarkable consensus ... that the foundation stories of exodus and conquest are best understood as myths." Drewwesley was challenged produce alternative RS in support of his doubts, but did not. Given that, what is this thread about? Achar Sva (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Who gave Mr. Collins the authority to question the Bible? IZAK (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That's "Professor Collins". Who gave the Bible authority of any kind? A minority of non-scholars hailing from a religious minority. GPinkerton (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That really should have just been deleted, User:IZAK is being disruptive, he's been here long enough to know this isn't a forum. Izak, I suggest you strike through that. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Who gave Mr. Collins the authority to question the Bible? Lol, that's humor (it's a joke). Seriously, experienced Wikipedians will see it as comical. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Tgeorgescu, it's actually tragicomedy! IZAK (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Seriously, experienced Wikipedians will see it as comical." IZAK is an experienced Wikipedian. That he/she feels disillusioned with Wikipedia and frustrated with its sources is not exactly something to laugh about. Dimadick (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"This is about religion and not Greek or German mythology and folklore." Jewish mythology with its "sacred texts and in traditional narratives" is still a mythology. And myth is already defined in the relative article as: "A myth expresses and confirms society's religious values and norms, it provides a pattern of behavior to be imitated, testifies to the efficacy of ritual with its practical ends and establishes the sanctity of cult." We can see Jewish values and norms expressed in the myths which they recorded. Dimadick (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick Jewish mythology is part of the Oral Torah while the Hebrew Bible is the Written Torah, a huge difference as any student of Judaism would know. The Oral Torah is not to be conflated with the Written Law.IZAK (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"namely your belief that the Exodus happened and that the Bible is literally true" To give IZAK the benefit of the doubt, he/she never advocated for either Biblical literalism or Biblical inerrancy in this discussion. He/she argues that we are being intolerant in dismissing the opinions of traditional believers. May I ask, IZAK, are you suggesting that Wikipedia:Neutral point of view supports your position? : "Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick I could not put it any better than you have. Wikipedia is a fantastic and accurate encyclopedia as long as it is not dealing with religion. When it comes to religion and and its religious texts it falls into a self-created trap and hence misses the opportunity to present the religion or the text qua the religion and the text. About 20 years ago when Wikipedia began, there was no real prejudice. But by now Wikipedia is listing heavily day by day in only one direction, that of biblical criticism and missing the opportunity to give the original religion or text its own original voice. This is how NPOV is being lost. Some editors have an all or nothing approach. They assert that if bible critic X asserts something then that negates the text in question. And that is how today we are at the point that readers of Wikipedia look up something about the Bible, like the Exodus and the book of Exodus and are told its "myth" and they cannot diffrentiate between nuances between simple and scholarly usages so they just tune out because they know in the real world these texts are important. Let me give you an example from real life. Right now I am on vacation and have the opportunity to watch shows on cable TV. I love channel surfing, and lo and behold what do I find out that there are about 10 channels (out of many of course) these ten channels all spout Christianity in its purest form. There is one famous Roman Catholic channel. The rest are evangelical channels with ministers, male, female, black, white, and even Chinese and Korean teaching the actual literal Bible. And I think to myself, hey, have these guys not read Wikipedia's version of the Bible? And the answer is no they haven't because in the real world people go to church in real life or via TV and they agree with and listen to all these Christian pastors spouting Old Testament and New Testament stories literally from the Bible. Now why does Wikipedia have to act like it's an aberration? It could just as easily give a voice to ALL schools of thought which is what the original NPOV plan was all about. Not just a forum to attack the Exodus or the book of Exodus, but a truly neutral place where the sincere teachings of the religion/s in question (in this case Judaism and Christianity) can be presented directly, clearly, clinically, without ongoing ad nauseam judgement as to yes historicity no historicity which is just not to the point when it comes to religion. By the way, look up the History article itself about how historians themselves use sources such as primary sources. Since religion is metaphysical it cannot be dissected and presented like just another dry academic subject because religion after all is spiritual and a matter of the spirit. Wikipedia has to go many steps beyond just being a place for "CHOPSY" which is now being used by some editors just as Papal infallibility is used by the Catholic church which is not an ideal situation for a truly NPOV encyclopedia. IZAK (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia users potential or actual, not only disbelieve the purported literal truth of the Bible, but disbelieve in gods or a god as well." How would you know? It is not a requirement for Wikipedia users to declare their religious views to their fellows. And since our editors do not get to express their views in article space, it hardly matters. What we need is to summarize the views of reliable sources, not turn Wikipedia into a mouthpiece for irreligion. Wikipedia:Advocacy warns us: "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." Dimadick (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, it's unclear to me if you are agreeing with IZAK's view that we are violating NPOV by describing the Exodus as a myth according to modern scholarship? (I hadn't gotten that impression before, but I'm a bit confused by your remarks above).--Ermenrich (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I feel that the description of the Exodus as a myth accurately represents the current majority view. I simply suspect that IZAK may have a point that the NPOV policy would allow for the coverage of dissenting opinions. Wikipedia:Fringe theories suggests that a minority view should not "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is", but in practice we tend to ignore them completely. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What would you suggest we do?--Ermenrich (talk) 20:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps to mention scholars like Kenneth Kitchen and David Rohl who are vocal in their support of the Exodus' historicity. Dimadick (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ermenrich:@Tgeorgescu:@Achar Sva:@Nishidani:@Doug Weller: N.B.: Kenneth Kitchen and David Rohl, I like that!! Thank you @Dimadick:!! IZAK (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, you have been most unfair in turning The Exodus article into a one way my way or the highway POV article that there is only one way to view the historicity of the actual Exodus. This needs to change to align with true NPOV objectives. IZAK (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS. I'm not sure why you keep holding me personally responsible for the state of the article when every time you post something complaining about it 5-6 editors tell you you're wrong.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, your ongoing adherence to a very narrow notion of "historicity" is outright wrong as far as WP NPOV needs are concerned. Take a look at the History article "Historians place the past in context using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, ecological markers, and material objects including art and artifacts." Then look up Historical source: "Historical source (also known as historical material or historical data) is original source that contain important historical information. These sources are something that inform us about history at the most basic level, and these sources used as clues in order to study history. Historical sources include documents, artifacts, archaeological sites, features. oral transmissions, stone inscriptions, paintings, recorded sounds, images (photographs, motion pictures), and oral history. Even ancient relics and ruins, broadly speaking, are historical sources." And the Bible qualifies quite easily. Of course the relatively modern German school of thought bible critics of Historical criticism fame have invented their own versions of how to study history especially the history of Judaism and Christianity. But WP can and should convey ALL in a NPOV manner. Evidently, based on your type of POV edits you adhere only to the latter school of thought. Or am I missing something? IZAK (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are, given your continued dismissal of modern scholarship as having "invented [its] own version" etc. It's unclear to me what you even want except to remove/obscure modern scholarship (as you tried to do before [1], [2]) because you find it offensive. Do you have some constructive proposal for the article? Otherwise this is very wp:NOTAFORUM territory, we're not here to challenge the validity of modern scholarship.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Dimadick, I'm glad you asked, there was a version of the The Exodus article that was edited and approved by @Ibn Daud: [3] that should be reinserted into The Exodus article Ermenrich has conveniently forgotten about that, that would add some balance to the Exodus article: "Belief and observance of and in the Biblical Exodus are central to Rabbinic Judaism as expressed by the beliefs and practices of modern-day mainstream Orthodox Judaism, Haredi Judaism, Hasidic Judaism, Torah Judaism. Many orthodox Jews view the Exodus as a key historical event in the development of Judaism and in Jewish history. In recent years, several orthodox scholars have attempted to prove the Exodus using a historical framework while juxtaposing traditional Jewish thought such as Dr. Joshua Berman, who writes about the "Evidence for the Exodus." and Dennis Prager writes about his "Faith in Exodus." According to most Orthodox Jewish sources, the Exodus happened on the 15th day of Nissan in the Hebrew year 2448 (1313 BCE), and lasted 210 years, with the Hebrew being enslaved for 116 years." Thanks for caring, IZAK (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Not WP:RS, not wp:DUE. And don't pretend Ibn Daub inserted it, you did [4], [5]. Do you have actual scholarly sources that report on Exodus beliefs? As has been noted many times, we don't need a separate section saying religious believers/fundamentalists believe that their holy texts are true.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich I know I originally found those WP:RS and as I stated, later, it "was edited and approved by @Ibn Daud:". Again, you are trying to create only "one version" of the (German higher criticism) historicity of the Exodus when in fact there are various schools of thought as even Dimadick has clearly pointed out to you. I was pointing to the beliefs of Orthodox Judaism (the originators of the Torah) which believes in the literal text of the Torah in any case. That much is pretty obvious. IZAK (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"But WP can and should convey ALL in a NPOV manner." May I remind you that NPOV requires us to actually summarize available sources regarding the relevant field or fields of study? What historical sources do you think that we are ignoring? We write about the Historicity of the Bible, but we are not the ones making the decisions about it. Dimadick (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed! IZAK (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, dear IZAK, you missed, not something, but everything argued and documented repeatedly above. By your criterion, since the Kojiki is also an historical document, we should treat the imperial descent from the sun goddess Amaterasu as historical, as we should the Tibetan text stating the people came from copulation between a demoness and a monkey, himself the incarnation of a patron Buddha spyan ras gzigs, as having a core of historical truth. Parallels are endless. Or that Huitzilopochtli, the last spawn of his mother Coatlicue after she got impregnated by feathers on Serpent Hill, really did like Athena spring fully armed from his divine mum's womb to protect her, as their ancient chronicles, which also contain elements of history, relate. C'mon, drop it.Nishidani (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Oh my gosh Nishidani, I can't believe you are comparing apples and oranges and making a classical category mistake! IZAK (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

