Talk:Moses/Archive 6

Epf2018 has been adding several historical Egyptian figures to the see also section, on the grounds that these figures have been suggested as the figure who inspired the biblical Moses. I removed them, but Epf2018 restored them with the edit summary "Scholarly consensus hasn't dismissed any of the numerous possible historical Moses candidates; a list of them is noteworthy for inclusion". My knowledge of the vast literature on biblical history is limited, but my understanding is that Epf2018's claim is incorrect. One of the sources I do have is Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? by Lester Grabbe (2017 revised edition), a very extensive survey of the scholarly literature. On page 94, it says:

Occasionally, a scholar has seen a remarkable resemblance between Moses and an Egyptian official, but these arguments have not met with widespread acceptance. At most, one could say that a memory of the Egyptian figure was used to create the figure of Moses in the biblical text. G. I. Davies (2004) surveys almost all of the evidence available, but little of it is very compelling; indeed, he finds the attempts to equate the exodus with certain figures known from Egyptian sources 'not very convincing'.

The Davies study doesn't seem to be available online, and as I said there's a vast literature here, but I very much doubt that the balance of the sources treats any of these identifications as credible. Many of the regulars on this talk page know that literature better than I do, so I invite their opinions.

Moreover, I think Wikipedia has a significant problem with original-research-by-see-also, in which links are added to the see also section and attract less scrutiny than they might if they were incorporated into the article text. My position is that if these Egyptian figures are significant enough for inclusion in the article, they should be included there with an explanation of their significance that is backed up with sources. If they don't belong in the body, they don't belong in the see also either. A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

But "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Also, "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." That said, I agree with you on most of the added links, since none of them mentioned Moses at all, so I removed them again. IMO the "indirect relation" should be obvious from reading the linked article, and Osarseph seemed good enough (I'm not saying it's a well-written article).

I note also that we link Thutmose in the article, which is a list of different Thutmoses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggested inspirations for the Moses legend should be covered in the text, not in a see also section. Along with whatever scholarly argument there is concerning their influence on the legend. Thutmose is not a mere list. It is an explanation of the name's etymology: "Anglicization of the Egyptian name dhwty-ms, usually translated as "Born of the god Thoth"." Dimadick (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

:One source mentioning that some Moses historical candidates "isn't convincing" does not merit removing possible figures which may be related to the narrative about Moses (it is not a "legend", but a narrative based on collective memory and oral traditions about an actual exodus, expulsion or migration from Egypt). The source mentioned above by Davies is not representative of all, or most, of the scholars in this field, or the most recent research. Moses is not purely "legendary", and there is no way to prove such. King David was thought by many such minimalists for a long time to be purely legendary, but now is widely accepted to be a historical figure (along with most Biblical kings, prophets and judges of the period). These views about figures being purely legendary have been constantly flipped on their heads as soon as new evidence emerges. It's ridiculous to make a conclusion that something is purely legendary when you do not even have all the possible evidence. The problem is that most of this area of Egypt has NOT been properly excavated archaologically, despite what some scholars like Dever say, due to restrictions from the Egyptian authorities. The Hyksos capital at Avaris for example likely has some of the most important evidence about this period and Canaanites in the Egyptian Delta, but it has never been properly excavated and the Egyptian government is preventing it from happening. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem hasn't even been excavated archaeologically due to the political situation. Numerous Egyptian figures have parallels to Moses, including several during the Canaanite Hyksos expulsions which likely included the proto-Israelites (a subgroup of Canaanites). Many of these have not been explored by Davies, but are being done so by other researchers. There is limited information to go from, but many scholars accept there may have been a figure named Moses who led a group of proto-Israelite Canaanites from Egypt into southern Canaan either during the Canaanite Hyksos expulsions, or at a period after this. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and there is no consensus that Moses was a purely legendary figure. That wasn't even the opinion of Dever, but in any case scholars have moved on since then and many are now in agreement that a Moses-figure likely lead a band into Canaan who were partial ancestors of the Israelites, who are known to have existed as a political entity at least since the 13th century BC due to the mention of Israel on the Merneptah Stele. Epf2018 (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Besides the fact that absence of evidence is at times indeed evidence of absence (ask any experienced archaeological excavator or do a few thought experiements), I agree with User:Dimadick on this, any suggested inspirations belong in the text, not in the See also section. Doug Weller talk 14:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

::*Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence if you talk to any sane, honest person without an ideological axe to grind. You can claim you do not yet have evidence of something, but if all the enormous sources of evidence are not explored to any significant degree, than you cannot claim anything conclusively. Ask any honest researcher on this subject area, who knows how most areas, sites and remains have not been explored, and they will tell you the same. Epf2018 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Epf2018:Y you're wrong. You even admit it when you say "if all the enormous sources of evidence are not explored to any significant degree"... Like virtually everything in archaeology, context matters. And you are cheating, you've gone from evidence to "claim anything conclusively." Of course evidence of absence can at times allow archaeologists (or geologists for that matter) to make conclusive determinations. There are plenty of excavated sites where there is conclusive evidence of what was not on those sites. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

::::Many archaeologists make lazy claims simply because they didn't find evidence, or without exploring all the potential evidence. It doesn't mean those claims are conclusive. When a huge number of areas and sites which likely have information pertinent to what is being investigated are not being researched or excavated, then only a fool, or an ideologue, would claim to make a conclusive statement that their lack of evidence is definitive evidence of absence. Epf2018 (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that Epf2018 is continuing to re-add these links, but it looks like everybody else agrees these candidates should be covered in the text or not at all. Incidentally, Osarseph is actually already covered in the article body, as it should be, so that one can be removed from the see also.

Responding to Epf's latest post, while most scholars acknowledge that the Moses legend may have been inspired by a historical figure, that does not mean they think it possible to identify that figure in any Egyptian records or that they think he actually was an Egyptian prince. The number of reputable scholars who argue for any particular one of the figures on Epf's list must be vanishingly small. That said, Epf2018, provide sources that suggest these figures as candidates, and we can weigh whether the sourcing is significant enough to incorporate them into the article text. A. Parrot (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that Osarseph was in the article, I missed that detail. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• Absolutely "these candidates should be covered in the text or not at all". It may be worth adding a sentence or two, stressing the dubious view of scholars. See also should not be used as a back-door. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

:*Every scholar in this area agrees Moses is an Egyptian name, and that the historical Moses figure may be an Egyptian in some sense. The fact that so many Egyptian royals are named Moses at the time of the Semitic Canaanite Hyksos presence in Lower Egypt and the Nile Delta has certainly made it possible according to scholars that it could have even been an Egyptian prince. The researchers agree these figures are one of many Egyptian candidates, and are all considered possibilities. The research into the area is increasing, but the extent of excavations in the region is hampered by political restrictions, conflicts and cultural sensitivities more than anything. Much of the Sinai and Lower Delta is not properly excavated, including the Hyksos capital Avaris. There's so much unknown about ancient Egypt in general in the Hyksos period and prior to the late Bronze Age collapse. The Sinai being a hotbed of Islamist insurgency does not help either. In any case, I felt the 'see also' section was place to add articles about other figures in Egypt of the time named "Moses". I didn't think it needed attribution to merely link to another Wikipedia article? In any case, Parrot makes an important point about sourcing. Epf2018 (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

"The Hyksos capital at Avaris for example likely has some of the most important evidence about this period and Canaanites in the Egyptian Delta, but it has never been properly excavated and the Egyptian government is preventing it from happening." This contradicts our article on the city, which mentions several excavations:

