This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hello all,
I recently made an addition to the article on Moses. This was reverted by one of the editors. After an exchange, he suggested the issue be posted here for any comments. So here it is, presented through the exchange we had of "talk" postings (slightly edited here).
ORIGINAL POST:
Subject: your reversion of addition to article on "Moses"
I am writing to ask about your reversion of my addition (by ozzie42, 3 Jan 2014) to the Wikipedia article "Moses". The text of the addition was:
"The biblical Battle of Jericho occurred shortly after the death of Moses, and archeology of Jericho suggests this may have occurred around 1560 BCE; a date of 1399 BCE has been suggested from a possible astronomical reference in Midrash Rabbinic literature.[1]"
The addition was placed after the following line about when Moses lived: Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592, and Ussher 1619 as birthyear.[7]
Your reversion note says: (removing this, the archaeology actually suggests this didn't take place although a Creationist archaeologist disputes this)
Your comment briefly mentions the archeology part of the addition, but does not say anything about the part that refers to a possible astronomical date for the death of Moses. This work was published (full disclosure: by me and a colleague, since deceased) in a respected, and refereed, astronomical journal (see reference in the addition; article can be read on-line at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011Obs...131..248M). I would argue that the date of Moses death derived there is at least as reliable as the sources you allow: Sedar Olam, Jerome, and the Ussher chronology. The birth and death dates of Moses are of much interest, but in dispute. I feel having the various pieces of evidence in the article (including the controversial archeology) makes this section of the Moses article more complete.
Note: I have not used this talk feature of Wikipedia before, but looking forward to your response,
RESPONSE
"You want to use T. J. Manetsch, W. Osborn: Can the Date of Moses’ Death be Determined Astronomically? The Observatory as a source. Let's see if it meets WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. First, it's not published in a peer reviewed journal.[1]. Not an impassible barrier, so who are the authors? This is Osborne [2] - he may be considered an expert on observational astronomy but not having read the paper I don't know what expertise is basically used in it. Who is the main author, "T. J. Manetsch"? Then there is WP:WEIGHT - does anyone actually mention this in a book or journal that meets our criteria? I can't find anything for that. What you can do of course is ask at Talk:Moses what others think, or WP:RSN. Oh - don't leave contact information lying around. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)"
MY FOLLOW-UP
I don't want to quibble, but we should be correct in our facts. "The Observatory" IS a peer reviewed journal. That is what (in my field) "refereed" means when I commented on the journal in my first post. This can be easily checked. The suitability of referencing the Observatory article in the Wikipedia Moses piece can best be judged by reading the paper. A link was provided. Following your suggestion, I'll post this to the talk:Moses site to see what comes up.
Ozzie42 ( talk) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi! (Not sure of appropriate netiquette... Are greetings acceptable here?) I would like to recommend changing "... attributed to Moses imply the existence of an historical..." to "... attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical...". Cheers! (Appropriate?) anonymous ( talk) 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sentence in the opening paragraph: "Other historians maintain that the biographical details and Egyptian background attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical political and religious leader who was involved in the consolidation of the Hebrew tribes in Canaan towards the end of the Bronze Age." Who are "Other historians..."? This is too open-ended and wage. 81.191.97.147 ( talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't sound right IMO. "Moses heard the voice of God telling him to.." or whatever. I am a believer myself, but this is hardly npov/encyclopedic wording. Student7 ( talk) 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
See inside http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote#Wortlaut
Actually the ten commandments must have been written in egypt script because at the time the jews (semitic nomad tribe) have gone out of egypt for later attacking Kanaan with king city Hebron like described in the holy book the hebraic script did not exist like much of the later written metal plates of of mormon see book of mormon refering also to egypt culture and language at beginning. Maybe runic script did exist before latin and hebraic script but not much written on durable materials. The runes should come directly from creater of the world and first humans Askre and Embla together with his brothers god Odin who created at the time of his self sacrifice 9 days and 9 nights wounded from his own spear inside the life ( sephirot) and world tree yggdrasil. The apocalypse in german tribes mythology was ragnarök with a world after R. and reborn Odin as Fimbultyr like described inside older poetic and newer Edda.
Eating the apples from godess [[Idun] was not a sin like positive healing witchwork or
incarnations also directly from Odin as Wodan. The 3 rivers of fate inside the paradise are coming from 3
norns. The first ten commandments have been only for the pharons before.
Also the christmas tree is still called the Jule(Odin) tree as yggdrasil tree with still straw goat cars inside in north europe countries refering to god Thor etc. with christmas day at change from winter to summer with jesus christ birthday unknown.
The first monotheism was from Echnaton and Nofretete calling out only Aton as real god in egypt mythology world or maybe from enlighted Zarathustra 1800 b. Chr. teaching also a monotheism and an inmaterial world before the material world like in the egypt mythology. A Symbol for Aton is a circle and old sybol for Odin is also the suncross circle with a + cross inside see also under [[Sól (sun)].
are also 10 historical commandments from DDR system
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote_f%C3%BCr_den_neuen_sozialistischen_Menschen
Out of german 10 gebote article but strange not like normally working picture link
[Datei:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|miniatur|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)]]
[File:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|thumb|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)ADDABLE A TRANSLATION]]
Right is that german wikipedia is not a reliable source like english wikipedia and the proof who is right can be done by comparision in original text what word was used for egypt "slave" house and later in text by everybody also without knowledge of hebraic script. Of course nobody can proove what sript eas used for the ten commandments plates because nobody does have that stone plates but prooved is that the hebraic sript did not exist already at that time and using egypt sript was normally that time like much later reported for the mormon metal plates.
I added the template 'Slavery' and the categories List of slaves and List of opponents of slavery. These additions were removed for being inappropriate. Have I got the wrong Moses? Randy Kryn 21:14 3-5-14
The name of Moses needs to be IPAed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.149.10 ( talk) 09:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the final sentence of the "Death" section should be edited to remove the reference to Zechariah 3. Zechariah 3 describes the argument between satan and an angel over Joshua, not Moses. Moses isn't mentioned anywhere in the chapter. I believe the final sentence of the "Death" section should be changed from "See also Jude 1:9 and Zechariah 3." to "See also Jude 1:9" Zechariah 3 describes the argument between satan and an angel over Joshua, not Moses. Moses isn't mentioned anywhere in the chapter. 71.191.6.125 ( talk) 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two references in this section need to be replaced. The first one is now a dead link, but it wasn't particularly helpful to begin with, so....
...should be replaced with:
...which is an authoritative source.
The second one is linked to a copyvio online reprint of an authoritative source, but the original is available online, so...