No category mistake, at all. Exodus is a religious origin story, as are the other two. The point you miss is that one can know an immense amount about a topic, i.e. a religion, and still remain utterly at sea about it if your belief system excludes historicity. One can have the Talmud off by heart, cemented in a mental cistern like the extraordinary Eliezer ben Hurcanus or the Kojiki as reeled off by Hieda no Are to transcribers, but unless you bring to it modern understandings of its temporal stratifications as they are embedded, each, in historical contexts known from external, pagan an d Christian sources as well, one will miss an enormous amount of what is being meant. The second point is that you affirm the historicity of the Exodus -about which there is still some learned controversy, and you do so from belief, the same belief requires one to affirm the historicity of Genesis, about which there is zero controversy, since it is a fable. Both, in a fundamentalist take, are historical. It's just that we have no archaeological prospects for Eden or the Land of Nod.Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you denying that Shintoism believes that their emperor is descended from Amaterasu?--Ermenrich (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ermenrich, I know NOTHING about Shintoism, but I know a lot about Judaism. The Exodus is about human beings in human history in ancient Egypt. I am not arguing about origin of life POVs. In any case see the History of religion article "The history of religion refers to the written record of human religious feelings, thoughts, and ideas. This period of religious history begins with the invention of writing about 5,220 years ago (3200 BC)....Writing played a major role in standardizing religious texts regardless of time or location, and making easier the memorization of prayers and divine rules. A small part of the Bible involves the collation of oral texts handed down over the centuries." And the Hebrew Bible certainly qualifies as such a document, otherwise we would not even be having this discussion in the first place. IZAK (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Folks, I must go for now. Shabbat Shalom. IZAK (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

