Talk:Moses/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RfC about the lede

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to avoid the word "myth" when discussing the historical accuracy of the narrative of Moses in the Hebrew Bible, over concerns that it may be imprecise or misleading to the non-specialist reader. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Should the lede represent the fact that more scholars use the word myth about Moses than legend by including both? Bilto74811 (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Leave out "Myth" (Invited by the bot) "Myth" has two meanings. One meaning could have led some scholars to use the term. But the more common meaning is "a widely held but false belief or idea." . There is not such a need to use a particular word that we need to make the incendiary move of telling people of various religions that one of their central beliefs is false. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

The second, more common definition you cite is an important part of why most scholars choose to use it for Moses. Even in scholarly circles the Bible and Moses being historical used to be a widely held belief, but this is not the case anymore. The sources are clear in no longer considering Moses a historical figure for various reasons, see the artile. But regardless, thanks for the comment and vote Bilto74811 (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Leave out "Myth" I am seeing 2 sections above this RFC that talk about this exact same issue twice and it looks like the term "myth" creates more problems than it solves. "Myth" is a more ambiguous and incendiary term for the reasons others have pointed out in those two sections above. Moses is not at the level of Zeus or Hydra or centaurs. He is just a man with no supernatural powers. Also, keep in mind that the lead is just an introduction to the article so it should be as neutral wording as possible per NPOV policy and not put off readers as a biased article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to find the truth. The sections are where the details can go and be read with balancing views via representation for different views of him. I would say "legend" is a decent midpoint term for something that is likely not historical but could have some historical basis - and is used mostly on humans only. But there are other terms than just "myth" or "legend" too: such as "folklore", "story", "sacred narrative" and many others including "historical" so one should not have a dichotomous or narrow view of the matter (i.e. myth or legend only) especially since Moses is a major religious figure. At least a billion people globally (if you count Christians alone) have some views on him as not myth or legend. Isn't that the audience for wikipeida? Want to have no readers? Most people do not read offensive articles with such sloppy terminology.216.2.69.77 (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the commment and vote. Your first paragraph makes sense, and I get what youre saying about Zeus, etc. However, Moses did have supernatural powers and used them on multiple occassions. Your second pargraph is not how wikipedia works, we have to record scholars views, including when they determine that a religious figure and/or story are just legends, myths, or whatever terminology, and that they lack historicity, regardless of whether a believer in a given religion dislikes it because it goes against their personal faith. And to be clear many Christians, and members of other relgiions, view these characters and stories in their particular religions' book as myths without historicity (as is often the case according to scholars) and it does not affect their faith in their religion or their personal god(s). As you said for Moses - "likely not historical but could have some historical basis" is how we need to represent it as that is what scholars think of Moses and other mythical figures. Bilto74811 (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you concede that Moses, if not at the level of Zeus, or Hydras, and centaurs, is at least at the level of Hercules or Achilles or Odysseus? (in fact, I would argue that Achilles and Odysseus have a more solid historical claim than Moses: the Trojan War IS widely held to have been an historical event, while there is zero evidence of the Israelites being enslaved en masse in Egypt). Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The question of Moses's historicity is not actually connected to whether or not there was an Exodus. It's the question of whether or not a religion would invent its central prophet, whose historical origin most would locate not in Egypt, but the Transjordan.--Ermenrich (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