• "In 1885, the Swiss Édouard Naville started the first excavations in the area around Tell-el-Daba. Between 1941 and 1942, Labib Habachi, an Egyptian Egyptologist first forwarded the idea that the site could be identified with Avaris. Between 1966 and 1969 and since 1975, the site has been excavated by the Austrian Archaeological Institute.^[1] Using radar imaging technology, its scientists could identify in 2010 the outline of the city including streets, houses, a port, and a side arm of the River Nile passing through the city.^[2] "
• "The site at Tell el-Dab'a, covering an area of about 2 square kilometers, is in ruins today, but excavations have shown that, at one point, it was a well-developed center of trade with a busy harbour catering to over 300 ships during a trading season.^[3] Artifacts excavated at a temple erected in the Hyksos period have produced goods from all over the Aegean world. The temple even has Minoan-like wall paintings that are similar to those found on Crete at the Palace of Knossos. A large mudbrick tomb has also been excavated to the west of the temple, where grave-goods, such as copper swords, have been found."
• We also have an article on the Minoan frescoes from Tell el-Daba, and the disputes among archaeologists on whether the artwork was commissioned by the Hyksos rulers or by the early monarchs of the 18th dynasty. Dimadick (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

:::Indeed, and Manfred Bietak, who has been excavating Tell el-Dab'a for half a century, was one of the contributors to Israel's Exodus in Transdisciplinary Perspective, a book that Epf2018 has cited at Talk:Exodus. Of course, there is a lot we don't know about this period, but the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus story as we know it does not fit in with this period at all. (To my knowledge only two living, respected scholars in this field, James Hoffmeier and Kenneth Kitchen, argue otherwise. You'll see their names in Wikipedia discussions on this subject a lot, but the consensus is very much against them.) The biblical Exodus is a legend with a possible historical inspiration, and there's nothing to guarantee that the detail that Moses was an Egyptian prince is not part of the legend rather than a memory of that historical inspiration. Kings, princes, and princesses are more common in folklore than in real life.

:::The name of Moses is Egyptian, as are those of some of his Levite relatives in the story, and it's often assumed that the Semitic peoples in Canaan didn't adopt Egyptian names. Therefore, the names are often regarded as evidence that the inspiration for the Exodus was a small group of Semitic-speaking peoples (the ancestors of the Levites?) who had been living in the Nile Delta and adopted Egyptian names before ending up in Canaan. But Nadav Na'aman, another of the contributors to Israel's Exodus, has challenged even that; see , pp. 58–59, which points to names of Egyptian origin in the Samaria Ostraca. Na'aman argues that the Exodus story could have emerged natively in Canaan after the withdrawal of Egyptian rule during the Bronze Age collapse. So scholars don't even agree that the historical Moses, whoever he may have been, was ever in Egypt. And even if one assumes that he was in Egypt, it's another wild leap to suggest that he was identical with any historically attested figure from Egypt. Some scholars have made that leap, but their arguments have met a cold reception from their peers. If we're going to put these Moses-candidates in the article, we should not do so without stating that clearly.

::::Where do I begin. The remains of Avaris at Tell el-Dab'a have been, at best, only partially excavated, but never fully excavated in the sense that many other Egyptian sites have been. Recent work from satellite imagery and remote sensing was actually done for this reason. Manfred Bietak states this, and how the Egyptian government continues to heavily restrict many attempts for proper archaeological excavation of the site.

::::In terms of the "scholarly consensus", it isn't even defined too well in this area lately. The consensus has changed in rapidly in recent years, and especially in that there is a historical base for the Exodus narrative, and that at least some of the Semitic Canaanite tribes who went on to form Israel were exiles or migrants from Egypt, including possibly the Habiru as well as other groups, whose ancestors likely arrived in Egypt during the Hyksos period. Almost every source I've read on the topic does agree there is, or may be, a basis for the Exodus narrative in the Hyksos period. Scholars now agree that the Exodus is a foundation "myth" that is a mixture of historical events, collective memories and mythology in a religious framework (similar to Bede's Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about the migration of Anglo-Saxons to England - a mixture of historical and legendary elements). It's widely agreed according to most recent sources that there is a historical basis to it, not that there "may be". The Canaanite Hyksos were in Lower Egypt for over 400 years. To think none of them, especially those in the ruling classes who almost certainly adopted elements of advanced Egyptian culture, would not either adopt an Egyptian name outright, or have an Egyptian equivalent to a Canaanite name, is highly doubtful. The point is that a Biblical narrative about an Exodus from Egypt, known to be circulating in some form of oral tradition, collective memory or possibly some written parts by at least as early as the 8th century BCE, where the Exodus is mentioned by the prophets Hosea and Amos in their writings, mentions the main figure as named Moses. Thus, no one honestly denies that Moses-named figures of the time in Lower Egypt or the Nile Delta, circa 16th century BC to 13th century BC, are possible candidates to investigate in relation to this Biblical Moses. Epf2018 (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC) ::::"It appears that while many individuals, families and groups were involved in the process of Israel's ethnogenesis throughout the Iron Age, and that many of those who eventually became Israelites were of Canaanite origins, the first group was composed mainly of Shasu pastoralists. Other groups, probably including a small "Exodus" group which left Egypt, joined the process, and all were gradually assimilated into the growing Israel, accepting its history, practices and traditions, and contributing some of their own. Traditions and practices that were useful in the active process of Israel's boundary maintenance with other groups were gradually adopted by "all Israel". It appears that the story of the Exodus from Egypt was one such story. "

::::"most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt." (p.476)

::::If wide scale, proper, massive archaeological excavations are ever actually allowed to be done, without hindrance, at sites like Avaris, the Temple Mount (not excavated really at all, except for a tiny section beneath outer walls), and much of the Nile Delta, Sinai region and southern Israel in general, this level of historicity may increase. In my view, it almost certainly will, as the proto-Israelites are known to be simply a subtribe of Semitic Canaanites, and it is accepted as fact (read works by Finkelstein or Meyers) their expulsions from Egypt left a massive collective historical memory across Canaan. What relation this has to the migrations or Exodus of some tribes from Egypt who went on to form part of the proto-Israelites is an area which has to be explored and investigated so long as so many sites have yet to be properly excavated. Epf2018 (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC) ::::"One gets the impression that Egyptianised Asiatics who settled previously at other areas of Egypt concentrated now in the Eastern Delta and contributed to the build up of a "homeland" for the carriers of the Hyksos rule in Egypt." (i.e. they adopted much of Egyptian culture, and thus would almost certainly have adopted Egyptian names, or at least have Egyptian equivalents for Canaanite names, and thus possibly a name like "Moses". ::::"Without knowing the original position of Avaris, Pi-Ramesses, the identity of those two towns and also their identity with the Biblical town of Raamses/Ramesse was kept in memory till the Manethonian tradition according to Josephus (C. Ap., I.26-31, §§ 237-287)." Tell el-Dab'a-Homepage Epf2018 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The upshot is that to insert these names into the see also section is to imply a connection between them and Moses without explaining to the reader how tenuous that connection really is. A. Parrot (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we should avoid using the phrase "the historical Moses figure" - that begs the question. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Good point. It's just hard to talk about such a hypothetical figure without being even wordier. A. Parrot (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also point out that there is no the Habiru which is " is a term used in 2nd-millennium BCE texts throughout the Fertile Crescent for people variously described as rebels, outlaws, raiders, mercenaries, bowmen, servants, slaves, and laborers." Doug Weller talk 17:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::Not sure who you are replying to here, but yes, Habiru are not thought of being some cultural entity, but merely a description of a certain group of various classes as you describe. It is another area being explored as to having some possible connection in the formation of the proto-Israelites. Epf2018 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In times of droughts and famines Canaanites flew to Egypt. But this has nothing to do with the Exodus, since it happened often, during many centuries. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

:::::::::The scholarly consensus disagrees with you, as most agree the Canaanites in Egypt have a connection to those who became the Israelites - a subgroup of Canaanites. Read the source by Faust (2015) above. Israel is known to exist in the southern Transjordan area starting in the 13th century BC, not long after the massive expulsions of Canaanites from Egypt. The Exodus narrative itself says how the Israelites first fled to Egypt under Jacob due to a famine in Canaan. Obviously there is a connection. And the scholars now agree that some of the proto-Israelites in the 14th-13th centuries BC in southern Transjordan came from Egypt, where there was known to be other Canaanites at the time. Epf2018 (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Epf2018, I know the Wikipedia talk page system of indenting is confusing, but if you would post your latest reply in one place, rather than replying directly beneath each comment, it would make this page easier to read.