IZAK, the fact remains the no one has agreed with you, not even really Dimadick if I understand him correctly. This discussion is going nowhere. I suggest it simply be closed. We have enough fun arguing with all the socks and IPs about the exodus without also arguing repeatedly with the same editor who has nothing new to add.—Ermenrich (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, the history of the subject is something like this: in the West everybody believes in God, they are either Christian, Jew or Muslim. Then comes Enlightenment which says that religion is subjective belief. From it higher criticism arises. Most prominent figure: Wellhausen. Then Albright appears on the scene. The Albright school pushes archaeology as a means to prove the historicity of the Bible against the claims of the Wellhausen school. But things do not go well for the Albright school, as Ze'ev Herzog wrote in 1999 for Haaretz, a scientific revolution took place in archaeology ([6]). Christian fundamentalists and Jewish fundamentalists have bet on archaeology and they have lost that bet. They could be compared to a priest who lost all the money of the church at a casino. They are left with huge cognitive dissonance and all they can do is furiously preach the lie that archaeology cannot contradict the Bible (see e.g. [7] for such POV). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Albright school pushes archaeology as a means to prove the historicity of the Bible" While the Albright school's methods and conclusions were heavily biased, they were not based on Biblical literalism. William F. Albright views on the ecolution of Israelite religion were "fully in accordance with the documentary hypothesis and the mainstream opinions of the preceding two centuries of biblical criticism." Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding whether we're following the policy on fringe sources that a minority view should not "appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is" that was brought about by Dimadick, The Exodus currently says:A third position, that the biblical narrative is essentially correct ("Biblical maximalism"), is today held by "few, if any [...] in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes.". I think that this is enough of a mention for this position (which, by mentioning fundamentalism, conveniently includes all the Orthodox Jewish sources IZAK would like us to add), as we can only think of two mainstream scholars who hold it, Kitchen and Hoffmeier. If we say more about it, we make it look like more than a fringe movement. This article doesn't go into detail on the question at all, it just summarizes the key positions, readers can go to The Exodus for more detail.