BLUDGEON by Bilto74811 hidden for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Of course it is, since the central events of Moses's life are not historical, that decreases the likelihood of his own historicity And by your logic would a religion invent its central story and purpose of "being chosen", saved by God and thus bound to him, getting the holy scripture from God, getting their holy land? Because literally, yes. Probably didnt make the story up on purpose directly if thats what youre imagining. More like the documentary hypothesis - multiple authors passing stories verbally and sometimes via written word, editing and rediting over centruies. Some parts for propaganda purposes, some for making their god seem more important and powerful than the other gods of ancient Judaism, etc. Also as a Manifest Destiny excuse, same as US, and other cultures have used to justify their actions. We already know that the central stories involviing Moses's life are mostly if not entirely invented non-historical myths. so yes, they would invent, even if not intenitonally. Plus much of Moses's "life" copies many other older mythical figures, and you would think there would be some evidence for the central figure of an entire religion and yet, literally nothing. Not in archaeology, not in ancient texts. The non-slave Canaanites feeling mistreated by the Egyptians, while in Canaan (in the Transjordan), is not quite the same as the Exodus story. Same thing for the central figures of Greek religion (Greek "mythology"), but no one is rushing to change those wiki pages to "legend" see my comment below, or the "myth" wikipedia page for why Western scholars decided to label other relgiions "myth" but not their own, which is now changing, to the chagrin of Christians. I think we can agree that there is a possibility of a "Achilles-like figure" right? Same with Odysseus? Even more so given Firejuggler86's point that if some central part of their life like the Trojan War is historical, that lends some extra credence to their historicity (at least relative to an individual whose central life events are clealry not historical). But no individual in history can literally be disproven. So of course there could be "some basis" for the Moses, Achilles, Hercules, Exodus myths. But when scholars call them all myths, some wikipedia editorys only approves of Greek religion being "myths", while their own are "legends". But once scholars shift to calling them all myths, some wikipedia editors think it doesn't apply to their own religion just others, see the Greek "myth" figures wiki pages. But are you or others here going to go to Achilles wikipedia page and argue that we should remove the word myth from the lede and replace legendary? I don't see anyone doing that. But for some reason that happens on Abrahamic faith pages a lot. Would Greek religion make up all its central figures? Becuase we call them myths on all their wikipedia pages Bilto74811 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Firejuggler86:Exactly, Moses is in the same boat if not with less historicity, but Greek religious figures were relabelled as myths (same happened to all non-Western religions) while Western religions were "theology", "legends", "folklore", etc , in an effort to "downgrade" non-Christian religions, see the "myth" wiki page last pargaph of the lede where it says exactly that. But now that all religions being placed at equal level by scholars where all their stories and figures are being called myths when they lack historicity, predictably Christians cry foul. Dont see anyone going to Achilles , ercules, Odyseus or Greek "mythology" wiki pages and renaming any of those as "legends".

Look at Ancient_Greek_religion vs Abrahamic_religions. First line says myths vs nowhere on the entire page. Same for indiviudual figures like Moses and Achilles. Bilto74811 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Specify that Moses is a Myth", specifically part of Jewish mythology. We should not pretend that he is more historical than Achilled, Odysseus, or other hero figures. 11:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Dimadick (talk)

• Leave out myth. I would choose legend as less difficult to misunderstand, and I would do the same for e.g. Achilles (although it's less customary to differentiate between myth and legend for the Greeks), but that's really neither here nor there. Arguments about Achilles are wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The problem with this topic is that it seems to invite comments by editors determined to push a minimalist viewpoint on the historicity of certain parts of the bible, although that is not in fact the scholarly consensus. Witness the constant battles at Christ myth theory. So you can doubt that there's any historical basis for the Exodus or Moses - but that's not what the majority of scholars say. The fact that whatever historical basis they may have had is quite different from what the Bible tells us is the consensus of the majority of scholars, not that they didn't exist. We summarize reliable sources here, we don't use our own logic to decide things. So: "there's 'no evidence' and therefore only stupid people would believe there is any historical basis" is not a valid argument: the evidence is the traditions of the Jewish people, which are unlikely to have been invented whole-cloth. This is exactly why a majority of scholars believe there is some historical basis. Ramos1990 has provided amble evidence of scholarly support for there having been a historical Moses.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