...should be replaced with:
...which is the legitimate location for the online reprint of this copyrighted text. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Moses was a Hebrew prophet in his lifetime not an Islamic one, he was retroactively labeled an Islamic prophet in the 7th century AD, nearly 2000 years after he is thought to have lived. The book he wrote, the Torah, is a Hebrew prophetic text, not an Islamic one. Moses is also a prophet in the New Testament and the Christian Bible but they are not mentioned in the first paragraph. What if on the section for Muhammad the opening sentence said "Muhammad according to Islam and the Bahai faith and the Unitarian religion was an Arabic law giver and prophet" or how about "Muhammad was an Islamic and Bahai prophet and law giver" how fantastically stupid and ridiculous would that be? This is exactly what is written here. Moses was no more an Islamic prophet than Muhammad was a Bahai prophet. The Islamic religion was invented 2000 years after Moses, just as the Bahai religion was invented 1200 years after Muhammad. They have no relation to each other. Islam retroactively labeled him a Muslim, so what, that makes him a Muslim? It is irrelevant that he is mentioned in the Qur'an. He is mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament, and the Druze sacred books, and Bahai scripture, and every other Abrahamic spin off religion ever invented. Does that mean all of those texts should be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Moses did not write the Qur'an or the New Testament or Bahai scripture or whatever, he wrote the Torah. He was a Hebrew prophet, and not any other kind of prophet. If I invent a new religion called Newmanism and I say Muhammad and Joseph Smith and Moses and Buddah and John Lennon were all Newmanian prophets, can I write on John Lennon's and Muhammad's page that they were Newmanian prophets? Someone please remove the fallacious statement about the Quran in the opening sentence describing Moses. The Qur'an should be mentioned in a separate section titled "Non-Israelite traditions that regard Moses as a prophet" or simply in its on section on Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you I really appreciate it, the article looks so much better and far less stupid now.
This is a sensitive article, so I'll explain what I'm doing.
I've divided the Biblical Narrative section in two, one part on Moses' role as deliverer of Israel the other on his role as lawgiver. This is simply because it makes it easier to talk about them this way - in the narrative, deliverance and law are mixed together, and for an analytic article it works better to treat them apart, otherwise you keep switching back and forth.
I've drastically cut back the summary of the narrative. This is because we can't mention every little detail, and need to give the broad outline. There's room in the See Also section for links to things like the manna etc.
I want to emphasise that I'm not hostile to religion or to Judaism or the bible, I just want to write an article that explains clearly to people just why Moses is significant in Judaism. He isn't terribly significant in Christianity and Islam, though he's there.
Anyway, if anyone wants to correct or even revert what I've done, go ahead, but please come here and discuss why. PiCo ( talk) 04:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please delete Gjerman, Corey. Moses: The Father I Never Knew. Portland: Biblical Fantasticals, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4241-7113-2. because it is hoax link 209.152.44.30 ( talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
xternal evidence has been claimed to exist, confirming Moses� historicity and the essentials of his religious outlook.7 Egyptian sources give a lot of information on a character whose career is contemporary with and entirely similar to that of Moses: the Egyptian dignitary Beya. The name already points to the Semitic Yahwist tradition: Be-Yah means �on/by/in Yah�, as in �by Yah (I swear)� or �in Yah (I trust)�. He also had a long Egyptian name of which �moses� (child of) was a part, as was very common in Egyptian names. So, it is possible that Moshe/Moses was a Hebraized abbreviation of the Egyptian name of this Beya.
This dignitary Beya was a very powerful man at the Egyptian court, and several depictions of him have been preserved. It is striking that he apparently refused to be depicted as bowing before any of the Egyptian gods. He disappears from the Egyptian sources after the unsuccessful palace revolution of the regent princess Tausret against the legitimate young king Siptah. Probably he was part of the conspiracy, and had to flee after its failure. As he is called �the Syrian� in one source, he may have joined hands with the numerous Semitic immigrant community (which may have been held guilty, rightly or wrongly, for the political trouble, just like the Hyksos earlier), and led it into exodus. See Johannes C. De Moor: The Rise of Yahwism, ch.4.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.114.33 ( talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.229.105.21 ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Moses was born in Egypt
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "an ark" to "a basket" because Moses was placed in a basket made of papyrus reeds; he was not placed in an "ark" like unto Noah (Genesis). Exodus 2:3 NLT
Mattryantroiano ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)I changed the identification from Pharaoh's sister to his daughter and clarified that this identification came from the Midrash, not the Book of Exodus iteself.
If this is in any way incorrect, please feel free to change it. But if you do, I would ask you to please try to separate out facts attributable to the Torah, since this is Scriptural for Christians, and facts attributable to sources outside the Torah. Apollo ( talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Authors Graham Phillips [1] and Riaan Booysen [2] have proposed, however, that Moses and Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the heir-to-the-throne of Amenhotep III, must have been the same person. Phillips concludes that the only set of circumstances in Egyptian history that uniquely matches that of Moses is the mysterious disappearance of Crown Prince Tuthmosis. Booysen argues that not only does Manetho link Amenhotep III to the Exodus (Moses as the priest Osarseph had served under Amenhotep who had a sacred scribe called Amenhotep, the son of Papis / Hapu) [3], but that Artapanus’ account of Moses being involved in the first burial of the Apis bull [4],
“and Chenephres (the pharaoh of the Exodus) having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses,”
unambiguously confirms Moses’ identity as Tuthmosis. Crown Prince Tuthmosis, officiating as the High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, had assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull in the Serapeum at Saqqara [5]. Booysen notes that while Manetho furthermore asserts that Moses had sent messengers to the rulers of Jerusalem, summoning them to join him in his war against Egypt, the El Arish Shrine text states that it was the king’s son who had sent these messengers [6] and The Story of Joseph and Asenath records that it was the king’s eldest son, i.e. his heir-to-the-throne, who had sent the messengers to the Israelites [7]. All three accounts record that the Israelites had complied and invaded Egypt, and Moses is therefore linked to Crown Prince Tuthmosis by three independent accounts of the same event.
1. Phillips, Graham (1998). Act of God, Pan Books, ISBN 0 330 35206 7. 2. Booysen, Riaan (2013). Thera and the Exodus, O-Books, ISBN 978 1 78099 449 9. 3. Josephus, Against Apion 1.26 (238-242, 250). 4. E.H. Gifford (1903), Eusebius of Caesarea - Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.27. 5. O’Connor, David and Cline, Eric H. (eds), Amenhotep III – Perspectives On His Reign, ISBN 0-472-08833-5, p. 8. 6. Francis Llewellyn Griffith and Édouard Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, London: Kegan Paul, Trentch, Trubner & Co., 1887, pp. 71-73. 7. Cook, David and H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), “Joseph and Aseneth (XXIII-XXIV)”, The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 473-503.