By the way, since IZAK keeps accusing me of somehow being a partisan against the Exodus or something, look at the article before I became involved in it [8]: no mention of any possible historicity at all. Before I began editing the section, I (and other editors) engaged in a long-term battle with User:Fajkfnjsak and his various socks. He wanted every sentence to include the word "myth" (I don't think in its scholarly sense), tried to remove any mention of the scholarly consensus that some event inspired the exodus story, tried to add an wp:UNDUE section calling the Exodus a myth to the article on Passover, and accused me of being a religious fanatic. The truth is I am neither a "secular-POV-pusher", an atheist, or even an agnostic, as you seem to think, nor a religious fanatic, as Fajkfnjsak thought, but someone who wants us to give an undistorted view of what current scholarship has to say on the topic. The current WP:RS/AC is that the Exodus did not happen as in the bible, but was likely inspired by (somewhat similar) historical events. That's what the article says and that's what it should say.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Transfiguration and a veil

The plot summary suggests that near the end Moses took on a new form and had to wear a veil thereafter. There does not seem to be anything about this in Moses. Is this right? If so, could it be clarified with a citation and expansion of what is going on there. GPinkerton (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Or you could read the Bible.Achar Sva (talk) 07:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

That wouldn't help other Wikipedia users and doesn't help grow the encyclopaedia. GPinkerton (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

It would help you.Achar Sva (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I doubt. GPinkerton (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles on biblical subjects aren't something you can just jump into, they need a thorough familiarity with the subject and the scholarship. Begin by reading the Book of Exodus from end to end, then come to the article and look up the various sources listed, and then see if you still need to ask this question. Achar Sva (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Articles on biblical subjects aren't something you can just jump into, they need a thorough familiarity with the subject and the scholarship. What's the point of having a Wikipedia article if it requires the reader to know everything beforehand? GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Some things require explanation, others simply require opening the book. Here's the relevant passage, Exodus 34:29-35: "29When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the covenant law in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the Lord. 30When Aaron and all the Israelites saw Moses, his face was radiant, and they were afraid to come near him. 31But Moses called to them; so Aaron and all the leaders of the community came back to him, and he spoke to them. 32Afterward all the Israelites came near him, and he gave them all the commands the Lord had given him on Mount Sinai. 33When Moses finished speaking to them, he put a veil over his face. 34But whenever he entered the Lord’s presence to speak with him, he removed the veil until he came out. And when he came out and told the Israelites what he had been commanded, 35they saw that his face was radiant. Then Moses would put the veil back over his face until he went in to speak with the Lord." Achar Sva (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

And are you going to tell me this passage has never attracted comment in any field of discourse worth recording? GPinkerton (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's attracted a great deal of commentary, which is why I suggested you begin by reading the Book of Exodus and then reading the various books we use in our article. Achar Sva (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Coerced consent vs agreement: Not just semantics

The sentence in question is this, "Moses leads the Israelites out of bondage, prompting a final pursuit through the Red Sea by the forces of Pharaoh when Pharaoh reneges on his coerced consent. "

It makes no sense to refer to Pharaoh's consent as coerced any more than it would make sense to accuse a prosecutor of coercing a thief to confess. Pharaoh was a slaver; while he definitely believed those people were his property, that was not, in fact, the case. I hope you will not mind if I add some context to illustrate this point and that you will consider my case carefully despite my previous edit-warring. (Note: I can see that my previous edit-warring on this page probably has not helped my case; I'm sorry about that. I did not realize this avenue for discussion was available until I received a warning).