BLUDGEON by Bilto74811 hidden for convenience
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Youre arguing against a straw Ermenrich. "there's 'no evidence' and therefore only stupid people would believe there is any historical basis". no one said this, dont put words in peoples mouths, its rude. I explicitly said "So of course there could be "some basis" for the Moses, Achilles, Hercules, Exodus myths. But when scholars call them all myths, some wikipedia editorys only approves of Greek religion being "myths", while their own are "legends"" Plus the whole suggestion ahs always explicitly included what you want in the same exact sentence "Scholarly consensus is that Moses is a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". it's less customary to differentiate between myth and legend for the Greeks incorrect. It was customary. you need to understand why that was the case, see myth lede section last paragraph. You bring up Christ myth theory but as I explained to Ramos and as you know, academic consensus is that Jesus is not a myth, and acadmeci connsensus is that Moses is a myth. So its a false comparison. Its not otherstuffexists, its about parity, see the myth page for explanation of why parity is important. Copying the old way of scholars doing things (which was done discriminatorily-see myth page) would be discriminatory. Alternatively we could change Achilles, Odysseus, and other religious hero figures to "legend", since Ermenrich, Ramos, and some other editors are allergic to Western religions being given parity with "myth" when they lack historicity by scholars. Including the majority of scholars, who use myth for Moses, see above sections for many sources, and that the academic consenssu is literally that Moses is a mythic figure, something that some want to hide. Contrary to acadmeic consensus Jesus, despite some poeples false comparison. Obviously Non-Western religions need to be treated equally with Wikiepdias voice, contrary to certain editors' preference. But it is all or nothing. See Hinduism vs Christianity vs Ancient Greek religion vs Judaism. It is no surprise that Greek religion and Hinduism have mythology and the second I try to add parity to the Christianity page yesterday by adding mythology, it gets reverted. Western relgiions should not get special treatment vs other religions. Thats discrinatory. Parity is not otherstuff exists unlikely to have been invented whole-cloth Yes not "whole cloth", thats just vague enough to work. Its just the the content that is invented, but maybe there was "some" "Moses-like" figure. thats why we say "Scholarly consensus is that Moses is a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". Saying readers are to stupid to read the rest of the sentence is a bad argument, and one that Ramos and now you insist on. Ramos has not provided any evidence for a historical Moses, just "the possibility of a Moses like figure" and "Moses had a big impact on religion", this is not evidence for a historical Moses. some historical basis yes, "some". non-slaves in Canaan in a different time period is "some". the entirety of the Exodus myth is not included there, but "some". Most of Moses's life has been shown to be ahistorical, but sure "some" is unfalsifiable. And we make that clear. Im sure Moses and Achilles have "some" basis too. You can't literally disprove that a "Achilles-like figure" possibly existed. And we make that clear on the Moses page. But that does not preclude the fact that he himself is just a myth. Parity is whats important. Not treating non-Western religions as "less than". See the comparison of Hinduism vs Christianity above and how we word their pages, with only the former being allowed to have "mythology". Samme for many other religiosn, see my last two comments see at Ancient_Greek_religion vs Abrahamic_religions. First line says myths vs nowhere on the entire page Theres no valid argument for for Moses being legend and Achilles being myth when the formers pretty much entire life is ahistorical and the latters is historical. Thats just more special treatment for Western relgiions Here is the quote from myth, for certain editors who won't go read the last pargraph of the lede. "scholars now routinely speak of Jewish mythology, Christian mythology, Islamic mythology, Hindu mythology, and so forth. Traditionally, Western scholarship, with its Judeo-Christian heritage, has viewed narratives in the Abrahamic religions as being the province of theology rather than mythology. Meanwhile, identifying religious stories of colonised cultures, such as stories in Hinduism, as myths enabled Western scholars to imply that they were of lower truth-value than the stories of Christianity. Labelling all religious narratives as myths can be thought of as treating different traditions with parity" Certain editors fight to hide even the inclusion of "myth" or even the compromise of "mythical or legendary", despite the fact that consensus is Moses is mythical and most scholars use myth instead of legend. "But readers will be confused and unable to read the rest of the sentence" where it explicitly states a there is a "possibility" of a "Moses-like figure" is obviously not a valid argument, and just hides that theyre doing the same thing scholars used to do by labeling other relgiious figures with more hsitoricity (Achilles) as myths, but Western religious figures are "legends" contrary to the terminology scholars use. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, parity is fair, putting the Western religions above the non-Western is biased and we should not use Wikipedias voice to do so. Bilto74811 (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand the poor argument that Moses shouldn't be mentioned as a myth like Zeus, Poseidon, etc. Scholarly consensus (even already in the article) agrees that there is no evidence of his existence and that he is a mythic figure. There is absolutely nothing about WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE here; if sources and text in the body say that it is a myth, the lede, which summarizes the body, should include it. Wikipedia is not censored and is not about ones feelings, it is about summarized text from reliable secondary sources. Wretchskull (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The lead should absolutely reflect what's in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• Leave out myth. That would be contrary to WP:WEIGHT and it would be a false WP:LEAD summation of the article content which is showing a diversity or historians dispute not a solid consensus that this RFC stated as the premise/justification. The phrasing “most scholars say” is literally called out in WP:WEASEL, so such a claim is going to need serious support and more specifics, i.e. a formal declaration from a Talmud scholars body perhaps. (Which I very much doubt is what they say.) Plus the wording is problematic: First, as mentioned by North8000 outside of the context of scholarly section it would be read as “commonly held but false” which seems not the intent of scholars. Second, as 216 said immediately after, it creates more problems than it serves and I agree it is the more inflammatory choice, and a bit of restraint seems a better choice. Finally, reading the article Myth says that term is more for Gods and Monsters, and the term for folklore about humans is “legend”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

you asked about the scholars and a formal declaration, the source explicitly states- "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure". The suggestion of this section was to say "mythical or legendary figure" so that would match any "diversity" of terminology, despite myth being the most used term in our sources. Myth says "gods, demigods, or supernatural humans", Moses had supernatural powers and used them on multiple occasions. Bilto74811 (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

That section presents multiple differing views from scholars, so this one article behind a paywall by one author - this is not a declaration by any scholarly body much less *all* kinds of scholars. The RFC was stated “Should the lede represent the fact that most scholars use the word myth”, which seems a false premise. In any case it remains not a good LEAD summation of the article nor external WEIGHT, and just poor wording choice. Exclude. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