QUESTION: Would it be allowable to include this passage under Moses, Historicity?
Saddeleur (
talk) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
After I added a BC tag to indicate that the "7th-century" descriptor of the Kingdom of Judah mentioned in the Historicity section of the article was in BC/BCE not AD/CE, Dougweller left a message on my talk page which brought to my attention the inconsistency of the style that was used in the article, which had used both AD/BC and CE/BCE styles at the same time. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style, an article should consistently use only one of these, not both, except in quotations. Editor2020 cited the aforementioned guideline in enforcing this consistency by changing instances of the AD/BC notation to CE/BCE. However, the same guideline also states (as Dougweller mentioned on my talk page) that the established era style should not be changed without good reason and consensus. The first revision of the article used the AD/BC style consistently; a search of the talk page archives reveal no discussion suggesting changing this to the CE/BCE style, and a quick check of revisions of the article through each of the years since its creation point to no definite changeover from AD/BC to CE/BCE (though the latter was introduced into the article at some point). So by this "established era style" clause, the article should use the AD/BC style "unless there are reasons specific to its content" to use the CE/BCE style. I hope that the editors involved in this matter will have been pinged and will participate in this discussion. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article starts by saying that : "Apart from a few scattered references elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures, all that is known about Moses comes from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.[19] The majority of scholars date these four books to the Persian period, 538-332 BCE.[20]"
Where the source is someone - Jean-Louis Ska - saying that this is the majority opinion, but without any proof.
And then:
"The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century BCE Kingdom of Judah. Moses is a central figure in the Deuteronomist account of the origins of the Israelites, cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses. The mainstream view is that the Deuteronomist relies on earlier material that may date to the United Monarchy, so that the biblical narrative would be based on traditions that can be traced roughly to the 10th century BCE, or about four centuries after the supposed lifetime of Moses."
There is a contradiction. The mainstream is either that the Deuteronomy was written on the 7th century BCE from sources going back to the 10th century or during the Persian period.
Furthermore, the article takes the "documentary hypothesis" - here the existence of a "Deuteronomist source" - as fact, which is not. In the last decades a throng of evidence as accumulated disproving the idea of different documents as sources of the Pentateuch and the idea that the books were written by a single author or group of authors is gaining credibility.
And something else: "Some scholars, like Kenneth Kitchen and Frank Yurko suggest that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest."
This is not Kenneth Kitchen position at all ! He supports the reliability of the Biblical text and that the events unfolded more or less as described in the Bible. He does not suggest there may be a historical core beneath the traditions, but that the books were written at the time that they say they were written and reflect actual events. The dramatization is just in style and in the narrative forms of the time, not in the events themselves.
93.172.25.208 ( talk) 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple minor suggestions related to the Film and Television section: for balance we should name the actor who played Moses in the 2006 version of The Ten Commandments ( Dougray Scott) - and is it officially considered a remake of the 1956 film? The other change I'd suggest is keeping in mind that not everyone may be familiar with the name or the film, it should perhaps be noted that Mel Brooks' performance in History of the World Part I is comedic in nature (as opposed to all the others listed who performed the role seriously). 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
History of the World Part I noted as comedy. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Correct the spelling of 'avoid' in 'living in scattered hamlets and **avoding** the husbandry of pigs' in the Historicity section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.92.71 ( talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose merging Criticism of Moses with Moses creating a single NPOV article on the topic. the Criticism of moses is very small and has only 2 sections besides references
The result of this merge will be a better article and an article that is less likely to give undue weight to any subject about moses. any help, suggestions, or feedback is not only welcome but of course appreciated. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 02:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support, agree with everything you said. Gonzales John ( talk) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Done BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
the Israelite wander 40 years in the wilderness not desert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.155.35 ( talk) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to change BCE TO BC 2602:304:B168:1F30:707E:71CD:2AD:DC2B ( talk) 04:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moses as Prince of Egypt was well schooled in Egyptian religion and their sacred Mysteries or Egyptian Mysteries. As a youth, he learned mathematics/ numerology, their writing of hieroglyphics, astronomy/ astrology, and Egyptian history. The Torah is commonly referred to as the Five Books of Moses. Kabbalah teaches that Moses taught the sacred Mysteries to just a few including Aaron and Joshua, and that these mystic Hebrew teachings have been passed on through the centuries to compose the core of the Zohar and Kabbalah. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The article gave several speculative theories about the etymology of "Moshe" from various sources, and then, as if as an afterthought, attributed the derivation from the Hebrew verb limshot to a "folk etymology in the Jewish tradition"! That's ridiculous and dishonest; the derivation from limshot is not a folk etymology, it's explicit in the text! Yes, there are other theories, and it's proper to cite them, but only after that one, which should be properly attributed to the text itself, not to some tertiary source. I made this change, and someone reverted it saying that "one writes according to relevant sources". Of course one does, but what source could be more relevant than the Biblical text itself? -- GertBySea ( talk) 03:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bible IS a reliable source for facts especially when there is no other documentation available. However, let's keep in mind the adage of, "It's the victors who write the history." 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section 1 (Name), paragraph 3, sentence 2, please add the word 'to' after the word 'attempt' in 'an attempt cancel out'. Thank you. Mahde darmo ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Mahde darmo ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The Moses article is strangely ignorant of modern genetic research on Moses. I therefore suggest the following section be added somewhere (excerpts from the Y-chromosomal Aaron article). The statistical "health warning" in the last sentence is my own:
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendents of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58). The original research dates from 1997, [1] and the most recent molecular phylogenetic update places Aaron's Y-chromosome within subhaplogroup Z18271 (age estimate 2638-3280 years before present using the molecular clock). [2] [3] It follows that Aaron (and hence his brother Moses) lived at some point in the time span 638 BC to 1280 BC (95% confidence interval). Technically, one generation (approximately 30 years) should be added to these dates, as adults rather than newborns were sampled and furthermore the time estimate does not include uncertainty in the DNA mutation rate and may therefore be revised in future research.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of the oral tradition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.154.28 ( talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Happy Easter, everyone. For your convenience, here is the explicitly "Moses/Aaron-mentioning" Thomas et al. 1998 Nature summary, which we can cite in addition to the original 1997 paper:
"Origins of Old Testament priests Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skoreckiad Haim Ben-Amid, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman & David B. Goldstein Abstract According to Jewish tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, males of the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsibilities, and male descendants of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim). To the extent that patrilineal inheritance has been followed since sometime around the Temple period (roughly 3,000-2,000 years before present), Y chromosomes of present-day Cohanim and Levites should not only be distinguishable from those of other Jews, but — given the dispersion of the priesthood following the Temple's destruction — they should derive from a common ancestral type no more recently than the Temple period. Here we show that although Levite Y chromosomes are diverse, Cohen chromosomes are homogeneous. We trace the origin of Cohen chromosomes to about 3,000 years before present, early during the Temple period." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.143 ( talk) 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
talk:86.154.102.143|talk]]) 17:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
So Isambard and Doug, taking all your moans and groans into account, here is a new version which refers primarily to the 1998 paper (where Moses and Aaron are explicitly mentioned), and I am now omitting my health warning. I would be grateful if you could agree to this version and insert it into the protected Moses article:
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendants of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1] The original research dates from 1997, [2] and updates have been published since, for example by Hammer et al. (2009). [3]
IP86.154.102.143, If Moses and Aaron existed and a group of modern Jews is descended from them, then this could show up as common genes in those modern Jews. But common genes in modern Jews does not necessarily mean that Moses and Aaron existed. Do you agree with this? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendants of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1] The original research dates from 1997, [2] and updates have been published since, for example by Hammer et al. (2009). [3]
I would be grateful if you could agree to this version and insert it into the protected Moses article. Doug, if you are still uncertain about the genetics - ask an evolutionary geneticist on your Wikpedia panel.