Regarding the substance of the issue, the argument that there are a lot of unknowns and more may be discovered in the future is a red herring. It's not Wikipedia's job to predict developments in the future, only to reflect the scholarly literature as it stands at the time of writing. In the scholarly literature, it's common and reasonable to suggest that some historical event or combination of events inspired the Exodus, and it's not much of a leap from there to suggest that it involved some figure who was the inspiration for Moses (whom I'll henceforth dub Hypothetical Historical Inspiration For Moses, HHIFM, because "historical Moses" is too strong and I haven't had much outlet for the silly side of my personality lately). But it's a much greater leap to suggest any particular historically attested figure as HHIFM. Attempts to do so have not been well received in the scholarly community, and the people who make these attempts have a lot of different candidates. As far as I'm aware, no single figure has gained any traction as a possible HHIFM. If you have sources that say otherwise, bring them here and we'll see if there's consensus to incorporate that hypothesis into the text. (The most I'd support is a sentence like "Egyptian figures such as Xmose^[1], Ymose^[2], and Zmose^[3] have been suggested as possible candidates for Moses, but such identifications have gained little scholarly support.^[4]" But even that would require stronger support for each individual hypothesis than seems to be the case based on my understanding of the field.)

Until those sources are supplied, these HHIFM candidates don't belong in the see also section, because putting them there implies, in the eyes of the reader, a relationship that we don't have the sources to explain. A. Parrot (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@Epf2018: Yes, there were Canaanites in Egypt, nobody denied that. There were not two million of them and they were not Yahwists. That would entail that more than 50% of the inhabitants of Egypt were Canaanites. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

::Read the source above from Faust (2015):

"most scholars agree that the narrative has a historical core, and that some of the highland settlers came, one way or another, from Egypt." (p.476)

"...many scholars agree that the Exodus group brought with it YHWH as a new deity(Cross 1988; Knohl 2008; cf., Ro¨mer, Chap.22)" (p.477)

It is specifically elaborated on that some Semitic Canaanites who left Egypt were either part of the ancestors of the Israelites mentioned on the Merneptah Stele, or sometime after this, when they formed in southern Transjordan in the 14th-12th centuries BC, and thus some indeed did become Yahwists, or may have already worshiped Yahweh or a similar deity while they were in Egypt. I never mentioned exaggerated or mistranslated numbers used in the Biblical narrative, but the Hyksos expulsions of Canaanites taken altogether were quite large, numbering anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, may have also influenced the narrative. This isn't disputed by historians. Read the works by Finkelstein or Meyers which have sections on the Hyksos expulsions and the massive lasting impact it had as a historical memory in Canaan, including Israelites. Epf2018 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The quotes you offer above are Captain Obvious sort of stuff, as far Wikipedia is concerned. It is true that some scholars speak of the memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos, but it is far from consensual that that was the Exodus all about. Again, how many Canaanites settled from Egypt into the emerging Judah and Israel? 60 families, 600 families? Nobody could falsify such claims. And there is no evidence of Yahwist Canaanites in 14th-12th century Egypt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

::::It is clearly not very "obvious" to you since you keep making errors and claims at odds with the sources. I never said that scholars are saying the Hyksos is "all that Exodus was about", only that it may be part of the historical elements behind it and had an influence on it. Clearly there were large numbers of Canaanites incorporated into the emerging Israel, but the Hyksos expulsions themselves were of a very large magnitude. Faust, 2015, makes it quite clear that many of the exiles from Egypt who formed part of the original Israelites, numbering in the hundreds or in the thousands, did bring belief in Yahweh to the emerging Israelite ethnic group (read the quote I just posted above from Faust), and would have been Semitic Canaanites or Semites of some other sort like other constituent members of the emerging ethnicity - Shasu pastoralists and Canaanites from other areas. Epf2018 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, the consensus view is that a handful of Canaanite slaves escaped from Egypt now and then, passed through Shasu land, acquired belief in Yahweh, joined the Canaanites from Canaan, told them a story of liberation and taught them worship of Yahweh. The WP:RS/AC was that there was no conquest of the Holy Land, following the Exodus from Egypt, since Israelites were in fact Canaanites who formed some new ethnic identity. Quote from the BBC documentary (prof. Herbert Niehr): "Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it [the sentence "Jews were monotheists" - n.n.] is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true." "BBC Two - Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God Have a Wife?". BBC. 21 December 2011. Retrieved 4 July 2012. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

::::::So based on this last post, I am assuming you did not read the scholarly consensus right now as summarized by Faust. The Canaanite exiles from Egypt brought belief in Yahweh with them, which was incorporated eventually in the rest of the emerging Israelite ethnicity, which was composed of other constituent parts. The history of the interaction of this new ethnicity with other Canaanite tribes is of ongoing debate, but it is widely accepted there was conflicts with them in the emergence of Judah and Israel. This does not mean there was a conquest as described in Joshua, but there was a migration of these highland settlers from the southern Transjordan into the highlands of Canaan. As for the emergence of monotheism among the Jews, what does this have to do with the discussion here? Full monotheism did not develop until post-Exile, yes, but during the First Temple period they were not simply polytheists either, but had a significant and influential element which was henotheistic or monolatry, with likely a small monotheistic strain already present at least by the time of Josiah, preceding the Exile.^[5] Epf2018 (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Faust says that they were several hundreds to several thousands of Canaanites who escaped from Egypt to Canaan. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I've struck through the edits of a very tendentious/verbose sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sprayitchyo/Archive - they've been back recently being a pain in other areas. Doug Weller talk 12:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we include Hieroglyphics alongside the Hebrew/Arabic, etc? 𓅓𓄿𓏲𓋴𓇌𓋴 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.226.49.234 (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know the -moses part of Egyptian names isn't attested as a standalone name. That would make our hierogypthics a conjecture.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Moses means "son of..." (son of somebody who is named afterwards). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I have become increasingly concerned while using wiki for religious material that you state that “more scholarly writers believe that portions of Bible are more legend than fact as stated in article on Moses and others”.

What evidence do you have to allow these to be correct over long established facts?

There is severe penalty for misquote of Bible. See Revelation Chpt 22.

Request answer please. Thank you 2600:6C5E:4B7F:F831:B4BB:EC87:A77C:E3E1 (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

If you follow the inline citation attached to the sentence you can look up the references. This source says: the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article says that the Quran describes meetings in heaven between Moses and Muhammad, but nowhere in the Quran is this mentioned, specifically the part about this resulting in observing 5 daily prayers. This account is from Hadith. You can read it here. The article cites Huston Smith. I don't know if that is the source of this information. I suggest changing the word "Quran" to "Hadith" and adding the above source.

 Done Thank you for pointing this out, Abd.nh. A. Parrot (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

source 13 says the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure. not a legendary figure. I see no reason to change from mythical to legendary. edit request is to change it to say "mythical figure..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

And what difference is it you see in these terms? What do the sources say?—Ermenrich (talk)

i just said the source says "mythical", did you read my comment? apparentyl the source thinks "mythical" is appropriate. also don't follow me wherever I go, its harrassment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor977 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, under "Biblical narrative"->"Prophet and deliverer of Israel"->Paragraph 1, there is a line that reads: "One day after Moses had reached adulthood, he killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew."