You can find the source online not behind a paywall but it literally states the overwhelming acacademic consensus is that Moses is a mythical figure, so yes it is exactly what you asked for. Of course as with every academic consensus you can find dissent, but it remains the academic consensus, and from a reliable scholarly source. Note that the Nigosian source does not contradict this explicitly stated academic consensus from a reliable source. Plus see all the sources we listed above where myth is the most common terminology, or Ramos1990's latest source, literally called "The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History"

You cut off what the RFC stated, taking it out of context will make it confusing and is just arguing against a straw..."Should the lede represent the fact that more scholars use the word myth about Moses than legend by including both". Youve stated that the article states multiple views, so excluding the most commonly used terminology is by definition not a good LEAD summation nor DUE WEIGHT. Wikipedia ledes represent what is in the article and the sources, even if some editors are allergic to the term myth in Western religions as scholars apply it when these stories and figures lack historicity. Bilto74811 (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Leave out myth: Myth is such an elastic abstract term and is very loaded with many a priori connotations. The use of the term "myth" confuses what the sources say and requires more interpreting and processing than is needed for the lead or general readers (cf. WP:RF). There are differences in opinion among scholars about the status of Moses in the article, with no universal agreement. For example, one source makes a very short and vague mentioning in passing (not a complete sentence) about consensus, using the word "mythical". What does that source mean by "mythical"? Is he talking about existence of Moses or the narrative of Moses or both? Then, the very same author claims in a later source that a "Moses-like figure may have existed". That means that the author who is saying consensus is mythical is not saying Moses is mythical in the sense that he did not exist. It looks like too much coding, decoding, and interpreting is needed to just understand a simple sentence that could be more clear with alternate wording (avoiding loaded terms like this). Compare that with the Nigosian source afterward. It actually explains in quite a lot of detail the status of Moses among scholars with more context and background—without using the term myth. He states that there are actually 3 prevailing views on Moses (not historical, historical, and partially historical), not one and that "these issues are hotly debated unresolved matters among scholars". It is much more clearer, in addition to requiring less decoding and interpreting. When one word would cause so much misinterpretation of sources then it is best to avoid that term or choose better wording that clarifies in the lead. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Nigosian actually says 1 view is that Moses is not historical, another view "strives to anchor the important role Moses played in Israelite religion", and another says there are "elements" of history and legend. And we cannot deny that the majority of scholars use the word myth to describe Moses regardless of your POV that it shouldn't apply. Also that scholars are clear in that he is not a historical figure, but a mythical one, but that he may be based on somethign (ie all myths, ex Achilles). And that at the least most of Moses's life is myth and none of his life has been shown to be historical by any evidence. so completely excluding myth instead of including both is not DUE

We explicitly state "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed" so why exactly do you think that requires "more interpreting and processing" for readers to figure out what the same sentence explcitly states? Ramos kept ignoring this question too and now you and Ermenrich dont want to answer it either. You just make the claim that if the word “myth” is there readers will be confused and think there wasn’t a “possibility” of a “Moses-like figure” without explaining why that would be the case, despite the fact that the same sentence explicitly states that Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moses' or Moses's

My understanding is that it should be "Moses's" because the second "s" is only omitted if the word ends with an "s" because it is plural. Since "Moses" is a name, not a plural, it shouldn't be omitted. The article sometimes uses one form and sometimes the other. I went to change it but I noticed that in one of the sources it's written as "Moses'" so I'm asking here. Akeosnhaoe (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably not much of an issue if either one is used. I found a Jewish source that uses Moses' [1]. If anything, you can take a cue from Jesus and Jesus' since it is the same situation in spelling. Whatever is done on Jesus you probably can do here, otherwise instead of saying "Moses' people said.." you can say the "the people of Moses said..." and avoid the whole situation.Ramos1990 (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Egypt???

Under Historicity: "Moab rebels against oppression, ...and his first-born son is slaughtered at the wall of Kir-hareseth as the firstborn of Israel are condemned to slaughter in the Exodus story," Wasn't it the Egyptian firstborn? Manannan67 (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Manannan67, check 15-22. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

That speaks of EVERY male, not specifically just the firstborn, check 12-12 Manannan67 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Misspelling

"Argues" is misspelled as "aruges" in the section Criticism of Moses, in the third sentence of the paragraph following the quote from Numbers, the sentence beginning "Rabbi Grossman..." 2600:1700:2990:3690:C47B:B12C:23C6:4E05 (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Moses was clearly fictional

Why does the article talk about Moses as if he really existed? Wikipedia is worse than the Discovery channel sometimes. No Pharoah would have adopted a jewish baby they found floating in a river. Besides, there were no jewish slave armies building pyramids. Archaeologists haven't found a single piece of evidence to support such a laughable notion. I see the religious people running this deranged article have closed editing to prevent scientific truths upsetting their fantasy creation. Wikipedia is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.14.3 (talk • contribs)

While the figure of Moses is mythical, it could have been remotely based upon some tribal leader, a legend which was embellished and expanded with all sort of unhistorical elements. But this is unfalsifiable, so we will likely never know if it is true or false. What seems certain is that the historical Moses is beyond recovery. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Historicity

Historicity lies squarely with historians. We should not muddle issues of historicity with what different religions believe. While theology is fine and dandy as theology, it does not amount to history in any meaningful sense. Mainstream history is neither Anti-Christian, nor Anti-Judaic, nor Anti-Muslim, but it is simply emancipated from the role of ancilla theologiae. History and archaeology are academic fields pursued for their own sake, not just some annexes to theology.