No, I am going to make a different suggestion, because you two (Isambard and Doug) are obviously unwilling to consult another geneticist: Please summarise, in your own words, in three or four sentences what the Thomas et al. 1998 paper says. That way, you are forced to read the paper properly, and I can then see precisely where you are going wrong in your thinking, and can correct you. Then we can all agree on exactly what to add (and what not to add) in the Moses article. Howzat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 ( talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree there should be some statement in the article about genetics showing support of a common ancestor from the timeframe of Moses, supporting the biblical account. Then point to the Aaron page. I'm a casual reader, not a scholar, as most of us readers are. I find it interesting. I'm sure you can put some disclaimers in there if needed. Rkcannon ( talk) 14:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see no reason why we should use a tertiary source, let alone one that might have different dates next week, as a source for Moses's dates (and "flourished during c. 1400 BCE-C.1201 BCE"? What does that even mean? Oxfordonline has the relevant definition " Be working or at the height of one’s career during a specified period:" - perhaps it should say "at some time between...."? There must be academic sources for this. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfinished business summarised from above (why is Wikipedia so slow in implementing new research?):
The Moses article is strangely ignorant of modern genetic research on Moses. I therefore suggest the following section be added somewhere:
"Genetic Dating of Moses There are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3, with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1]"
Moses is a little White washed in this wikipedia article. This is a photo of what the Jewish community in the Middle-East think of Moses, http://imgur.com/9Qufl7k
As I recall, Moses was Middle-Eastern, he wasn't European, or was I wrong? Perhaps I was wrong, it seems he was an Indo-European man of European lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuormak ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"No Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure." Actually, there are no Biblical sources for Moses either until the 8th century, and then only in the northern kingdom (he's not mentioned in sources from Judah till a century later). The article needs more discussion of the Biblical texts regarding him. PiCo ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think he was mentioned in a simple creed that was recited at Shiloh or another shrine, and that creed is preserved somewhere in the Tanakh, but I can't find it. Can we add that detail to the page? First recorded mention of Moses? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This: "Moses may have flourished between c. 1400 BCE-C.1201 BCE,[12] and he likely mediated Yahweh, whom he knew of through his father-in-law Hobab the Kenite, to the Israelites.[13] Despite this, according to some scholarly consensus, Moses is a legendary figure and not a historical person" - has problems. It more or less asserts he was real than sort of denies it. I don't know what "some scholarly consensus" could mean. We shouldn't state one theory as likely, and here's the text it comes from:
"The Midianite or Kenite hypothesis is the best known theory for the origins of Yahweh.4 This theory holds that Yahweh originated in the South, a tradition echoed in Deuteronomy 33.2, Judges 5.4 and Habakkuk 3.3.' South, here, denotes south of Judah, i.e. the Sinai, Paran, Edom, Teman, Seir or Midian. Going back to the late nineteen century CE, the theory holds that Yahweh was mediated to Israel via Moses who learned ofYahweh from his father-in-law Hobab the Kenite, a branch of the Midianites and a priest ofYahweh. This much can be extrapolated from the Hebrew Bible." [8] Doug Weller talk 12:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You guys take the most controversial questions that divide the human race - like 'was Moses a real person or fiction' - thump your favored scholars books in Appeal to Color of Authority in lieue of any actual evidence - and declare the dispute to be a matter of "overwhelming consensus". Any one who dares disagree or goes by the "wrong sources" is blocked and called a sockpuppet. This is the reputation of intolerant pov pushing wikipedia admins making it an intolerant, polemic, anti-christian backwater, and the reputation it deserves.
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 13:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, that is entirely consistent with my understanding of the matter (or more accurately Levi not Judah) so please dont try to twist me into a needless strawman for my use of the word "Christian", thanks.
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 14:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Why would I consider their opinions that differ from mine in practically every respect? Simple 'appeal to authority' where they figured it all out for us but can't show us the actual proof 'cause it would go over our neophyte heads so theproof was conducted behind closed doors by club members so we all just have to accept their conclusion? are you kidding me? Have they actually come up with anything new the world doesn't already know about, or are they merely saying 'our team is right, therefore our team is right and the others don't even count, case closed in full consensus, nothing to see here' i.e. appeal to authority ?
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hello all,
I recently made an addition to the article on Moses. This was reverted by one of the editors. After an exchange, he suggested the issue be posted here for any comments. So here it is, presented through the exchange we had of "talk" postings (slightly edited here).
ORIGINAL POST:
Subject: your reversion of addition to article on "Moses"
I am writing to ask about your reversion of my addition (by ozzie42, 3 Jan 2014) to the Wikipedia article "Moses". The text of the addition was:
"The biblical Battle of Jericho occurred shortly after the death of Moses, and archeology of Jericho suggests this may have occurred around 1560 BCE; a date of 1399 BCE has been suggested from a possible astronomical reference in Midrash Rabbinic literature.[1]"
The addition was placed after the following line about when Moses lived: Rabbinical Judaism calculated a lifespan of Moses corresponding to 1391–1271 BCE;[6] Jerome gives 1592, and Ussher 1619 as birthyear.[7]
Your reversion note says: (removing this, the archaeology actually suggests this didn't take place although a Creationist archaeologist disputes this)
Your comment briefly mentions the archeology part of the addition, but does not say anything about the part that refers to a possible astronomical date for the death of Moses. This work was published (full disclosure: by me and a colleague, since deceased) in a respected, and refereed, astronomical journal (see reference in the addition; article can be read on-line at http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011Obs...131..248M). I would argue that the date of Moses death derived there is at least as reliable as the sources you allow: Sedar Olam, Jerome, and the Ussher chronology. The birth and death dates of Moses are of much interest, but in dispute. I feel having the various pieces of evidence in the article (including the controversial archeology) makes this section of the Moses article more complete.