Context: God sent an emissary to reason with Pharaoh which Pharaoh refused (predictably). In fact, the record shows that Pharaoh chose to punish the people severely in retaliation for Moses demanding they be set free (Exodus 5:7,15). Still, God tells them to give Pharaoh another chance by reasoning with him again, this time with a miracle (the snake staff) as a warning (Exodus 7:10). Pharaoh refuses again.

Their next encounter is by the Nile where Pharaoh again refuses Moses' demand and in response Moses turns the water to blood (Exodus 7:15). But first, he explains to Pharaoh what the plague will be and how to end it (i.e. releasing the slaves). After 7 days Moses tried again to reason with Pharaoh, warning of a second plague (the frogs) (Exodus 8:1-2). Pharaoh refuses at first, but then, after the severity of the plague, relents. He agrees to let the slaves go free if God will stop the plague. God stopped the plague. And then, "But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the Lord had said." (Exodus 8:8,15)

He reneged on his agreement. This song and dance happened for each subsequent plague; Pharaoh would agree to let the slaves go free and God would cease the plague after which Pharaoh would renege on his agreement. Or, you could say he reneged on his consent. Or you could say he reneged on his capitulation. But it is not contextually accurate to say that he was coerced, as this implies that he was treated unjustly by God, which is ridiculous considering that Pharaoh was the slaver and God the one attempting to free them.

In summary, saying that he was coerced implies that he, the slaver, was the victim. John Daring (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in the least strange about a prosecutor coercing a thief to confess. The rest of this makes no sense to me either. Zero^talk 07:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with zero. The current wording makes perfect sense, but this argument does not.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Owning slaves has nothing to do with it. Both Egyptians and Israelites owned slaves and "God" only freed Israelites. There's nothing in the Bible that suggests slavery is wrong or that Moses/"God" was motivated by abolitionism. "Moses" later "wrote" a complex series of rules about how Israelites' slaves are to be treated. Coercion has nothing to do with justice or injustice. The king's consent was coerced by Moses and the superstitious assumption (explicit in the narrative) that the plagues were related to Moses's and the Pharaoh's actions. GPinkerton (talk) 12:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

How was killing all those innocent children not coercion? Doug Weller talk 16:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

God is all-powerful, so if God really just wanted the Israelites to go free, then God could have simply altered the mind-set of pharaoh the way God subsequently altered the mind-set of Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus. There was something else going on here, which the scriptures have not been candid about. That happens a lot in the Bible.

However based purely on what is currently written (by the non-objective Israelite priests while in captivity in Babylon hundreds of years later) pharaoh was being coerced, by cruel collective punishment against innocent civilians of a type that is banned today by international law.

This issue of "pharaoh the slaver" is also hypocritical. During the journey through the desert, the Israelites frequently slaughtered entire towns, and sometimes they also (with God's apparent permission) took women and children as part of their plunder. What do you suppose happened to those people? See e.g. Numbers 31: 17-18: "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." What do you think they did with those little girls?

Wdford (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What happens in the story is that Moses asks pharaoh to "let my people go", pharaoh agrees, then God "hardens pharaoh's heart" and he goes back on his word, and then God brings a plague. The artistic aim is to show God's strength. Achar Sva (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That is what I remembered too. However would God not have shown his strength more effectively if God had "softened pharaoh's heart"? That way they could have avoided all the slaughter of innocents. Assuming the plagues really happened to begin with, which seemingly is not actually the case? Wdford (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course the plagues are fictitious. If the first plague had really "turnèd the waters into blood" and everyone "loathèd to drink of the river" then there would hardly have been anyone left to suffer the remaining nine. The peculiar methods employed by deity(-ies) in the Hebrew Bible are not expected to be reasonable or humane; that comes under the "mysterious ways" clause. GPinkerton (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

We shouldn't be saying that the book "describes" as that is explicitly saying that it happened. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. How about "It relates the myth of the Israelites' deliverance from slavery ..."? Wdford (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Something like that perhaps, but perhaps more refined. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Should add that we lack, as far as I can see, an adequate disambiguation for 'Israel' here which the average reader here will associate with the modern country, and not as a people covenanted with YHWH centuries before the rise of the northern and southern kingdoms.Nishidani (talk) 19:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the Babylonian dating leaves the general reader no clue about the dating implied by the text, and, in my view, the first para should include something like 'a series of (putative) events that would have occurred sometime around the 13th century' BCE.' (the scholarly consensus, even if that is later than the traditional religious backdating). Only something like this puts the Babylonian date into perspective, i.e., the story was composed several centuries after the ostensible period setting. ? Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC) Nishidani (talk) 07:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