As critical scholars we are methodologically bound to expositing the biblical text within a naturalistic framework. We are historians, philologists and literary critics—scholars in the 'Humanities'—and as such our interest is primarily in the 'humanity' of the text, and the 'human world' behind it.

— Kipp Davis

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

"what different religions believe." What does it matter what lies and half-truths religions believe? We are supposed to be a secular encyclopedia. Dimadick (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

One of these things is not like the other prophets

Not a theologian, is there a reason Moses was a prophet but Abraham and Muhammad are only seen that way?

Moses "was the most important prophet in Judaism"

Abraham "in Islam he is seen as a link in the chain of prophets"

Muhammad "According to Islamic doctrine, he was a prophet"

For example: 'Jesus was the son of god' vs 'Jesus was seen as the son of god'. Quite happy to be told I am going crazy. Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Why does the word "mythology" not occur in the first paragraph of this article?

If you look up Achilles on Wikipeda the article begins:

"In Greek mythology, Achilles (/əˈkɪliːz/ ə-KIL-eez; Latin: [äˈkʰɪlːʲeːs̠]) or Achilleus (Ancient Greek: Ἀχιλλεύς, romanized: Akhilleús, [a.kʰil.lěu̯s]) was a hero of the Trojan War, the greatest of all the Greek warriors, and is the central character of Homer's Iliad. He was the son of the Nereid Thetis and Peleus, king of Phthia."

And given that introductio what follows makes sense, as we have been properly introduced. Now, look at the beginning to this article:

"Moses[note 1] (/ˈmoʊzɪz, -zɪs/),[2] also known as Moshe Rabbenu (Hebrew: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ‎ lit. "Moshe our Teacher"),[3] is considered the most important prophet in Judaism,[4][5] and an important prophet in Christianity, Islam, the Baháʼí Faith, and a number of other Abrahamic religions. In the biblical and quranic[6] narrative, he was the leader of the Israelites and lawgiver to whom the authorship, or "acquisition from heaven", of the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) is attributed."

Why the difference? It's compounded as we've been introduced to Moses as a historical, actual person and then we are told

"God sent Moses back to Egypt to demand the release of the Israelites from slavery. Moses said that he could not speak eloquently,[9] so God allowed Aaron, his elder brother,[10] to become his spokesperson. After the Ten Plagues, Moses led the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt and across the Red Sea, after which they based themselves at biblical Mount Sinai, where Moses received the Ten Commandments. After 40 years of wandering in the desert, Moses died within sight of the Promised Land on Mount Nebo."

So, one can only conclude that the Hebrew God is real, from reading this article. Where as if this was properly explained it should say something like "In Hebrew mythology a story is told where their God .... "

Is there more actual proof for the existence of Moses (with all the weird supernatural aspects to his story) than for the existence of Achilles. After all: we've found the site of Troy! (This is about the level of "proof" for Moses existence)

This is a ridiculous article and needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4C00:E78:9197:220D:C8E9:3640 (talk) 18:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a simple 'balance of reliable references' question, which I am not fit to answer, so I will try. Britannica's[2] first paragraph is bible literalism. Maybe Britannica users are meant to read the whole article, dam elitists. Wikipedia's[3] in the 'Historicity' section says on this question "Scholars hold different opinions on the status of Moses in scholarship." it has references I have not read.

I note that in Achilles life story it seems to flick between "the Iliad says that" (Trojan War section) and the more certain "this happened" (Birth section) I suspect for readability the audience is expected to infer some things. In Moses we currently have 'considered' controlling the first paragraph and 'According to' controlling the second. Are we in danger of being misunderstood? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Historicity (Deborah and Miriam)

the article is forgetting the Song of Deborah and the Song of Miriam (Exodus 15:20-21), which several scholars date to the 12th century, both of which mention the crossing of the Red Sea. Tuxzos22 (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

the article is forgetting the Song of Deborah and the Song of Miriam (Exodus 15:20-21), which several scholars date to the 12th century, both of which mention the crossing of the Red Sea.* Tuxzos22 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposed dating vary by many centuries. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

In the Bible, does Moses died at 120 years old?