There needs to be a comma after "day," so it reads:

"One day, after Moses had reached adulthood, he killed an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew."

Without this comma it reads as though Moses reached adulthood and the following day he killed the Egyptian. I am not a talmudic scholar, but I believe that the timing was less precise than that.

Bennokling (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change Μωυσέως to Μωϋσῆς (this in the sentence: The Egyptian character of his name was recognized as such by ancient Jewish writers like Philo and Josephus.[24] Philo of Alexandria linked Moses's name (Ancient Greek: Μωυσέως, romanized: Mōysēs, lit. 'Mōuseōs') to the Egyptian (Coptic) word for water (μῶυ/möu), in reference to his finding in the Nile and the Biblical folk etymology.[25]) Slippy floor (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Slippy floor: Changed to the nominative case, thanks. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove depiction of Prophet Moses, it is a significant sin to depict a Prophet. Thank you. 2600:1700:FC10:EDD0:8D19:E5A0:D040:DDFC (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Doing so would violate Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. Favonian (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, according to the NOTCENSORED policy, which states: Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia. As such, religious objections to the inclusion of images are not considered valid reasons for removing images. GPinkerton (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that her 1995 novel Pillar of Fire is based on the "Moses was Akhenaten" theory as advanced by Freud and Ahmed Osman? 216.255.171.122 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Despite the article saying that scholars do not consider him a historical person, the infobox treats him as one. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, Biblical figures are treated with more contempt around here than Star Trek characters. Do we need a banner labeling it "In-universe Information"? Elizium23 (talk) 13:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Leonard McCoy's infobox says "Star Trek character". I'd like infoboxes on pages like Moses, Saul etc to clearly state "Biblical figure" or something like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few use {{Infobox character}} in fact, eg Isaac which says "In-universe information". Wouldn't it be easy just to create {{Infobox biblical character}} which would be less controversial? Doug Weller talk 14:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible which says use the appropriate infobox and refers to Help:Infobox. There's nothing to stop that being done and then mentioned at the various relevant projects. Wikipedia:WikiProject Infoboxes is an active project also. Doug Weller talk 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

How do editors feel about this "solution"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Better than before, but I still think an infobox is better. Doug Weller talk 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, please see Talk:Ishmael#Historicity of Ishmael versus Moses and Abraham. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

There seem to be no wiki page for Moses in Christianity, so the page goes to itself? Should a Moses in Christianity page be created and what should be included in it? Doremon764 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doremon764: Thanks for pointing that out; I added the link earlier but it redirects to the same section and I've removed it for now. An article could certainly be created; I suppose it would dwell on those aspects of Moses emphasized/diminished in Christianity relative to the other Abrahamic religions, and perhaps expand on Moses in Christian art in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and thereafter. GPinkerton (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

We could also bring up Jude mentioning of the Testament of Moses when comparing to Jesus. Doremon764 (talk) 22:58, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@Doremon764: Sure. And the Harrowing of Hell. And generally expand the mentions of Moses in the NT and in patristics. GPinkerton (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

It might be artistically significant, but it's almost certainly a horribly inaccurate one and gives viewers the wrong idea as far as what he might have looked like. (As in, probably not so pink) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7138:2B0:B:A2D6:268E:3993 (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Guidance at WP:LEADIMAGE, I assume you mean the current LI. "Horribly inaccurate" is probably right if one assumes some kind of Moses existed in history, but not necessarily relevant. One could argue that it's an improvement on the previous one, Moses is less golden and writes in a different language. What images are "best" in a context like this is very subjective. What alternative do you propose? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if "accuracy" is desired then the Dura image is probably best. I prefer the French-language Moses to the current one. GPinkerton (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly older, but is the clothing much more "right" (huh, I didn't look very closely, and assumed it was latin)? I think the leadimage should be Moses with the tablets, and somewhat prefer Hebrew-language Moses of these two. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, did I say correct? I mean current. GPinkerton (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it might be best to have Charlton Heston with the tablets, probably the best known and most canonical image at this point. GPinkerton (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Mel Brooks, perhaps? Though I'd like to have that movie's portrayal as a leadimage at Tharbis. But Heston was good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

See, those cultural references are all to Cecil B. DeMille, not some baroque painting. GPinkerton (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I was thinking just the other day that we need an article on the Jordaens painting. I actually think that would make a great lead image! It is very distinctly Moses. Plus, he's looking right at you. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The current one is unacceptably lo-res & fuzzy. The French one would be better. Most of the images are pretty poor, as usual. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

For the interested: Moses and his Ethiopian wife Zipporah Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Nice article, & would be a great dyk. Not sure it's right for the lead, but it should go in somewhere. I'm try to upgrade the art section & the pictures gradually. Johnbod (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "suwar" to "surah" in Moses in Islam 122.179.84.172 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Suwar is a plural of Surah in Arabic. ParthikS8 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is also identified in the lead of Surah. I don't know if the Arabic plural is common in English though. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I see that other editors have agreed that "legendary" is a better term than using the term "mythical" on Moses on the lead. The recent edit by @Editor2020: and even mine to restore the wording to "legendary" show that this is becoming a bit of an issue for just one editor while all other editors seem to not have any issues with the term "legendary". Also before User:Bilto74811 came back on wikipedia, the page had used the term "legendary" for many years since at least 2016 - when I looked at the history of this article. Only User:Bilto74811 has been recently trying to change the wording , , so we should follow WP:BRD at this point since his edits are the Bold ones.

The way the wording is being boldly changed to "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." seems to be confusing because when people speak of myth it usually is understood as complete fiction - as is understood for Jesus mythicism (see Christ Myth Theory). Keep in mind that when talking about myth in general - it carries the sense of not existing for most readers. And when using that term on religious figures it is usually understood as them not existing. For instance, Jesus mythicists do not think that Jesus existed at all. "Legendary" carries more of a nuanced meaning that includes that Moses may have been largely made up, and also that he may have some basis in history - like scholarly consensus holds.

There are authoritative reference sources like the Encyclopedia Britannica and Oxford Biblical Studies cited for the statement and they do not even use the term "mythical" or "myth" at all and certainly reflect the much more recent consensus views that - Moses is largely legendary, but may have a historical core, and that there is no way to confirm one way of the other. The current view are agnosticism, not flat out mythicism.

I would argue that we should stay with the term "legendary" or say more nuanced things to compensate for these multiple views that scholars hold like it has been since at least 2016.

I will revert and restore to the "legendary" terminology at the moment.Ramos1990 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The other "editors" have not agreed, 1 did. "all other editors" have not had issue" is another mischaracterization as I have just now brought this up. I suggest you speak for yourself and let others discuss for themselves. I changed it because you changed what the scholarly conensus was which is clealry stated by reliable sources. You changed it to your own POV.

We cannot state that "Scholarly consensu sees Moses as a legendary figure" simply because Editor2020 and you think it is better. That would be false, unssourced, and original research. Scholarly consensus see Moses as a "mythical figure, it is what the source says.

You have been pushing legendary since I brought this up and have still yet to provide a single source that says that is the scholarly consensus. If you want to say that is the scholarly consensu, you need to provide a reliable source that says that this is the scholarly consensus and we can discuss it, but your OR on what you think "myth" means is not correct and cannot be included because its OR.

Myth does not mean it is not based on something in history. See the Exodus wiki page. Myth does not exclude being based on something. We can link the word "myth", and as you point out the sentence explicitly states "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed" so there is no potential for confusion.