"a people covenanted with YHWH centuries before the rise of the northern and southern kingdoms." The main article for the people is Israelites. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Doug Weller What's wrong with using "describes"? It just means "writes down". It doesn't have any implication of truthfulness. Pride and Prejudice describes a courtship in 19th-century Britain; Mr Darcy doesn't have to have existed for the novel to be descriptive. The practice of "description" is synonymous with "writing". GPinkerton (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • GPinkerton that's not necessarily the case. Oxford defines it as "give a detailed account in words" with the example "he described his experiences in a letter to his parents" and says nothing about writing. Cambridge does use the word wrote, but says "to say or write what someone or something is like" which implies a real thing. The lead also says it "does not accurately describe historical events" so it would be a bit confusing to use it earlier in a very different sense. So "It describes the Israelites' deliverance from slavery" is presenting the story as something that actually happened. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't follow at all. If someone "describes in a letter", that is the exact same as saying "writes in a letter". A letter is an inherently written thing. Neither of the definitions give so much as hint the description needs to reflect reality, I don't know where you're getting that from. "Detailed" is not the same as "real". On the contrary, Geoffrey of Monmouth gives a detailed account of the reign of King Arthur, and in detail describes the Battle of Badon Hill. Neither is likely to have happened in reality, but the History of the Kings of Britain still describes the fictitious history. The Book of Exodus is fantastically detailed to the point of tedium, but it is still a description of the exploits of Moses and his adventures in the desert. GPinkerton (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the verb "describes" in the context of the lead to this article points more in the direction of "history that really happened," then the direction that the story is a religious story, and as such, is much more likely just that: i.e., a story. You could, rarely, say that a story describes something, but more commonly you would say that a story "tells" or "relates" something. Wdford's suggestion above sounded OK to me, but Doug said he hoped we could come up with something "more refined." We should probably at this point start considering different practical suggestions for the agreed upon sentence/s. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Too short

This article is way too short. This article has sections that uses only one source or doesn’t have many. Also for some reason The Exodus is a separate article. It would be a better idea to merge the two articles.CycoMa (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The Exodus discusses events from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, so no it doesn't really make sense to discuss it here.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Pitre

Pitre is WP:FRINGE, see Talk:Brothers of Jesus#Pitre. Jedi mind tricks only work upon simpletons. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

In response: Brant Pitre most definitely does not represent a "fringe opinion;" on the contrary, he represents a significant number of Catholic theologians currently teaching and writing. He earned a Ph.D from Notre Dame, has been published by reputable companies, and is a leading voice in Catholic biblical theology.

Simply applying a false label does not constitute grounds for removing any reference to Pitre's work, particularly when it pertains directly to a disputed edit. Wikipedia policy clearly states that "all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately." I provided a reliable source, and could provide many more--not just from Dr. Pitre--to support the claim made in my edit. This is not a dispute over the historicity of Exodus; it is a dispute over the views of scholars on this topic. To continue to remove reference to the view that Bergsma and Pitre articulate is, in my view, wholly unfaithful to the explicit policies of this site as well as its stated goal.

Secondly, the description of "mainstream biblical scholarship" you provided is flatly wrong in its characterization of how Scripture scholars view the Bible. It sounds more like a manifesto than an objective description. While many scholars certainly do subscribe to the views it enumerates, many others do not.--AchatesFortis (talk) 05:43, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

This is a fringe book by a catholic fundamentalist, we have multiple statements that his position is fringe. Almost no mainstream scholar argues that the exodus is “essentially historical “.—Ermenrich (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A scholar is mainly concerned with facts. Pitre is not a scholar, but an ideologue. His reasoning is something like "It is theologically true, so it must also be historically true." He thinks that if the Doctors of the Church agree it's true, that makes it scholarly true.

And, hey, it's a free country. If that's all he wants to be or all that he can be, he is allowed to be an ideologue. But the idea that he writes WP:SCHOLARSHIP is disinformation.