Does Records of the bible refers that he died at 120 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.29.78.97 (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The article says Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE; Jerome suggested 1592 BCE, and James Ussher suggested 1571 BCE as his birth year. so I guess it's up to what you consider "Records of the bible". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Deuteronomy 34:7: “Moses was 120 years old when he died, yet his eyes were not dimmed nor his strength diminished.”Achar Sva (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

Change "Suwar" to "Surah" in The Quran Section 39.41.171.69 (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. I have restored wording in the article on Surah to explain that "Suwar" is the plural. No need to change the wording in the Moses article. BobKilcoyne (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Can we change the front page picture used for Moses?

I don't think we should use a painting of Moses depicted as a white man as his main picture on the front page. Since it is Eurocentric and historically inaccurate considering Moses was an African Hebrew. Thoughts? Xhenry1925 (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

By “African” do you mean “black”? If he existed, Moses would have looked middle eastern or North African, many of whom look very “white”. If he didn’t exist, there’s no reason to not depict him as the people who believe he is their prophet think he looked.—Ermenrich (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

you're right well said. 2601:40D:8300:767:7936:B6D0:AA00:4B2A (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

One option, it's a very well-known depiction of the article subject. No tablets though.

Earlier discussion: Talk:Moses/Archive_6#Not_a_fan_of_this_image_of_Moshe. Find an image on Commons you like better and suggest it, editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2022

All BCE should be BC. 2601:201:200:3AE:2975:6888:189C:BF34 (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:ERA. What would be a WP-good reason to change? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning 2 quotations

I'm copying a discussion from my talk page here. It has to do with my revert here.

Hello. You reverted the edit I made to the Moses article. However, I still think it should say according Robert D. Miller II, not according to John van Seters. The citation in its current form uses two quotes from the book, which are real quotes from the book. However, only one of them refers to van Seters, yet the sentence is obviously really based only on the another quote, which does not refer to van Seters. It is Miller's own text that is not stating van Seters' conclusions, instead it does use the following citation: Jan Davis and Isabel Wollaston, “Memorials,” in The Sociology of Sacred Texts, ed. J. Davis and I. Wollaston (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993), 25.. Also, the book's editor uses the same quote and credits it to Miller in the introduction section (pp. 5-6). Finncle (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Finncle Having trouble sleeping so saw this. Are you saying the first quote is not van Seters? Because I see it attributed to him in other sources. But I won’t be able to deal with this until tomorrow UK time. Doug Weller talk 22:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first quote (The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend.) is his, but the other one has basically nothing to do with him. Finncle (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] And this is important because the sentence in the Wikipedia article is clearly based on the other quote (I don't know why the van Seters quote is even used in the citation) and therefore its content should be attributed to Robert D. Miller II. Finncle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had a chance to look at this yet. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the last bit. Yes, it's by Miller, but he is referring to the paragraph about that barely paraphrased statement and thus we can't use it without some precis of that paragraph. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

> Only God is worthy of worship in Judaism.

Perhaps a citation to the primary text via this url:

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0506.htm#5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SofaMato (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The scripture reads 'God nearly killed Moses' SON, who was saved by Zipporah'. Wikipedia Locked Article reads: "During the journey, God tried to kill Moses,[44] but Zipporah saved his life." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:4A00:65F0:7CA8:6861:764D:DFA5 (talk) 02:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"And it came to pass on the way at the lodging-place, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him." What translation are you quoting? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2022

Under “Abrahamic Religions” and the section under “Islam”, there’s a line towards the end of the first paragraph stating “…the different chapters (suwar) of the Quran…” “suwar” translates to pig in many south Asian languages, which is considered unclean in Judaism and Islam. There are many instances of indian Islamophobes using pig references to insult Islam and this appears to be another case. Allowing it to stand serves to undermine Wikipedia’s objectivity.

“Suwar” needs to be edited to “surah”, which is indeed the title of the page it links to. 136.32.176.95 (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Not done. Surah says the plural of surahs is suwar and this is chapters plural. --Mvqr (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Moses

Artistic vision/What the buyer wanted

If Moses was born in this area in the 17th century how can he be white ? 77.98.244.49 (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Because the guy who casted the film chose Charlton Heston to play the role? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Whitewashing of historical figures and facts

All of the historic figures throughout history that were from the Middle East or Africa would of been black peoples! So why are they all white on anything you want to learn about the history from these areas (Africa/Middle east) I think it’s only right to rectify this problem for future generations 77.98.244.49 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Artistic license. Also, this article is not about a historic figure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The 1104 BC Exodus: for Egyptologists and archaeologists