Note: I have not used this talk feature of Wikipedia before, but looking forward to your response,
RESPONSE
"You want to use T. J. Manetsch, W. Osborn: Can the Date of Moses’ Death be Determined Astronomically? The Observatory as a source. Let's see if it meets WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. First, it's not published in a peer reviewed journal.[1]. Not an impassible barrier, so who are the authors? This is Osborne [2] - he may be considered an expert on observational astronomy but not having read the paper I don't know what expertise is basically used in it. Who is the main author, "T. J. Manetsch"? Then there is WP:WEIGHT - does anyone actually mention this in a book or journal that meets our criteria? I can't find anything for that. What you can do of course is ask at Talk:Moses what others think, or WP:RSN. Oh - don't leave contact information lying around. Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)"
MY FOLLOW-UP
I don't want to quibble, but we should be correct in our facts. "The Observatory" IS a peer reviewed journal. That is what (in my field) "refereed" means when I commented on the journal in my first post. This can be easily checked. The suitability of referencing the Observatory article in the Wikipedia Moses piece can best be judged by reading the paper. A link was provided. Following your suggestion, I'll post this to the talk:Moses site to see what comes up.
Ozzie42 ( talk) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi! (Not sure of appropriate netiquette... Are greetings acceptable here?) I would like to recommend changing "... attributed to Moses imply the existence of an historical..." to "... attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical...". Cheers! (Appropriate?) anonymous ( talk) 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Sentence in the opening paragraph: "Other historians maintain that the biographical details and Egyptian background attributed to Moses imply the existence of a historical political and religious leader who was involved in the consolidation of the Hebrew tribes in Canaan towards the end of the Bronze Age." Who are "Other historians..."? This is too open-ended and wage. 81.191.97.147 ( talk) 21:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't sound right IMO. "Moses heard the voice of God telling him to.." or whatever. I am a believer myself, but this is hardly npov/encyclopedic wording. Student7 ( talk) 23:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
See inside http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote#Wortlaut
Actually the ten commandments must have been written in egypt script because at the time the jews (semitic nomad tribe) have gone out of egypt for later attacking Kanaan with king city Hebron like described in the holy book the hebraic script did not exist like much of the later written metal plates of of mormon see book of mormon refering also to egypt culture and language at beginning. Maybe runic script did exist before latin and hebraic script but not much written on durable materials. The runes should come directly from creater of the world and first humans Askre and Embla together with his brothers god Odin who created at the time of his self sacrifice 9 days and 9 nights wounded from his own spear inside the life ( sephirot) and world tree yggdrasil. The apocalypse in german tribes mythology was ragnarök with a world after R. and reborn Odin as Fimbultyr like described inside older poetic and newer Edda.
Eating the apples from godess [[Idun] was not a sin like positive healing witchwork or
incarnations also directly from Odin as Wodan. The 3 rivers of fate inside the paradise are coming from 3
norns. The first ten commandments have been only for the pharons before.
Also the christmas tree is still called the Jule(Odin) tree as yggdrasil tree with still straw goat cars inside in north europe countries refering to god Thor etc. with christmas day at change from winter to summer with jesus christ birthday unknown.
The first monotheism was from Echnaton and Nofretete calling out only Aton as real god in egypt mythology world or maybe from enlighted Zarathustra 1800 b. Chr. teaching also a monotheism and an inmaterial world before the material world like in the egypt mythology. A Symbol for Aton is a circle and old sybol for Odin is also the suncross circle with a + cross inside see also under [[Sól (sun)].
are also 10 historical commandments from DDR system
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Gebote_f%C3%BCr_den_neuen_sozialistischen_Menschen
Out of german 10 gebote article but strange not like normally working picture link
[Datei:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|miniatur|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)]]
[File:Rahlwes 10 Gebote.jpg|thumb|Rahlwes 10 Gebote (auf Deutsch)ADDABLE A TRANSLATION]]
Right is that german wikipedia is not a reliable source like english wikipedia and the proof who is right can be done by comparision in original text what word was used for egypt "slave" house and later in text by everybody also without knowledge of hebraic script. Of course nobody can proove what sript eas used for the ten commandments plates because nobody does have that stone plates but prooved is that the hebraic sript did not exist already at that time and using egypt sript was normally that time like much later reported for the mormon metal plates.
I added the template 'Slavery' and the categories List of slaves and List of opponents of slavery. These additions were removed for being inappropriate. Have I got the wrong Moses? Randy Kryn 21:14 3-5-14
The name of Moses needs to be IPAed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.149.10 ( talk) 09:28, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I believe the final sentence of the "Death" section should be edited to remove the reference to Zechariah 3. Zechariah 3 describes the argument between satan and an angel over Joshua, not Moses. Moses isn't mentioned anywhere in the chapter. I believe the final sentence of the "Death" section should be changed from "See also Jude 1:9 and Zechariah 3." to "See also Jude 1:9" Zechariah 3 describes the argument between satan and an angel over Joshua, not Moses. Moses isn't mentioned anywhere in the chapter. 71.191.6.125 ( talk) 17:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Two references in this section need to be replaced. The first one is now a dead link, but it wasn't particularly helpful to begin with, so....
...should be replaced with:
...which is an authoritative source.
The second one is linked to a copyvio online reprint of an authoritative source, but the original is available online, so...
...should be replaced with:
...which is the legitimate location for the online reprint of this copyrighted text. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Moses was a Hebrew prophet in his lifetime not an Islamic one, he was retroactively labeled an Islamic prophet in the 7th century AD, nearly 2000 years after he is thought to have lived. The book he wrote, the Torah, is a Hebrew prophetic text, not an Islamic one. Moses is also a prophet in the New Testament and the Christian Bible but they are not mentioned in the first paragraph. What if on the section for Muhammad the opening sentence said "Muhammad according to Islam and the Bahai faith and the Unitarian religion was an Arabic law giver and prophet" or how about "Muhammad was an Islamic and Bahai prophet and law giver" how fantastically stupid and ridiculous would that be? This is exactly what is written here. Moses was no more an Islamic prophet than Muhammad was a Bahai prophet. The Islamic religion was invented 2000 years after Moses, just as the Bahai religion was invented 1200 years after Muhammad. They have no relation to each other. Islam retroactively labeled him a Muslim, so what, that makes him a Muslim? It is irrelevant that he is mentioned in the Qur'an. He is mentioned in the Book of Mormon and the New Testament, and the Druze sacred books, and Bahai scripture, and every other Abrahamic spin off religion ever invented. Does that mean all of those texts should be mentioned in the opening paragraph? Moses did not write the Qur'an or the New Testament or Bahai scripture or whatever, he wrote the Torah. He was a Hebrew prophet, and not any other kind of prophet. If I invent a new religion called Newmanism and I say Muhammad and Joseph Smith and Moses and Buddah and John Lennon were all Newmanian prophets, can I write on John Lennon's and Muhammad's page that they were Newmanian prophets? Someone please remove the fallacious statement about the Quran in the opening sentence describing Moses. The Qur'an should be mentioned in a separate section titled "Non-Israelite traditions that regard Moses as a prophet" or simply in its on section on Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newmancbn ( talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you I really appreciate it, the article looks so much better and far less stupid now.