But it is good that you have deleted some of your own arguments. I heard those many times, and they never worked inside Wikipedia. There is no particular reason to admit those would have worked this time.

Why? Because Wikipedia is a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia, heavily based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, i.e. that sort of scholarship from the Ivy League, described at WP:CHOPSY. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your opposition to my revision is based on either innocent ignorance or an undetected bias. Let's avoid ad hominems about authors and look at the facts. The fact that concerns me is that the scholarly consensus is not that Exodus be construed as a myth. Ermenrich, as a Ph.D. in medieval literature, you've been adjacent to theology for long enough to know this. It is simply false to assert that scholars have reached a consensus on this sort of interpretation.

My wording of "essentially historical" could certainly be improved, I fully own; but even it is a far sight better than what preceded it. Ermenrich, you have carefully curated the general "Exodus" page and you actually cite several sources that bear out my contention about the lack of scholarly consensus on the historicity of the Exodus. If there is division in mainstream scholarship on the historicity of the Exodus itself, it would be nonsensical to suggest at the same time that the book is construed as myth by virtually all scholars.

We all agree that the article should not endorse any particular religious viewpoint on the Bible; we are concerned with stating facts, not endorsing beliefs. But if this is so, then we ought to carefully consider what we state about scholarly consensus.AchatesFortis (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I tried to adjust my wording to be more accurate; I think it could still be improved, as the scholarly positions are legion and do not fall as simply into the black/white dichotomy of "fact" or "fiction." But to say that scholars just say "fiction" is much worse. Here is an example of a middle position from a Jewish scholar: "Like most peoples, the Israelites developed a story of their origins that is based partly on fact, partly on a particularistic reading of much larger events, and partly on folklore" (Schendlin, Raymond P. A Short History of the Jewish People. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.) This text was used in undergraduate courses at Northwestern University circa 2010. This directly contradicts the prior claim of the article that Exodus is construed as myth by virtually all scholars. If this source is not considered reputable or mainstream, then I am a monkey's uncle--and Wikipedia's claim to objectivity is pure fantasy.AchatesFortis (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Saying that "Wikipedia is biased" or that "Wikipedia fails to follow its own neutral point of view rules" is not a set of magic words that will cause Wikipedia to accept your favorite conspiracy theory, urban myth, pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe theory.

While the Exodus story might be based upon some nuggets of historical facts, it is far from having historicity. If you want mythologized history is its most accurate description: i.e. it has originated as a sort of Ancient historiography, but it has been embellished beyond any resemblance to historical fact.

E.g. if you want to posit that the Exodus is based upon the escape of 60 slaves from Egypt, I have nothing against that. But not 600 000 adult men (warriors).

Why? Because in the Antiquity it was impossible to move an army larger than 100 000 soldiers.

At the height of its power, the Roman Empire had in total something between 300 000 and 450 000 soldiers.

An army of 60 000 soldiers could be moved only by a mighty empire (they had to eat and drink while the enemy tried to prevent that). tgeorgescu (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You seem oddly convinced that I am trying to make the article endorse a historical reading of the book. But what I am actually suggesting is that to characterize its interpretation as mythical is a vast and misleading oversimplification. I'm basing this assertion on actual scholarship, of which I have produced two different sources from authors of diverse perspectives.

I'm not concerned with debating the historicity of the Exodus; I am quite concerned with Wikipedia being accurate and objective. AchatesFortis (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's what The Exodus says on historicity in the relevant section:

There are two main positions on the historicity of the Exodus in modern scholarship. The majority position is that the biblical Exodus narrative has some historical basis, although there is little of historical worth in the biblical narrative. The other position, often associated with the school of Biblical minimalism, is that the biblical exodus traditions are the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis. The biblical Exodus narrative is best understood as a founding myth of the Jewish people, providing an ideological foundation for their culture and institutions, not an accurate depiction of the history of the Israelites. The view that the biblical narrative is essentially correct unless it can explicitly be proven wrong (Biblical maximalism) is today held by "few, if any [...] in mainstream scholarship, only on the more fundamentalist fringes."

This is more or less what we say in this article as well, in the appropriate section if not the lead. So your original wording arguing that the account is seen by some as historically accurate is certainly fringe. At most we can say that a majority of scholars believe that the "myth" has some basis in history.