A fabulous paper by William Austin: "The 1104 BC Exodus: for Egyptologists and archaeologists"

https://www.academia.edu/74428606/The_1104_BC_Exodus_for_Egyptologists_and_archaeologists

"Quoting Artapanus, Eusebius calls the pharaoh who died while Moses was in Midian Chenephres" (Ramses 9 - Nefer ka Ra) 2601:58B:E7F:8410:1567:57D:D006:81CD (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an unpublished paper by a hobbyist.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

And about as reliable as ramblings from bar patrons. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Contemporaries of Moses in the bible were Amminidab and Naason. Those 2 are identified as Amenhotep, high priest of Amon and his brother Nesamun. So the quote of Eusebius confirms the timeline is correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_(High_Priest_of_Amun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58B:E7F:8410:8929:E4B7:307D:B301 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the wrong venue for pursuing such debate. See WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Moses

Hi, I don't see how moses being legendary prevents him from believing in a religion. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 14:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

איתן קרסנטי, being a probably fictional(ized) character certainly means applying a real-world label like "Yahwism" to Moses is meaningless.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Even if he is fictional, it doesn't mean he can't worship a real-world god, just as he can have a real-life color shirt and just as he can speak a real-world language איתן קרסנטי (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@איתן קרסנטי where is the source for him having a polytheistic religion? Doug Weller talk 20:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug Weller do we need a source? He was obviously not an Atheist, and according the Bible he believed in YHWH, and since Judaism hasn't formed yet as a religion, it leaves Yahwism (and Islam, since Muslims believe he was Muslim) as possible religions. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely need a source to claim that he believed in more than one god. I'm bothered by the idea you think that Islam existed at the time of Moses. Doug Weller talk 09:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am very curious how Judaism isn't an option because it hadn't been formed yet, but Islam is an option even though it wouldn't be formed for around 2000 years. Just in general it feels like there's no need to include the religion of a figure like Moses in the infobox. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Basket.

Hi.

Is it possible to mention that Baby Moses was hidden in a basket? The page just says he was hidden. Joewiki1997 (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Check the Moses#Biblical_narrative section, it has a little more. There's even a an article about the Ark of bulrushes, not to mention Finding of Moses. IMO the WP:LEAD is fine with just "hidden". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Spouse: Zipporah/Cushite woman in the infobox

What does the forward slash (/) mean? It implies that Moses's had either married a "Cushite woman" or Zipporah. Can anyone please fix this issue by removing that forward slash and explaining it better? If the forward slash means "or" then put "or". If the forward slash means that she is also known as then put that as well. The current version is ambiguous. 197.60.32.102 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It is deliberately ambiguous, and this can be understood by reading Zipporah#Numbers 12. She may or may not have been a Cushite woman. It's a topic of theological debate. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Or one can read it as if they were two different people. Or that someone miswrote somewhere. I reinserted the Cushite woman link in the infobox. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I know the story but ambiguity is not the solution but I can't think of a solution. What if you put it this way “Zipporah (He may have married another woman called Cushite woman as mentioned in Numbers 12)” or something similar.

I also got a problem not related to this topic since it says you are an admin. I think wikipedia duplicated two articles one is called Magarites and the other is Maghāriya.

Remove the Maghāriya article or move it's content to Magarites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magh%C4%81riya

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magarites 197.60.32.102 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit: "Zipporah (He may have married another woman called Cushite woman as mentioned in Numbers 12) or it could be a reference to Zipporah". 197.60.32.102 (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

To complicated for infobox IMO. This info is found in the linked articles. Tharbis is of course not in the Bible (not named, anyway, one can think of her as the Cushite woman if one wants to), so she can be ignored in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Then again, putting something like that in an edit note could work. However, the provided ref gives the same service. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Modern Consensus

I have removed the claim of "modern consensus" cited to one slightly unknown dictionary. The mere fact that one author claims to know the modern consensus is not sufficient for such a claim in this synthesis of sources. Please do not revert without discussing this issue here. Wjhonson (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion as yet on whether "claim" or "modern consensus" or some other term should be used. Just want to clarify that I reverted User:Orange Suede Sofa because the reason they gave for restoring the word "claim" didn't make sense and seemed to have confused the edit for some other edit ("explaining prior reversion: you can't just vaguely allude to other WP articles as a source; statements should be cited to sources in the article text itself for anyone to verify"). There was no alluding to other WP articles and a source is cited, although the reliability of said source has been questioned. Bennv123 (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the ping. My reaction was to the edit summary which stated Per multiple sources across Wikipedia and WP:Claim, and while I can generally respect the argument to WP:CLAIM, justifying an edit with a generic allusion to sources without specifically citing them is not something we do here. If the sources exist, then cite them. Finally, since guidelines are coming into play, the fact that a discussion was opened here and reversions happened without respect to the discussion is contrary to WP:BRD. Having said all of that, I also do not have a strong opinion about the topic, so I'm happy to explain myself and now exit through the side door. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it is not the best source for such a claim, I will soon provide another WP:RS/AC source.

