This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mount Sinai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are no references given for the bedouin tradition how do we know its true please add refrences
All of the pics on this page are "from Mount Sinai" - how about a picture OF Mount Sinai, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 ( talk) 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's as clear as day Mt. Sinai's in Saudi Arabia and a tremendous amount of new evidence supports it as such as has been disclosed from Jim and Penny Caldwell, the late Ron Wyatt and others over the decades. Wikipedia's way behind the curve in changes in evidence to that effect proving it's far too Warren Commissionish in its overtly stubborn attitude to changes in recent archeological evidence. That Wikipedia completely dismisses new information is ludicrous proving beyond a reasonable doubt it is not a trusted source of information. I take what I read on this Internet Encyclopedia with a grain of salt. The rule hasn't changed that you get what you pay for. Corporate bribes must continue to support this site to their own advantages.-- 67.127.55.7 ( talk) 00:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed "south" because the location of Mount Sinai (or whether there even is such a place) is the subject of a huge debate, and there are those who believe that it is in the northern half of the peninsula. While it is traditionally associated with Santa Katerina, this is highly questionable. Danny
I think we need to be somewhat more pragmatic, Danny. If you look at any major Western atlas, Gebel Musa will be marked as Mount Sinai. The only people who question the name are Jewish scholars with a particular axe to grind, and many of them have long since given up the battle. user:sjc
SJC, your claim is false, as well as insulting. Most historians agree that no one knows for certain where the historical Mount Sinai really is, if it even exists as such. Your claim to the contrary is unsupportable. This point is a question of historical scholarship; please do not insult Jews as having "an axe to grind" simply because their modest claim ("We don't know where it is") happens to be the same as that of the historians ("We don't know where it is"). RK
Well, given that I have probably done more archaeological research in the Sinai Peninsula than most, having spent more than 3 years there, between Ras Abougaloum and Dahab, I think that I am fairly acquainted with the pros and cons. Not all Jewish scholars subscribe to this point of view, only some who subscribe to a particular position. I have a very nice military map of the Sinai which I acquired whilst on secondment to the UN in the Camp David pullout. It is quite clearly marked as Mt Sinai. Go to Eilat and ask directions to Mt Sinai. You will end up at Gebel Musa. BTW, I don't see any particular insult in my assertion; if you can find it, you are probably more than capable of locating the true Mt Sinai without my assistance. There is plenty of NPOV hedging in the article; just because you think something is the truth, it doesn't make other positions incorrect. You may not agree with its collocation with Gebel Musa; most of the world population does. user:sjc
SJC, you are arguing against a point that I am not making. Of course I agree with you that there is a mountain today called "Mount Sinai", and that many maps mark it as such. What kind of person would disagree with this fact? I agree with you. I was talking about a different subject, that is, whether or not this mountain is known for sure to be same mountain that Moses actually climbed on! Historians do not agree on this issue. I don't understand how my comments could be so miscontrued as to be saying anything else. RK
Yes, it seems there are three places involved, whose relation to each other is not yet clearly explained in the article:
I apologise for this whole debacle, since I probably started it off by shunting the content from a Easton's Bible Dictionary page. -- Tarquin 12:53 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)
Too bad I actually had to work today, so I am getting into this debate pretty late in the game. Sjc, I have also spent considerable time in the Sinai. I have climbed Mount Sinai several times, and I have the t-shirts to prove it ;-). I think Slrubenstein answered pretty well, but I want to add to this a bit. Yes, there is a site in the southern Sinai Desert that has been identified as Mount Sinai for about 2,000 years. In other words, the basis of this identification is tradition (and I am in no way disparaging the importance of tradition). The question is, however, whether this tradition corresponds with the historical facts. I do not want to get into a debate here over identifying biblical sites, but even later locations, such as Golgotha are controversial. In fact, there are two Golgothas, two Gethsemanes, and countless locations for the Last Supper. They all appear on maps too, even though it is possible that none of them is right. The Sinai problem is compounded by the very question of whether there really was an Exodus. Most scholars will tell you that there wasn't (or at least that there wasn't one on the scale described in the Bible). Assuming that the Bible itself was written in Palestine during the First Temple Period, the authors themselves may never have seen Mount Sinai or known where it