This is a sensitive article, so I'll explain what I'm doing.
I've divided the Biblical Narrative section in two, one part on Moses' role as deliverer of Israel the other on his role as lawgiver. This is simply because it makes it easier to talk about them this way - in the narrative, deliverance and law are mixed together, and for an analytic article it works better to treat them apart, otherwise you keep switching back and forth.
I've drastically cut back the summary of the narrative. This is because we can't mention every little detail, and need to give the broad outline. There's room in the See Also section for links to things like the manna etc.
I want to emphasise that I'm not hostile to religion or to Judaism or the bible, I just want to write an article that explains clearly to people just why Moses is significant in Judaism. He isn't terribly significant in Christianity and Islam, though he's there.
Anyway, if anyone wants to correct or even revert what I've done, go ahead, but please come here and discuss why. PiCo ( talk) 04:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please delete Gjerman, Corey. Moses: The Father I Never Knew. Portland: Biblical Fantasticals, 2007. ISBN 978-1-4241-7113-2. because it is hoax link 209.152.44.30 ( talk) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
xternal evidence has been claimed to exist, confirming Moses� historicity and the essentials of his religious outlook.7 Egyptian sources give a lot of information on a character whose career is contemporary with and entirely similar to that of Moses: the Egyptian dignitary Beya. The name already points to the Semitic Yahwist tradition: Be-Yah means �on/by/in Yah�, as in �by Yah (I swear)� or �in Yah (I trust)�. He also had a long Egyptian name of which �moses� (child of) was a part, as was very common in Egyptian names. So, it is possible that Moshe/Moses was a Hebraized abbreviation of the Egyptian name of this Beya.
This dignitary Beya was a very powerful man at the Egyptian court, and several depictions of him have been preserved. It is striking that he apparently refused to be depicted as bowing before any of the Egyptian gods. He disappears from the Egyptian sources after the unsuccessful palace revolution of the regent princess Tausret against the legitimate young king Siptah. Probably he was part of the conspiracy, and had to flee after its failure. As he is called �the Syrian� in one source, he may have joined hands with the numerous Semitic immigrant community (which may have been held guilty, rightly or wrongly, for the political trouble, just like the Hyksos earlier), and led it into exodus. See Johannes C. De Moor: The Rise of Yahwism, ch.4.6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.162.114.33 ( talk) 23:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
96.229.105.21 ( talk) 21:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Moses was born in Egypt
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "an ark" to "a basket" because Moses was placed in a basket made of papyrus reeds; he was not placed in an "ark" like unto Noah (Genesis). Exodus 2:3 NLT
Mattryantroiano ( talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)I changed the identification from Pharaoh's sister to his daughter and clarified that this identification came from the Midrash, not the Book of Exodus iteself.
If this is in any way incorrect, please feel free to change it. But if you do, I would ask you to please try to separate out facts attributable to the Torah, since this is Scriptural for Christians, and facts attributable to sources outside the Torah. Apollo ( talk) 17:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Authors Graham Phillips [1] and Riaan Booysen [2] have proposed, however, that Moses and Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the heir-to-the-throne of Amenhotep III, must have been the same person. Phillips concludes that the only set of circumstances in Egyptian history that uniquely matches that of Moses is the mysterious disappearance of Crown Prince Tuthmosis. Booysen argues that not only does Manetho link Amenhotep III to the Exodus (Moses as the priest Osarseph had served under Amenhotep who had a sacred scribe called Amenhotep, the son of Papis / Hapu) [3], but that Artapanus’ account of Moses being involved in the first burial of the Apis bull [4],
“and Chenephres (the pharaoh of the Exodus) having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses,”
unambiguously confirms Moses’ identity as Tuthmosis. Crown Prince Tuthmosis, officiating as the High Priest of Ptah in Memphis, had assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull in the Serapeum at Saqqara [5]. Booysen notes that while Manetho furthermore asserts that Moses had sent messengers to the rulers of Jerusalem, summoning them to join him in his war against Egypt, the El Arish Shrine text states that it was the king’s son who had sent these messengers [6] and The Story of Joseph and Asenath records that it was the king’s eldest son, i.e. his heir-to-the-throne, who had sent the messengers to the Israelites [7]. All three accounts record that the Israelites had complied and invaded Egypt, and Moses is therefore linked to Crown Prince Tuthmosis by three independent accounts of the same event.
1. Phillips, Graham (1998). Act of God, Pan Books, ISBN 0 330 35206 7. 2. Booysen, Riaan (2013). Thera and the Exodus, O-Books, ISBN 978 1 78099 449 9. 3. Josephus, Against Apion 1.26 (238-242, 250). 4. E.H. Gifford (1903), Eusebius of Caesarea - Praeparatio Evangelica, 9.27. 5. O’Connor, David and Cline, Eric H. (eds), Amenhotep III – Perspectives On His Reign, ISBN 0-472-08833-5, p. 8. 6. Francis Llewellyn Griffith and Édouard Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias, London: Kegan Paul, Trentch, Trubner & Co., 1887, pp. 71-73. 7. Cook, David and H. F. D. Sparks (ed.), “Joseph and Aseneth (XXIII-XXIV)”, The Apocryphal Old Testament, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 473-503.
QUESTION: Would it be allowable to include this passage under Moses, Historicity?
Saddeleur (
talk) 13:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
After I added a BC tag to indicate that the "7th-century" descriptor of the Kingdom of Judah mentioned in the Historicity section of the article was in BC/BCE not AD/CE, Dougweller left a message on my talk page which brought to my attention the inconsistency of the style that was used in the article, which had used both AD/BC and CE/BCE styles at the same time. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Era style, an article should consistently use only one of these, not both, except in quotations. Editor2020 cited the aforementioned guideline in enforcing this consistency by changing instances of the AD/BC notation to CE/BCE. However, the same guideline also states (as Dougweller mentioned on my talk page) that the established era style should not be changed without good reason and consensus. The first revision of the article used the AD/BC style consistently; a search of the talk page archives reveal no discussion suggesting changing this to the CE/BCE style, and a quick check of revisions of the article through each of the years since its creation point to no definite changeover from AD/BC to CE/BCE (though the latter was introduced into the article at some point). So by this "established era style" clause, the article should use the AD/BC style "unless there are reasons specific to its content" to use the CE/BCE style. I hope that the editors involved in this matter will have been pinged and will participate in this discussion. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 19:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
The article starts by saying that : "Apart from a few scattered references elsewhere in the Jewish scriptures, all that is known about Moses comes from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.[19] The majority of scholars date these four books to the Persian period, 538-332 BCE.[20]"
Where the source is someone - Jean-Louis Ska - saying that this is the majority opinion, but without any proof.