This has been discussed many times on the Exodus talk page - see the archive. Myth does not mean it cant be based on something. Scholarly consensus is very clear that the Exodus is a myth but that it could be based on something in history. So that is what we state. Every now and then someone tries to remove the word myth, but we never do because myth is accurate and it is the scholarly consnensu. Moses is the same, he is a mythical figure, not historical just like the Exodus, but he could be based on some "Moses like figure" in history, which we explicitly state. Same with the Exodus, which we explcitly state on that wiki page. Many other editors (see the archive) have had to put "myth" back on the Exodus page after someone removed it. Myth was added from talk page discussion consensus because it is the scholarly consensus and it is accurate. People have tried to change it to "legendary" and many other terms, but it is always changed back to myth because that is what the academic consneus is according to reliable sources.

The difference with Jesus, is that most scholars do not think Jesus was a mythical figure (see your link - also your link says the Christ myth theory is about history and about the relation to the founding of Christianity). The Bible's supernatural version of Jesus is a myth, but I cannot state that on Wikipedia without reliable source as that would be OR. Most scholars think Jesus was a historical person, not a myth and not "possible based on a Jesus-like figure". Contrary to the academic consensus on Moses.

Netiher Encyclopedia Britannica or Oxford Biblical Studies even say "legendary" or more importantly that scholarly consneus is that Moses is legendary like you chaged it to. We cannot falsely state that scholalry consensus is that Moses is legendary, based on your OR.

Stating that it has been your preference for a long time does not change that your proposed sentence is false as it literally states falsely what scholarly consensus is and it is based on your own OR and POV.

Sholarly consnensus is that Moses is a mythical figure, that is directly from a reliable source. No reliable source says otherwise so it is not a controversial issue in academia. Scholars maintain the possibility that a "Moses-like figure" existed, that is also sourced. That is why it says;

"Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure (not based on my POV or your POV, thats what it actually is according to reliable sources), while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed".

That is what it should stay as unless you have a reliable source to back your POV.

here are the quotes from the 2 reliable sources we are discussing:

"A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century" source 1

"Yet the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure; that Yahwism was highly syncretistic from the very beginning; and that true monotheism developed only late in Israel's history" source 2

both are represented in my proposed edit, see below.

here are some more quotes from reliable sources

"many of these forms are not and should not be considered historically based; Moses' birth narrrative, for example, is built on folkloric motifs found throughout the ancient world" source 3

"we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history, while Akhenaten is a figure of history but not of memory." source 4

"The life of Moses contains elements - canonical and apocryphal - that mark him as a true mythic hero...central figure in Hebrew mythology" source 5

"the Old Testament…that its historical portions are not to be depended on….that its myths....the exodus from, Egypt, of the career of Moses and the Jews in the desert, of Joshua and his soldiers, of the judges and their clients, are all apocryphal and were fabricated at a late period of Jewish history, with the deisgn of ingspiring the Hebrews at a period when their depression of spirit from foreign conquest was extreme" source 6

We need to accurately record the scholarly consensus, which is:

"Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." This is the edit I made, and the one I propose we stay with. Bilto74811 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

From myth "Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually gods, demigods, or supernatural humans. Stories of everyday human beings, although often of leaders of some type, are usually contained in legends, as opposed to myths." Editor2020 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I will note that the last sentence you quoted on the myth wiki page is not sourced on that page. Also, Moses is often depicted using supernatural powers (whether you view that as the staff being supernatural or Moses being supernatural doesnt seem a meaningful distinction to me). Most importan to me is that the scholarly sources deemed Moses as a mythical figure so I think we should stick with that. We maybe could do "mythical or legendary figure" as a compromise like Ramos1990 originally added to my edit. But I think "mythical figure" is best because it is what the scholarly consensus acutally is. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind WP:RF here. The word "mythical", as used in common parlance, implies that a figure is fictitious, though we know that the word's usage in academia doesn't necessarily mean that. A common synonym for what is meant by the academic usage of the word "mythical" is "legendary" which I think we can safely use—both laymen and academics readily understand this word without any confusion. Since the word "mythical" has the potential to be ambiguous, "legendary" should be used. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, thats a fair point that we should focus on readers impression. My understanding (from the sources I listed above) is that Moses is considered to be fictional. All that is considered is being based on a "Moses-like figure". This is concept of being based on something in history is true of all myths and mythical figures. To clarify, I dont think legendary is bad, I just think myth is better as its what the sources state. Bilto74811 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Per Editor2020 and Anupam's comments, that is what I have been trying to point out. This is not a POV or OR or SYN issue at all because all we are suggesting is a clearer synonym for the readers. General readers will understand myth as being about fiction, falsehoods, non-exiting things, etc. Just like they do about Jesus, readers usually equate Jesus being a "mythical figure" as literally meaning that he "did not exist". The sources clearly do not state that. It's one thing to say that the narratives of Moses as found in the Torah have mythical elements, but it is another to ambiguate it so that it could also read like scholars believe that Moses himself did not exist. Clearly scholars are divided over this last part and seem to be open to there being a Moses.

Source 1 is archeologist William Dever in 2001 clarifying his views on Moses in that he may have existed, but there is no way to tell either way. This 2001 source supersedes what Dever said in 1993 (source 2 - when he said "Moses as a mythical figure..."). Furthermore, in 2008 William Dever clarified a bit further "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story." . He does not use "myth" in that source at all. Probably because he knows that it is meant for general audiences who watch documentaries, not scholars.

The Enclyclopedia Brittanica source, the Oxford Biblical Studies, and Miller 2013 sources (already in the article) show similar nuance on Moses. For example, Miller 2013 states "None of this means that there is not a historical Moses and that the tales do not include historical information." The scholarly situation on Moses existing is more open ended than effectively closed.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Clearly scholars are divided over this last part and seem to be open to there being a Moses. Thats not true and you have still not provided a source that says this. synonym that is not true either, per Editor2020's comment, myth and legend are not the same. It is definitely a synth issue to write "The scholarly consensus is that Moses is a legendary figure". That is false. If you want to state it wihtout attributing it to the consensus that would be different. As of now, you have not provided one source saying legendary so we cannot even attribute it to any scholars. We could try to just state it though.

I already explained the differnece in Jesus vs Moses, its literally in bold above. Scholarly consensus is that Jesus is a historical person and not a myth. Scholarly consenus is that Moses is a mythical figure and not a historical person, but that he may be based on something, a "Mosese-like" figure

on Moses in that he may have existed that is not what Dever says. Youre not helping by making false claims. He states that there may be a "Moses-like figure" not that "Moses may have existed"

Yes the name Moses is probably an Egyptian name, which is likely due to the Egyptian rule over Canaan. That does not change the fact that Moses is a mythical figure and not considered historical. Every single source does not need to say the word "myth", that is not the burden of evidence here.

See the many sources that make it clear that Moses is a mythical fiugre that I linked for you above. Most importantly the scholarly consensus is that Moses is a myhtical figure. Something that Dever never contradicts or changes. Your beliefs otherwise are your own WP:OR and not stated in any reliable source.

All we have is scholars that state "myth" and 0 that state legendary. The only reason we would state "legendary" is if people were worried about readers confusion. The schoalry consensus is still that Moses is a mythical figure, but there may be some "Moses-like figure" (note, not Moses may have been real or there is any evidence for Moses). We cannot falsely attribute scholarly consensus. But we could try stating legendary if the consneus here ends up favoring that. Bilto74811 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In the four references provided, William Dever doesn’t use either word, Robert Miller II (quoting Van Seters) uses both "legend" and "myth", Britannica doesn’t use either word, and Oxford Biblical Studies Online uses the phrase "comparable with the legends of other ancient peoples". So I propose we:

1. Update the references, removing those which do not use either word and replacing them with those that use one or the other.
2. Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case. Editor2020 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that seems reasonable, we could use both, "mythical or legendary figure" as a compromise like Ramos1990 originally added to my edit. I dont think its best to state the academic consensus to be different than it is, so maybe we could attribute "myth" to the consensus and "legendary" to the 2 sources you stated? But if everyone else wants both to be attributed to the academic consensus Ill go with it.