was. For this reason, modern scholars--Jewish, Christian, and Muslim alike--have questioned with authority whether the site known today as Jebel Musa is identical with the mountain intended by the biblical authors. Plenty of other options have been proposed. Since this article is about the biblical Mount Sinai, it is certainly worth inserting that there is a serious question over whether this current Mount Sinai is the same Mount Sinai intended in the Bible or not. I also believe that it is seriously worth inserting that the story of Mount Sinai and the Giving of the Law, is itself challenged by most modern scholars, and not accepted as unquestioned fact as it was by the authors of the Easton Encyclopedia. Finally, this is a debate that will repeat itself time and again. Where is Mount Nebo? Where did the Israelites cross the Red Sea. Later on and in another continent, where is Camelot? You cannot identify legendary sites with certainty. That's why I switched normally to often. Oh, one more thing, some of the biggest Mount Sinai critics are Catholics (de Vaux, Viviano, etc.) Danny
Sjc, your response far above was certainly surprising. Rhetorical too. Yes, 99.999 of historians do not deal with the minutiae of the biblical period in Egypt-Palestine. I am sure that RK was talking about that teeny tiny percentage that does study the history, write on it, etc. As for their ethnic/religious origins, Kenyon would certainly be surprised at being insinuated as Jewish. So would her father, a prominent clergyman in the Church of England (and chronicler of the various codices, including Sinaiticus). So would de Vaux--in fact, he would probably have given up his monkhood if it leaked out. Today, Israel/Palestine/Sinai/Jordan is home to many of the most important archeological investigations taking place anywhere. Investigative teams represent top universities around the world. Insinuating that they are predominantly Jewish or suggesting that they have a "faith"-based agenda is both ridiculous and offensive. Nor can you justify a sweeping rejection of all Israeli archeologists, regardless of what you think about their politics. In many instances, it is their work that has shattered the basic myths that shaped our perception of the Bible and the period in which it was created. In other words, it ain't all BAR (Biblical Archeology Review), and even Shanks and Co. shouldn’t be discounted off hand. As for people blowing people up, that is so far removed from the topic of this discussion that it is hardly worth comment.
Now to the issue itself. I very much disagree with your changes though I think I can understand why you made them. Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially it is a map thing. The map says Mount Sinai, so this is Mount Sinai. Describe it as such. Go on to say that the biblical Mount Sinai is legendary.
I see a Wikipedia article on "Mount Sinai" as something more than a brief description of some pinprick on an Egyptian military map (which I am sure says Jebel Musa anyway) or some exotic hike in the Lonely Traveler's Guide to Egypt. After all, the legend of Mount Sinai is, for better or for worse, an intrinsic part of Western civilization--the site where God purportedly gave the Ten Commandments: a basis of our morality.. Do I believe it happened? No. Nor do I believe in the story of the Resurrection, but I do believe that those two legendary events had a lasting impact on our society and culture.
The fact is that some 1800 years ago, a group of people felt so attached to the story that they decided to set up a monastery at what they believed was the site. Why did they believe it? Who knows? Possibly because it was the tallest mountain in the general region, or because it fit some of the descriptions given in the Bible, or because there was a tradition among the local Bedouin that this was a holy site. Helena did more or less the same thing in Jerusalem about 100 years later, when she wandered around, picking out sites connected with the Crucifixion. Modern scholars challenge her sites, regardless of how many processions march down the Via Dolorosa every Friday (and the scholars aren’t just Jews either: note the Garden Tomb--okay, it's 19th century and wrong, but it does make more sense than the Holy Sepulchre). She was dealing with events that took place in a city that was almost continually occupied since that time some 300 years earlier. Meanwhile, our intrepid monks in the Sinai were looking for a site from some 1500 years earlier in an uninhabited wilderness (assuming that the Exodus refers to some event in c. 1250 BCE at the very latest). They picked a place, called it Mount Sinai, and the name stuck, sort of (the Bedouin call it Jebel Musa, not Sinai, and that is how it is known in Egypt--and I too have been there). It was especially popular with pilgrims/tourists, who would pay good money to see the mountain and even the Burning Bush (which appears on tourist maps too, btw—I sure hope we aren’t going to say in the relevant article that it is the Burning Bush).
The question that (the handful of interested) scholars ask(s) today is whether those early monks and recluses were correct in assuming that this mountain was the same as the one described by the authors of the Book of Exodus, or whether those authors intended another mountain, or whether they intended any real geographical location at all. See my comments above for that.