Done. I have provided another five WP:RS/AC-compliant WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Time for a cite-bundle, perhaps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not sufficient. No one is arguing that the Israelites did not arise from the Canaanites. This however is not what the claim is about. It is stating exactly that the "Israelites" were already there in Palestine. Isreal is a nation and the claim is anachronistic, throwing backward in time this claim for Israel specifically when no such evidence exists, and really cannot exist as Israel is a concept of the Jews in Palestine. Not the Canaanites. Even the cited sources do not use this phrase, but rather a phrase devoid of religious meaning.Wjhonson (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, see. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Osarseph in the WP:LEAD?

Per article content, should he be there? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps not, though it is fascinating. It is not really due a paragraph. Maybe a single line statement would be warranted noting that various figures have been associated with Moses, including X, Y and Z. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Like King Mesha, Osarseph and Heston. I like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2023

JJyakht1 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Moses was born 1393 BC and died 1273 BC (aged 120)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Given that only a single person in all of history (Jeanne Calment) has been verified to have lived for more than 120 years, I'm sceptical that someone would have lived this long before the advent of modern medicine. Tollens (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The years are made up. There are different (fundamentalist) biblical chronologies, and they come up will all sorts of years. There is not even agreement among biblical literalists. And there were archaeologists who stated some years about Moses, but most mainstream archaeologists, even if not all of them deny the real existence of Moses, have lost hope of finding historical information about Moses. He is simply lost to history, and absent from archaeological evidence. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

"The years are made up." So is Moses. With fictional characters, you can invent all kinds of detail. Dimadick (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Most scholars who hold that a historical Moses existed date him to the 13th-12th centuries BC, based on the archaeological evidence for Ramesses and Pithom; see Hoffmeier and Rendsburg (2022). Potatín5 (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Extremely dated sources

I just removed a source dating to 1973, and seriously citing William F. Albright as a representative of the scholarly consensus. Per the main article on that discredited crackpot:

• "In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. In a 1993 article for The Biblical Archaeologist, William G. Dever stated that:

  [Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology.'

  "
• "Biblical scholar Thomas L. Thompson wrote that by 2002 the methods of "biblical archaeology" had also become outmoded:

  [Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which wilfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the "balance of probability" ...

  Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

References

Actually, the source dates to 2002, and it cites Albright (1973) alongside other scholars as examples of what it describes as many [scholars] who view the source material concerning Moses with incipient optimism. The source doesn't say that Albright is representative of any consensus, and we need to notice that said source also cites other more recent scholars like Hoffmeier (1999) to back its claim. Potatín5 (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Potatín5. It is a 2002 source, not one from 50 years ago. It cites various scholars for the divisions in schoalrship as of 2002. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Konrad Schmid & Jens Schröter

User @Scorpions1325 has reverted this edit of mine where I quoted the opinion of two major Bible scholars (Konrad Schmid and Jens Schröter) on the historicity of Moses, from a book published by Harvard University Press. As an explanation from his reversal he has stated that I need to Get consensus on the talk page before turning the article on its head. Personally, I don't think that citing the opinion of the authors of a WP:RS on the topic has anything to do with "turning the article on its head", especially when the very first sentence of the Historicity section states that Scholars hold different opinions on the historicity of Moses. Why do you think that the opinions of those two scholars cannot be cited in the article? Potatín5 (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like very many scholars agree that Moses as described in the Bible was a historical person. I personally believe in a Moses-like figure, but saying that the Moses of the Bible was a historical figure out of context seems like we are heading into WP:FRINGE territory. You should prove these opinions aren't WP:FRINGE by adding more sources that agree with the scholars you cited. Scorpions1325 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

In this previous edit user Ramos1990 provided another source which states that there are still many who view the source material concerning Moses with incipient optimism (Campbell; Albright 1973, 48-76; Beegle; Hoffmeier), and our current article also mentions that, according to Solomon Nigosian, there are scholars who believe that Moses existed and that he played a decisive role in the history of Israelite religion. Do you think that these sources are enough? Potatín5 (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Potatín5, just noting that other sources in the historicity section such as the Oxford Companion and Oxford online ones say similar things. I think your source is a good one as part of the range of views found in scholarship. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

It cannot be proven that Moses did not exist, but in the case he existed he wasn't the bigger than life character of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Druze and Baha'i faithes

The text is written as if the Druze and Baha'i faithes are part of Abrahamic religions. But is it correct? Aminabzz (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Our article on Abrahamic religions discusses this; if you have a concern, I would suggest starting there. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)