And then:
"The tradition of Moses as a lawgiver and culture hero of the Israelites can be traced to the Deuteronomist source, corresponding to the 7th-century BCE Kingdom of Judah. Moses is a central figure in the Deuteronomist account of the origins of the Israelites, cast in a literary style of elegant flashbacks told by Moses. The mainstream view is that the Deuteronomist relies on earlier material that may date to the United Monarchy, so that the biblical narrative would be based on traditions that can be traced roughly to the 10th century BCE, or about four centuries after the supposed lifetime of Moses."
There is a contradiction. The mainstream is either that the Deuteronomy was written on the 7th century BCE from sources going back to the 10th century or during the Persian period.
Furthermore, the article takes the "documentary hypothesis" - here the existence of a "Deuteronomist source" - as fact, which is not. In the last decades a throng of evidence as accumulated disproving the idea of different documents as sources of the Pentateuch and the idea that the books were written by a single author or group of authors is gaining credibility.
And something else: "Some scholars, like Kenneth Kitchen and Frank Yurko suggest that there may be a historical core beneath the Exodus and Sinai traditions, even if the biblical narrative dramatizes by portraying as a single event what was more likely a gradual process of migration and conquest."
This is not Kenneth Kitchen position at all ! He supports the reliability of the Biblical text and that the events unfolded more or less as described in the Bible. He does not suggest there may be a historical core beneath the traditions, but that the books were written at the time that they say they were written and reflect actual events. The dramatization is just in style and in the narrative forms of the time, not in the events themselves.
93.172.25.208 ( talk) 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
A couple minor suggestions related to the Film and Television section: for balance we should name the actor who played Moses in the 2006 version of The Ten Commandments ( Dougray Scott) - and is it officially considered a remake of the 1956 film? The other change I'd suggest is keeping in mind that not everyone may be familiar with the name or the film, it should perhaps be noted that Mel Brooks' performance in History of the World Part I is comedic in nature (as opposed to all the others listed who performed the role seriously). 68.146.52.234 ( talk) 03:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
History of the World Part I noted as comedy. BobKilcoyne ( talk) 03:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Correct the spelling of 'avoid' in 'living in scattered hamlets and **avoding** the husbandry of pigs' in the Historicity section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.92.71 ( talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose merging Criticism of Moses with Moses creating a single NPOV article on the topic. the Criticism of moses is very small and has only 2 sections besides references
The result of this merge will be a better article and an article that is less likely to give undue weight to any subject about moses. any help, suggestions, or feedback is not only welcome but of course appreciated. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 02:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Strong Support, agree with everything you said. Gonzales John ( talk) 03:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Done BobKilcoyne ( talk) 05:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
the Israelite wander 40 years in the wilderness not desert — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.122.155.35 ( talk) 17:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I wish to change BCE TO BC 2602:304:B168:1F30:707E:71CD:2AD:DC2B ( talk) 04:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Moses as Prince of Egypt was well schooled in Egyptian religion and their sacred Mysteries or Egyptian Mysteries. As a youth, he learned mathematics/ numerology, their writing of hieroglyphics, astronomy/ astrology, and Egyptian history. The Torah is commonly referred to as the Five Books of Moses. Kabbalah teaches that Moses taught the sacred Mysteries to just a few including Aaron and Joshua, and that these mystic Hebrew teachings have been passed on through the centuries to compose the core of the Zohar and Kabbalah. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 ( talk) 15:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The article gave several speculative theories about the etymology of "Moshe" from various sources, and then, as if as an afterthought, attributed the derivation from the Hebrew verb limshot to a "folk etymology in the Jewish tradition"! That's ridiculous and dishonest; the derivation from limshot is not a folk etymology, it's explicit in the text! Yes, there are other theories, and it's proper to cite them, but only after that one, which should be properly attributed to the text itself, not to some tertiary source. I made this change, and someone reverted it saying that "one writes according to relevant sources". Of course one does, but what source could be more relevant than the Biblical text itself? -- GertBySea ( talk) 03:53, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
The Bible IS a reliable source for facts especially when there is no other documentation available. However, let's keep in mind the adage of, "It's the victors who write the history." 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 ( talk) 15:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Moses has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section 1 (Name), paragraph 3, sentence 2, please add the word 'to' after the word 'attempt' in 'an attempt cancel out'. Thank you. Mahde darmo ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC) Mahde darmo ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The Moses article is strangely ignorant of modern genetic research on Moses. I therefore suggest the following section be added somewhere (excerpts from the Y-chromosomal Aaron article). The statistical "health warning" in the last sentence is my own:
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendents of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within Y-chromosomal haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58). The original research dates from 1997, [1] and the most recent molecular phylogenetic update places Aaron's Y-chromosome within subhaplogroup Z18271 (age estimate 2638-3280 years before present using the molecular clock). [2] [3] It follows that Aaron (and hence his brother Moses) lived at some point in the time span 638 BC to 1280 BC (95% confidence interval). Technically, one generation (approximately 30 years) should be added to these dates, as adults rather than newborns were sampled and furthermore the time estimate does not include uncertainty in the DNA mutation rate and may therefore be revised in future research.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)
The New York Times "Week in Review" (May 24, 1998). Excerpts:
"Last year, for example, Michael Hammer, a geneticist at the University of Arizona, showed that a genetic analysis of the Y chromosomes of Jewish men who ritualistically identified themselves as descendants of the Biblical High Priest Aaron and are known as Cohanim showed a high transmission of markers that were less prevalent among Jews who did not identify as Cohanim. This was evidence, Hammer said, of the accuracy of the oral tradition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.154.28 ( talk) 20:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Happy Easter, everyone. For your convenience, here is the explicitly "Moses/Aaron-mentioning" Thomas et al. 1998 Nature summary, which we can cite in addition to the original 1997 paper:
"Origins of Old Testament priests Mark G. Thomas, Karl Skoreckiad Haim Ben-Amid, Tudor Parfitt, Neil Bradman & David B. Goldstein Abstract According to Jewish tradition, following the Exodus from Egypt, males of the tribe of Levi, of which Moses was a member, were assigned special religious responsibilities, and male descendants of Aaron, his brother, were selected to serve as Priests (Cohanim). To the extent that patrilineal inheritance has been followed since sometime around the Temple period (roughly 3,000-2,000 years before present), Y chromosomes of present-day Cohanim and Levites should not only be distinguishable from those of other Jews, but — given the dispersion of the priesthood following the Temple's destruction — they should derive from a common ancestral type no more recently than the Temple period. Here we show that although Levite Y chromosomes are diverse, Cohen chromosomes are homogeneous. We trace the origin of Cohen chromosomes to about 3,000 years before present, early during the Temple period." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.143 ( talk) 16:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
talk:86.154.102.143|talk]]) 17:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
So Isambard and Doug, taking all your moans and groans into account, here is a new version which refers primarily to the 1998 paper (where Moses and Aaron are explicitly mentioned), and I am now omitting my health warning. I would be grateful if you could agree to this version and insert it into the protected Moses article:
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendants of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1] The original research dates from 1997, [2] and updates have been published since, for example by Hammer et al. (2009). [3]
IP86.154.102.143, If Moses and Aaron existed and a group of modern Jews is descended from them, then this could show up as common genes in those modern Jews. But common genes in modern Jews does not necessarily mean that Moses and Aaron existed. Do you agree with this? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 21:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Genetic Dating of Moses The fates of the two descendants of Moses are unrecorded either in the scriptures or in non-scriptural sources, but there are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3 (also called J-P58), with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1] The original research dates from 1997, [2] and updates have been published since, for example by Hammer et al. (2009). [3]
I would be grateful if you could agree to this version and insert it into the protected Moses article. Doug, if you are still uncertain about the genetics - ask an evolutionary geneticist on your Wikpedia panel.