The sources I have above, Dever says the overwhelming scholarly consensus is "myth", Leeming says "myth", Inman says "myth", I think Assmann and Coogann don't use either. Bilto74811 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Besides those sources though, there are others that use the word "legend" or "legendary"; for example, the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states "Naturally, the historical figure of Moses has been surrounded by popular tradition and manifold legend." Since there is no ambiguity about the word "legendary" as there is with the word "mythical", it seems much more suitable for use here. Anupam^Talk 21:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thats not a link to the source thats a link to the Isaac Landman wiki page, and the encylcopedia isnt even notable enough to have a wiki page. And its not a statement from a scholar. We still cant attribute it to the scholarly consensus as that would be false.

Actually we do not have any sources that use "legendary".

Also we dont have any source stating that there is any evidence for Moses being a historical person, or stating that Moses is a historical person. We have the consensus stated clearly that he is mythical and that there may be a "Moses-like figure" the myth is based on. And we have this explicit statement from Assmann "Moses is a figure of memory but not of history"

So I dont see why you are concerned with Moses sounding not historical when there isnt any evidence for his existence. There is nothing for the readers to be confused, and the rest of the literal same sentence is that "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed", so there really is no concern for "ambiguity". Therefore I dont see any need to change the academic consensus (which we should not be doing anyways as it would be false and synth). I propose we state what the academic consensus is, "mythical" which is sourced, and if you want to add those 2 scholars saying "legend" or you want to change it to "legendary" Im fine with that. Bilto74811 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The article currently falsely states the academic consensus is that Moses is legendary, instead of mythical. The same sentence states "while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed", so mythical is fine. There is a whole historicity section going into further detail. If we are going to keep "legendary" we can't faslely attribute it to scholars and certainly not the consensus, when we dont have any source that uses that word, although some sau "legend". We could just state Moses is a legendary figure. Or that scholarly consensus is that he is mythical. We have 3 scholars that say myth, 1 that says both, 1 that states explciitly that the consensus he is a mythical figure. So we should acccurately use the academic term, especially when the same sentence clarifies this explicitly. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Since no one has replied to your last comment it seems that you repeating yourself has taken a toll and no one wants to talk to you. I suggest more humility and openness to compromise. And please keep it short from now on. No one seems to be convinced of your arguments of OR and POV - please read the WP:OR policy - OR only applies when a statement has no source - not when trying to discussing how to paraphrase a source like we are doing here. If you cannot understand the policy then there will be very little reason to continue this discussion with you. You will continue to lose the other editor's interest since it looks like whining than actually reasonably attempting to negotiate and compromise.

There is no point in repeating all other points (sources are inconsistent with term usage on Moses, most of the sources that use "myth" are talking about the story elements of Moses - birth, miracles, travels, etc; not his existence - these are 2 separate things). Keep in mind that Dever 2001 is the one who states that "A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the mid-late 13th century s.c., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose." So his claim from 1993 does not mean that Moses did not exist necessarily. Otherwise why would he contradict himself?

Anyways, if you want we can remove the term "consensus" since I don't really care to use that term and think it is pointless. We could just reword the whole phrase as "Generally scholars see the story of Moses as legendary while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed." I think this is a reasonable compromise. This makes more sense and is pretty clear and is what the sources are generally saying. Plus readers can literally see what the sources say so its not like we have to think that readers are stupid idiots who cannot think for themselves and see the citations and read them.

The point is to show WP:NPOV, not confuse readers. And by the looks of this discussion there is consensus that "myth" confuses more (Editor2020, Anupam and Me agree on this) and that "legendary" does not (Editor2020, Anupam and Me agree on this). Repetition does not help so please keep that to minimum. Otherwise, other editors will not be motivated to continue to reply to you here. Assume good faith.Ramos1990 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

You should learn to speak for yourself. No one has said they dont want to talk. Dont put words in other peoples mouths, its rude.

We dont have a single source calling Moses legendary and we have 3 sources that say myth and only 1 that also says legend. Youre just pushing your own preference in wording and still have yet to provide a single source that calls Moses legendary. So falsely attributing that to "generally scholars" is not good either. We know exactly what scholars see Moses as, a myth.

You keep trying to imply that Dever contradicted himself, but he did not. Notice he says maybe a "Moses-like figure" existed. Not Moses. That is not contrary to the word myth, Editor2020 linked the wiki myth page, you should read it otherwise youll continue to think myth = false, which is not correct. Myth means its not historical, like Moses. There is no evidence for Moses, only possibly a "Moses-like figure". That is true of every myth, that it could be based on something in history, despite the lack of any evidence.

Obviously, no one can disprove that any mythical human existed. Moses is disproven no more or less than a human version of any mythical person from any religion. But there is still no evidence to any degree for Moses (not a "Moses-like" figure, meaning a leader of some sort...) see this quote from an actual source I linked for you: "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history"

You keep trying to compare Moses to Jesus, but theyre not even somewhat similar. Overwheleming academic consensus is that a human Jesus existed and is not mythical (the supernatural elements aside) and that Moses is mythical. Both Moses and Jesus were supernatural so youre POV that "Moses is just referred to as myth because of miracles is false. Moses is mythical according to scholars and Jesus is not. Youre confused about them because youre comparing situations that are not similar. Just read the academic sources if you want to understand the differnce, otherwise you won't get anywhere.

Youre pushing your preference in wording (contrary to the sources and scholars say) because "readers might be confused" but it doesn't make sense. There is no cause for confusion, as youve noted weve been over this repeatedly, the literal same sentence explicitly states what youre worried that readers will miss - that a "Moses-like" figure may have existed. Youre assuming readers will stop midsntence and be confused? no. see your quote: its not like we have to think that readers are stupid idiots

I don't understand what is confusing to you about this: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? Bilto74811 (talk) 06:36, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Anupam already addressed your point here . Academic usage is different than what Wikipedia readers will understand myth to be. Anyways looks like this discussion is no Conesus on your bold proposition and edit. So the wording will stay as is since we cannot agree on any particular change.Ramos1990 (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I already adressed Anupam's concerns, see the section youre replying to. You ignored the main question with your assuming readers will be confused: "Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? Youve repeatedly stated readers may be confused even though the next words in the exact same sentence explicitly state what youre worried readers will miss, "that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"". It makes no sense whatsoever and I think thats why you refuse to answer that question. Well see if any other editors have an opinion, otherwise eventually Ill look into a request for comment as we should not change what the scholars say to your preference of wording and your "worry over confusion" is unfounded given the explicit statement in the very same sentence. Just because Jesus is not a myth as you repeatedly point out does not mean that others are not or that "its confusing" to say myth for anyone. We use the word myth on many wiki pages where scholars use myth to state that a character like Moses is not historical, but "may be based on something" which is true of all mythical characters. Academic usage is that Moses is fictional, you still misunderstand the word myth, despite Editor2020 linking it. You need to just read that page already. Mythcial is not mutually excluisve with "based on something", thats literally true of all myths. Readers thinking that scholars see Moses as fictional is not contrary to its usage, see the many quotes from different scholars I linked above. Here is one: "we cannot be sure that Moses ever lived because there are no traces of his earthly existence outside of the tradition. Moses is a figure of memory but not of history". Moses is a fictional myth, but may be based on seomthing like all myths. There is no confusion because that is accurate, and as I pointed out to you is made clear by the rest of the literal same sentence. Bilto74811 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see Anupam agreeing with your proposition though. Legendary is not my term or my POV. I could care less about it. However, it has been there since at least 2016 by other editors. I barely started editing this page very little this year. If you have to do so much reading for one word like "myth", then it is probably best to use the word that has not been disputed for numerous years like "legendary". It is self explanatory andpretty clear and sounds more NPOV. I will simply change the wording to not include "consensus" since I think there is some agreement on that alone. You suggested "We could just state Moses is a legendary figure." So I will just do a slight reword with that. That will be the end of this discussion.Ramos1990 (talk) 11:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I didnt say they did, again dont put words in others mouths. I just said I already addressed their concern already when you brouhgt it up again. And then Anupam said we have a source that says legend "or legendary", but as I pointed out we dont have any source from scholars using legendary. As I already addressed, saying "its been there for a while" does not support it being there.

