Talk:Moses

I was wondering, would it be possible to add that the film 'The Prince of Egypt' depicts Moses and the Egyptian Pharaoh as Rameses? It's just so as to make clear that the film is merely an adaptation with artistic license. Also, a musical theatre adaptation of 'The Prince of Egypt' was released in London in 2020, on the West End. Could someone add in that subject, to contribute to the depictions of Moses in popular culture? Thanks! Two Red Engines

While the Wikipedia page gives the Egyptian version of Yehuda's etymology as "mw-zꜣ", this is actually a neat piece of original scholarship. Yehuda and Ulmer (the source) actually propose "mw-š". This section should be revised beyond this issue, but nevertheless it is inappropriate to allow such a misattribution to stand.

after @Mikewem successfully derailed the discussion to be about the definition of Mosaic Law, waht about the claim that Moses is a historical figure? We still agree that this is not the case right? Can this edit be undone without any stupid dispute? VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I would support keeping this passage out of the article. The complexities of the debate over Moses' historicity are better expressed by the reference to Dever (in the sentence immediately before the one in dispute) and to Nigosian (in the sentence immediately after it). A. Parrot (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

A. Parrot, can you suggest how the text should appear? Since the discussion has gotten so unwieldy, it might be helpful to have a concrete proposal.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the current version, where the sentence about Schmid and Schröter is left out, is good enough. A. Parrot (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

That seems fine to me - VenusFeuerFalle reverted this change, so I suggest someone reinstate the removal of the sentence in question without adding the CN tag.—-Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Dever and Nigosian are both from 1993, borderline non-current sources. Konrad Schmid (theologian) does have a WP page. The book does appear to be a legitimate academic work. The Historicity section is a little jagged in general, possibly overly-long, and the Nigosian sentence needs a little copy-editing to be intelligible.

Since we open with presenting the dimensions of the debate (maximalists, minimalists, and centrists), it seems reasonable to give at least one example of each one. Schroter and Schmid would be a maximalist example. I think “In all likelihood” may be something of a term of art. The literal meaning is a 100% chance, but the artful meaning may most often be understood to mean somewhere in the neighborhood of a 95-99% chance. My suggestion would be to use the same term of art that the source uses (or just make it a direct quote): Some scholars, such as Konrad Schmid and Jens Schröter, say that in all likelihood, Moses was a historical figure. Mikewem (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

My actual preference would be to reduce this section by a few paragraphs and present only the current academic consensus. Which by my understanding is that he is a legendary/mythical figure and that archeological and academic techniques have not been able to either conclusively prove or conclusively disprove a historical basis for him. But small changes are usually better than big changes. Mikewem (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I would agree with your preference. The piecemeal nature of most Wikipedia editing means that articles often consist of quotations from reliable sources that have been placed together haphazardly, with little regard for the overall cohesion of the paragraph, let alone the section. The first two sentences of the section are clear and to the point (Dever may be somewhat dated, but I don't think the consensus has changed), but the rest of the first two paragraphs quickly becomes disjointed, which is why I didn't want yet another quotation inserted there. But I don't really have the time or inclination to work on a rewrite myself. A. Parrot (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll make a rough diff for consideration and post it in a new thread (probably not today) Mikewem (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of starting a series for Moses, kind of how we have ones for Jesus or Muhammad. It could include articles related to Moses or his life, such as the Exodus and Plagues of Egypt, his family members, such as Jochebed, religious topics related, such as the Mosaic Covenant. It could also contain parts of his life, linking it to different parts of the article. What do you all think? Is this a good idea? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:49, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. See Category:Moses for relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval! I've created the comprehensive series. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Since I added the series, I noticed that underneath it there are two pictures with text being right beneath them, which looks a little weird. Is there any way to fix this? I don't think anything from there should be removed though. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

under Historicity there is mention of a pharaoh and it cites the name Amenmose but links to the article Amenmesse. seems like this should be fixed. ~2026-12658-91 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. My best guess is that this was always meant to be about the vizier named Amenmose, not about the pharaoh Amenmesse, so I updated to reflect that. Though I would support just deleting the whole discussion of this one conjecture from our article. Mikewem (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)