Note that myth does not mean "untrue story", but has a specific meaning in religious studies. I've advocated for using legend in the past to avoid this ambiguity, but that got shot down pretty hard at talk:The Exodus/Archive 20#Rearrange the lead for consistent flow - simple fix should satisfy all parties, I don't think that it's going to fly here either.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Yup, others suggest that it is based on factual history is incorrect;

others suggest that it is very remotely based on factual history is correct. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Pitre is no scholar, this sentence is confused: "The other position, often associated with the school of Biblical minimalism,[5][6] is that the biblical exodus traditions are the invention of the exilic and post-exilic Jewish community, with little to no historical basis." (1) Biblical minimalism is the idea that the Bible is a late text motivated by theological concerns, and therefore should take second place to archaeology and archaeologically-based philology (i.e., texts of the period discovered in situ). This has no relevance to the historicity of the Exodus, except in so far as the Torah, our only source for it, is a late text (c.450 BC by the majority opinion, c.200 BC by the minority). (2) The Exodus TRADITIONS are much older than the Torah, as they can be traced back to the pre-exilic period - i.e., they're not an invention of the exilic and post-exilic communities. What these communities invented was the exodus NARRATIVE, the one in the Torah. (3). The historical basis of the narrative is the traditions; the historical basis of the narrative is irrecoverable, and the idea that it draws on the Hyksos experience is attractive, but speculative. Achar Sva (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you’re getting at. We have sources connecting the exodus debate specifically to minimalism and maximalism, as well as for the Hyksos theory (among others). This isn’t the hard sciences, humanists are allowed and even encouraged to speculate based on the evidence. The question is whether the speculation is mainstream and common or not in the RS, which in this case it is.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The point is that the article is confusing traditions and narratives. The exodus story in the torah is a narrative, the traditions behind it are something else (they're found in the prophets and some old poetic passages). Achar Sva (talk) 23:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Historicity

Please explain why the historicity discussion has been deleted? What am I missing? Wdford (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I restored it, as it was the only section of the article I found worth reading. User:Achar Sva deleted it, claiming "Historicity belongs in the article on the exodus narrative (the book is about far more than history". Without this section, readers might believe that there was a historical Moses or that Biblical Egypt has a factual basis. Dimadick (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I deleted it because what's being discussed is the historicity of the exodus (an event), not the historicity of the Book of Exodus. Exodus isn't a history book, it's theology, and about half of it is a law code (which no one ever reads). It should be pretty obvious that it isn't history, since its full of miracles and information about god, and it one point it even describes a meal in heaven, which frankly strikes me as pretty improbable. What's needed is a discussion of genre, not historicity. Achar Sva (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that the average reader of WP is not aware of the fact that "Exodus isn't a history book, it's theology." For the average reader, even as late as this new century, the Bible is not only the word of God. It is history as it really happened. So any reminder of all these basic rational, logical truths is helpful. I'd recommend that it stays... Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it should stay.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The historicity discussion is definitely needed, but we can also have a genre discussion as well. The two will probably overlap a bit, but not to the point of being a problem. Wdford (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship

@IP from UK: the Mosaic authorship is dead in the water as far as the mainstream academia is concerned. It is extremely doubtful if people from 1450 BCE could be called Israelites. It is doubtful that Israelites from 1250 CE had their own alphabet, or that they were actually speaking something which is more or less ancient Hebrew. And monotheism such as in the Deuteronomy did not exist in David's and Solomon's time, let alone 1250 BCE. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus view

About Instead, they point out how modern archaeology suggests continuity between Canaanite and Israelite settlements, indicating a primarily Canaanite origin for Israel, with no suggestion that a group of foreigners from Egypt comprised early Israel. It is rendered as Finkelstein and Silberman's view, while in fact it could be said that it is the consensus view of mainstream archaeologists. Even William G. Dever agrees, while Dever's POV is to combat whatever Finkelstein posits. According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, a Yeshiva boy who became a Bible professor at Harvard University, "Most Israelites were actually of Canaanite stock; their ancestors did not participate in an Exodus from Egypt; Israelites did not build the pyramids!!!" http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf https://courses.biblicalarchaeology.org/hebrewbible/notes/09-Notes.pdf tgeorgescu (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

"Israelites did not build the pyramids" As far as I know, nobody has suggested that there were Israelites around in the 3rd millennium BCE. The best known pyramids in Egypt date to that period. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)