No, I am going to make a different suggestion, because you two (Isambard and Doug) are obviously unwilling to consult another geneticist: Please summarise, in your own words, in three or four sentences what the Thomas et al. 1998 paper says. That way, you are forced to read the paper properly, and I can then see precisely where you are going wrong in your thinking, and can correct you. Then we can all agree on exactly what to add (and what not to add) in the Moses article. Howzat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.172.210 ( talk) 13:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree there should be some statement in the article about genetics showing support of a common ancestor from the timeframe of Moses, supporting the biblical account. Then point to the Aaron page. I'm a casual reader, not a scholar, as most of us readers are. I find it interesting. I'm sure you can put some disclaimers in there if needed. Rkcannon ( talk) 14:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I can see no reason why we should use a tertiary source, let alone one that might have different dates next week, as a source for Moses's dates (and "flourished during c. 1400 BCE-C.1201 BCE"? What does that even mean? Oxfordonline has the relevant definition " Be working or at the height of one’s career during a specified period:" - perhaps it should say "at some time between...."? There must be academic sources for this. Doug Weller talk 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Unfinished business summarised from above (why is Wikipedia so slow in implementing new research?):
The Moses article is strangely ignorant of modern genetic research on Moses. I therefore suggest the following section be added somewhere:
"Genetic Dating of Moses There are many thousand living humans belonging to the Jewish priestly Kohanim caste who claim patrilineal descent from Moses' brother Aaron, according to the Torah and the Old Testament. Since biological brothers share the same Y chromosome, it follows that Aaron's Y-type is also Moses' Y-type and Moses' father's Y-type. Genetic analysis has supported the oral and biblical traditions by revealing that indeed about half of contemporary Jewish Kohanim are closely related within a Y-chromosomal type now known as haplogroup J1c3, with a common ancestor genetically dated to approximately 3000 years ago. [1]"
Moses is a little White washed in this wikipedia article. This is a photo of what the Jewish community in the Middle-East think of Moses, http://imgur.com/9Qufl7k
As I recall, Moses was Middle-Eastern, he wasn't European, or was I wrong? Perhaps I was wrong, it seems he was an Indo-European man of European lineage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuormak ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
"No Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of Exodus-Deuteronomy, nor has any archaeological evidence been discovered in Egypt or the Sinai wilderness to support the story in which he is the central figure." Actually, there are no Biblical sources for Moses either until the 8th century, and then only in the northern kingdom (he's not mentioned in sources from Judah till a century later). The article needs more discussion of the Biblical texts regarding him. PiCo ( talk) 08:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think he was mentioned in a simple creed that was recited at Shiloh or another shrine, and that creed is preserved somewhere in the Tanakh, but I can't find it. Can we add that detail to the page? First recorded mention of Moses? Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This: "Moses may have flourished between c. 1400 BCE-C.1201 BCE,[12] and he likely mediated Yahweh, whom he knew of through his father-in-law Hobab the Kenite, to the Israelites.[13] Despite this, according to some scholarly consensus, Moses is a legendary figure and not a historical person" - has problems. It more or less asserts he was real than sort of denies it. I don't know what "some scholarly consensus" could mean. We shouldn't state one theory as likely, and here's the text it comes from:
"The Midianite or Kenite hypothesis is the best known theory for the origins of Yahweh.4 This theory holds that Yahweh originated in the South, a tradition echoed in Deuteronomy 33.2, Judges 5.4 and Habakkuk 3.3.' South, here, denotes south of Judah, i.e. the Sinai, Paran, Edom, Teman, Seir or Midian. Going back to the late nineteen century CE, the theory holds that Yahweh was mediated to Israel via Moses who learned ofYahweh from his father-in-law Hobab the Kenite, a branch of the Midianites and a priest ofYahweh. This much can be extrapolated from the Hebrew Bible." [8] Doug Weller talk 12:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
You guys take the most controversial questions that divide the human race - like 'was Moses a real person or fiction' - thump your favored scholars books in Appeal to Color of Authority in lieue of any actual evidence - and declare the dispute to be a matter of "overwhelming consensus". Any one who dares disagree or goes by the "wrong sources" is blocked and called a sockpuppet. This is the reputation of intolerant pov pushing wikipedia admins making it an intolerant, polemic, anti-christian backwater, and the reputation it deserves.
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 13:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
::Yes, that is entirely consistent with my understanding of the matter (or more accurately Levi not Judah) so please dont try to twist me into a needless strawman for my use of the word "Christian", thanks.
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 14:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
::::Why would I consider their opinions that differ from mine in practically every respect? Simple 'appeal to authority' where they figured it all out for us but can't show us the actual proof 'cause it would go over our neophyte heads so theproof was conducted behind closed doors by club members so we all just have to accept their conclusion? are you kidding me? Have they actually come up with anything new the world doesn't already know about, or are they merely saying 'our team is right, therefore our team is right and the others don't even count, case closed in full consensus, nothing to see here' i.e. appeal to authority ?
71.246.157.117 (
talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)