I could care less about it. well you are spending a lot of time to maintain it and worrying about people not knowing there is a posssibility of some "Moses-like figure" despite the same exact sentence explicitly stating it. Seems like you care a lot about that one word.

Its the same sentence, you do not have to "do a lot of reading". Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this be mistaken by readers to think that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? You again did not answer this question. This is the entire center of your argument against using "mythical" and yet you still have not answered it. You again ignored it, I bolded it for you last time, so I don't know how you keep missing it. Its literally your whole argument, and you refuse to define it. It doesnt makes sense, which is the problem with your argument, there is no possibilty for confusion with "myth", the same sentence makes the epxlicity statement that youre worried people will be missing and be "confused about"

Removing the word consensus is less bad, but it still avoids using the terminology we have in sources because of "potential for confusion", when you still refuse to answer the question of how someone could possibly not know that "there is some posibility of a "Moses-like figure"" when it explicitly states that.

We have zero sources using legendary. We do however have a stated, sourced statement from areliable scholar saying "mythical", and mulitple other sources saying "myth", with only 1 also saying "legend", and zero saying "legendary". So fixing it, given the zero likelihood for confusino given the same exact sentence has your explanation in it that "some possibility" for "some" basiss, like all myths. So if this is the end of your participation in the discussion then that is fine, but as I said eventually Ill look into a request for comment as we should not change what the scholars say to your preference of wording and your "worry over confusion" is unfounded given the explicit statement in the very same sentence Bilto74811 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a mythical figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed". How could this confuse readers into thinking that there is no possibility of a "Moses-like figure"? This is your whole argument Ramos and you still have not answered. I get that youre done with discussing this but I am just poitning out that you never made any specific argument, jsut a vague claim of "potential confusion", and refused to specify repeatedly when I pointed out that the sentence explciitly states what youre worried readers will be confused about and miss. The only concrete specific argument you made was that Jesus is not considered a myth therefore Moses shouldn't be either, but that is not a logical argument, is not in line with the evidence, and is the opposite of what scholars have concluded. Bilto74811 (talk) 01:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ramos1990:I see you still are ignoring this question but have time to make false claims and put words in peoples mouths, ever read WP:CIVIL? Bilto74811 (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Per @Editor2020:’s suggestion “Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case”. I’m opening this section to vote on the terminology in the lede.

The sentence in question is in the lede: “Scholarly consensus sees Moses as a [X] figure, while retaining the possibility that a Moses-like figure existed”

1. “mythical figure" as the 3 sources say and as the consensus is
2. “mythical and legendary figure" as 1 source also says “legend”
3. “legendary figure" as 0 sources say

We all agreed in the discussion above that the academic consensus is that Moses is mythical, but Ramos stated their concern with “mythical” in that they think readers may be confused and think that there is no possibility of a “Moses-like figure”, which I disagree with due to the rest of the sentence explicitly stating that exact fact. Ramos was also concerned that because the scholarly consensus is that Jesus is not mythical, that we should ignore the scholarly consensus that Moses is mythical and instead say “legendary” so that people don’t think Moses was fictional. The sources are clear that Moses is not a historical person, but that of course as with all myths, no past person can literally be disproven and it is possible that a “Moses-like figure” existed. This is made explicitly clear in the same sentence with “mythical figure, while retaining the possibility of a Moses-like figure existed”. So there is no potential for confusion so we should keep the scholarly terminology and consenus.

Option 1 is my vote, per the reasons above and since the source explicitly states- "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure". Bilto74811 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• NOTE - See "Terminology on Moses" section above as this is the same discussion - we technically "voted" there with no consensus on any change towards using "mythical" and we changed the wording to be more generic than option 1, 2, and 3 just yesterday per Bilto74811's suggestion This is a weird attempt at getting another vote when clearly there was no consensus supporting Bilto74811 wording (option 1) from just yesterday. Please read the discussion of the other editors who made comments there. The current wording is more generic and was suggested by Bilto74811 himself. See his suggestion here . So we just adjusted the wording accordingly just yesterday . The current wording is simpler and NPOV.

So because of this, options 1, 2, and 3 are all old wording with "Scholarly consensus...". That seemed to trigger the issue so we removed it.

Furthermore, some of the sources for that statement in the article do in fact use the term "legend", while other sources do not even use the term "legend" or "myth" on Moses. Furthermore, another source says that there are 3 divisions among biblical scholars on his historicity, not that Moses is seen as myth by a consensus (as even the researcher who claimed consensus is that Moses is mythical clarified that non-existence was not what was meant in a 2001 source). So the results are actually mixed in the literature it seems. There are other sources that use the term "legend" and do not use "myth" such as "The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible" (entry on Moses) and "Oxford Companion to the Bible" (entry on Moses), "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia" (entry on Moses), and others. Its not hard to find.Ramos1990 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

there is a reason you put "voted" in quotes. And prefaced it with "technically". Your disignenuosu false representaiton of the discussion shows your lack of good will. Per Editor2020s comment we did not vote yet. You made your own preferred change. I did not suggest making the change you made. I brought up an option. Stop putting words in other editors mouths. Its rude and I already asked you to stop.

There was no consensus for the change you made. You dont WP:OWN this article @Ramos1990:. We get as much say as you do. When there is a consensus for a given change we will make the change. Just bevcause you made up your mind does not mean anyone else has. And you seem to care about this enormously for someone who "doesn't care about the wording".

There was no consensus on any option as we had not voted yet, per Editor2020s comment

I said that 1 source says legend, did you read the section youre responding to? Zero use the word "legendary". You quote "another source" but dont link it. Throughout this whole discussion with you you have not actually provided a single source to support your preference, contrary to the multiple sources I have provided.

The historicity of Moses is not under debate, if you did not know. He is not considered a historical person. We already agreed that shcolars see Moses as a mythical figure. You makign false claims about "another source"(note you provided no link as always) doesnt change that. The only point of contention was would it be "confusing" to readers, which is of course not true given the same sentence makes clear that there might be a "Moses-like" figure.

By all means link this "another source" for us. It would make your arugment much stronger if a relaible source actually supported you..

You again falsely represent Devers words, he did not say Moses existed in 2001, just that there is a possibility of a "Moses-like" figure. Making false claims isn't helping.

You made more claims here without a single link. We still dont have a link to the "Jewish Encyclopedia". And as I pointed out we need scholarly relaible sources. Provide a source or how do you expect anyone to go wtih your preference.

Note that the 3 sources you make sclaims about and do not provide links to, do not say Moses is seen as "legendary" as your lates edit faslely claims.

The only sources we have say etiher mythical, myth, or myth and legend. Zero say legendary. Some expliclty say Moses is not historical. "Moses is a figure of memory but not of history" see how easy it is to provide a source?

so we removed it. "we". this is false. you removed it unilaterally. no one agreed to your change.

Most importanntly, you did not vote. If you don't vote for 1-3 or another new prefernece of yours, then no one can make you vote. If the consensus is not in your favor deal with it. If it is, then lucky you. But without a vote you get no say in it. Bilto74811 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops I thought I linked it in my last comment. Anyways, here is a quote I just found "Three views, based on source analysis or historical-critical method, seem to prevail among biblical scholars. First, a number of scholars, such as Meyer and Holscher, aim to deprive Moses all the prerogatives attributed to him by denying anything historical value about his person or the role he played in Israelite religion. Second, other scholars, such as Albright and Buber, diametrically oppose the first view and strive to anchor Moses the decisive role he played in Israelite religion in a firm setting. And third, those who take the middle position, such as Auerbach and Noth, delineate the solidly historical identification of Moses from the superstructure of later legendary accretions….Needless to say, these issues are hotly debated unresolved matters among scholars. Thus, the attempt to separate the historical from unnhistorical elements in the Torah has yielded few, if any, positive results regarding the figure of Moses or the role he played on Israelite religion. No wonder J. Van Seters concluded that "the quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise. He now belongs only to legend". . This source discusses in detail the prevailing views among scholars. Rather than just one sentence from one source, which you keep on mentioning.

The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible - "Any critical attempt to assess the historicity of the portrait of Moses presented in Exodus to Deuteronomy must take into account a number of characteristics of this literature and its presentation. First, many of the stories are legendary in character and are built on folktale motif found in various cultures.”

Oxford Companion to the Bible - seems to have the same wording as the "The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible"

Interestingly in the same source (Oxford Companion to the Bible) "Exodus, The Book of." entry it also says "The historicity of Moses is the most reasonable assumption to be made about him. There is no viable argument why Moses should be regarded as a fiction of pious necessity. His removal from the scene of Israel's beginnings as a theocratic community would leave a vacuum that simply could not be explained away."

Universal Jewish Encyclopedia - "Naturally , the historical figure of Moses has been surrounded by popular tradition and manifold legend."

Oxford Biblical Studies Online "In a way comparable with the legends of other ancient peoples, the story of Moses begins (Exod. 2) with.."

You made a preposition here . So why are you reverting now is puzzling since is looks like you are not ok with your own suggestion. Why would you suggest particular wording "We could just state Moses is a legendary figure." and then you revert it ?

Also read the policy on no consensus WP:NOCONSENSUS. It states "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." So I hope you understand that if no consensus favors your proposition, then the original wording is retained by default.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for finally providing a source 3 weeks later. You seem to now think 1993 sources when they confirm your view, are actually valid, interesting. Well at least there is a source, from a scholar that supports your view.

This would have been helpful 3 weeks ago instead of making illogical unsourced arguments like "Scholars don't consider Jesus a myth so we should ignore scholars acknowledging Moses as a myth". Or here are 2 sources that dont say myth or legend, therfore we should pick "legened"? For future refernece, sources are convincing, illogical arguments about your preferences and your POV are not going to convince anyone.

I can't view the Oxford Companion to the Bible source as it says I dont have permission.

Obviously the "Universal Jewish Encylcopedia" is not a relaible source. Its not noteable enough to even garner its own wikiepdia page.

I cant find your quote from The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible. Im just looking at google preview though, did you find it in a page not in the preview?

Just because myself and others attempted to bring different options up for discussion does not mean I suggested that or that anyone voted or formed consensus. You cannot unilaterally declare which option discussed was your preference and then change it without consensus. Or at least without anyone voting in favor of it. Again, stop putting words in peoples mouths, how many times do you need to be told that? When something is being discussed on a talk page you can't just decide to make your preferred changed based on guessing what you think someone else is okay with. I reverted it because per Editor2020's comment, we have not yet decided, which is why I stated that in the opening sentence of this section. read the section youre replying to next time before you reply.

Is Oxford Biblical Studies Online concsidered a reliable source? I can't find it here WP:RSP. To be clear, Im not saying its not a reliable source, I just don't know how to check other than either it being on that list or it being from an actual scholar.

I looked into the sources and scholars your quote referenced, to be fair you should see Albright and Buber pages, see Dever amd Thompson quote on the Albright page in particular.

I found another source that says legend, from an actual scholar, "The quest for the historical Moses is a futile exercise . He now belongs only to legend" [1]. Not legendary but at least there is some scholar using "legend".

If you read that source and the others we cited, there isnt any discusion of whether Moses existed or the Exodus was real, its always a question of what these myths are possibly "based on"your Oxford link, as I keep saying is true of all myths. This is in contrast to the human Jesus you always bring up, where academic consensus is that he is not a myth at all.

Per Editor2020, see above, "Robert Miller II (quoting Van Seters) uses both "legend" and "myth". "Decide if we should use one or the other of the terms, or return to using both terms, as was once the case"

So if we accept that sources use both legend, myth, and mythical. And if legednary is just brought into discussion because its close enough to legend. Then saying consensus is legend would be bad. I would be in okay with using both as some scholars use either.

I would prefer Option 1 but would be okay with Option 2.

Or "mythical or legendary figure" as Ramos once edited it to be. Since you acknowledge that scholars use both we should accurately represent that. You still havent voted on 1-3 or an alteranative, without a vote your opinion won't carry weight Bilto74811 (talk)

Just adding in Ramos's new source literally called "The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History"

@Ramos1990: Speaking of not seeming to support your own actual suggestions, do you no longer support option 2 (myth or legendary figure) as it is the edit you made? And as you know, most of our sources use myth and only some legend. Option 2 at least gives due weight to all scholars instead of favoring some. Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ramos1990:Would you be in favor of your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure", that you reverted yourself? At least this compromise would represent both terms scholars use (despite myth being the majority term), and it gives due weight to the terms scholars use

Also do you have a link to The Oxford Companion to the Bible non-paywall you said exists? I dont see any not behind a paywall Bilto74811 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ramos1990:A simple yes or no would be helpful so we can all move on, I dont want to wait forever while you make time to make edits on the main page and just ignore repeated questions here. Its a only few words to vote, woud you be okay returning to your original edit of "mythical or legendary figure" or not?

I think Editor2020 has checked out despite this vote being their suggestion, so your vote is all thats left to wait on since no one else has commented on it. Bilto74811 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I can see Ramos has time to make other edits but ignores repeated requests for a simple “yes” or “no” 1 word response. So I will go ahead with editing back to Ramos’s original edit of “mythical or legendary”. If you suddenly care enough to respond Ramos, by all means go ahead with the requested 1 word response Bilto74811 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Ramos, its clear you dont even have the civility to contribute to the discussion with a simply yes or no, you can only edit war. So I will make a RFC as 1 vote from Anupam for the current wording and my vote for option 1 with a compromise for option 2 is just a tie.Bilto74811 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Given the quotation provided by User:Ramos1990, it seems that there is actually no consensus among scholars, but rather three prevailing views. As such, I would support keeping the lede the way it is. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for voting, that does help. That makes 1 for option 1 or option 2 (my vote) and 1 for option 3. That does help as that is how consensus is formed, contrary to Ramos unilaterally deciding when consensus if formed.

However since you acknoweldege we dont have consensus and that scholars use myth or legend, then why not option 2? That would be an accurate representation of the scholars terminology Bilto74811 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. At this time, I would support keeping the lede essentially the way it is but perhaps without mentioning a "consensus" so that it reads more broadly. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 17:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree removing consensus would be better, but why exclusively favor one term, "legend", and not give due credit to "myth", which more of our sources use anyways? Would you be okay with following Ramos's edit of "myth or legendary" figure? @Anupam: Bilto74811 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Anupam: See the source Ramos put: "Modern maximalists tend to follow in the footsteps of William Albright, with some dating him as early as the Amarna period (14th century BCE) and the earliest stages of the Yahweh cult. Contrary to the impression given by television documentaries, maximalists have little evidence in their favor, though James K. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford, 1999) makes as good a case as any". By the way, this source from Ramos is the one called The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History

As you decided here, you dont even want to represent myth and legend, despite the fact that most of our scholars we cite here use myth and far fewer use legend, just because a source words something a certain way doesnt mean we dont have to evaluate how to word it here. Especailly when it contrasts with the consensus view on the historicity. Bilto74811 (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)