Why is this important? As someone who has participated in archeological surveys of the Sinai Peninsula, you know that there is absolutely no evidence of a mass exodus of Semitic tribesmen from Egypt to Palestine. Nevertheless, this event is intrinsic to our culture. It is the birth of Judaism and, by extension, of Christianity and Islam. In fact, the Last Supper was a seder meal celebrating this very event, while Christ is often compared to the Paschal Lamb. It is no coincidence that Easter coincides with Passover, since both are spring festivals of rebirth. It would seem important to me to understand what really happened, if anything at all. Within the context of Mount Sinai, a key event in the Exodus story, maybe we are looking in the wrong place.
I therefore suggest that the article be rewritten, and I would be happy to cooperate with you on this. We both agree that the Easton material is crap. My suggested outline is:
Please let me know if you agree. Danny
Hi, I'm glad we agree on most points, though I wonder whether 5 is the most uselful. I certainly agree about the crackpots--in fact, I've run into Vendyl Jones professionally a couple of times myself (to name just one). As I see it, this article is an ideal place to introduce the basic concepts of biblical archeology and the distinction between fact and fancy when tackling the biblical epic from a historical perspective. (In a previous comment, I actually drew the same comparison with Camelot that you do.) I agree with Slr that most people identify Mount Sinai with the one mentioned in the Book of Exodus, rather than the tourist site, which is why point 2 is so important. 3 is why this is considered Mount Sinai, other reasonable candidates, and reasons for and against, and 4 is about a fascinating ancient monastery that was an important player in biblical scholarship (Codex Sinaiticus) and the rise of monasticism. My suggestion is that we revert to the original article you wrote, and I will add the relevant material. Once again, the biblical Mount Sinai came first. This site's importance today is that it was identified (albeit a long time ago) with that site. Danny
Are there any objections to moving this to Mount Sinai? Almost all the links there refer to this page. -- Jia ng 16:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Judaism further teaches that the exact location of the original Mount Sinai was deliberately kept secret, so that no one would be tempted to erect a shrine at the tomb of Moses (itself an unknown location near in the territory of Moab.)"
what the connection between tomb of Moses and mt Sinai?
and by the way, by searching the internet, jebel Musa is not favored much as Mt Sinai... but the article clears that point more or less/ -- Urij 12:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since no one answers my question I changed the article to my best opinion. It is a primary edit only and if no one will delete it I will add the Eliya encounter with God at mt Sinai and the mention in the new Testement.-- Urij 06:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mount Sinai is actually at these coordinates: Besides the biblical image where moses gets the laws of god from the burning bush is mount horeb. Basically, he obtains the laws and shows them to the human race at mount horeb. However, he ascended into mount sinai to obtain those laws. 28°35'44.48"N 35°20'3.63"E is mount sinai, he was taken into a ufo or simply traveled back to retrieve the rest of the egyptian peoples and 'descended' to mount horeb or the first mount sinai where a large population of the egyptian race (2 million) were still camping. There were 2 mount sinais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv8KkihLOA
This is the real evidence, when viewing this documentary it was chockingly clear that these guys have seen and taped all the necessary evidence.
I really dont believe in the christian God but everything mentioned about the Exodus (Mozes leads the slave out of Egypt) seems to be reality. The exodus is the EXIT out of Egypt, after that they go the mount Sinai so it cant be in Egypt. Just look and youll be amazed...they see everything on their route to mount Sinai: bitter water, the palmtrees and watersources, temple, the cave, the burialplace of the golden lamb, and around this mountain the gouvernement has installed some fences, some gards and the only warning written also in English that when entering the area they have the right to kill you...isnt this strange? why would they gard this mountain? Youll see why...they go at night and see the truth.
Hopefully some will watch it, others will never know. Theres more going on in history that they dont tell.. example: the piramide of Gizeth is build in 20years. if so, this would mean they placed 1 stone of 2 ton in 2 minutes...without cement, so good you cant even put a knives blade in between the rocks...come on, how is this possible, they even admit they cant build it today...
also the mayans are insteresting, their calender, their high knowledge of astronomie, just search.
Greetz
I rewrote and reorganized the article, and I added other candiates for the Biblical Mt Sinai.-- Tomtom9041 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Created its own article and moved pertinent pertinents to it. Its obviuos that there are those who are conflicted and refuse to see that others do not agree that the Biblical Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai are coterminus.-- Tomtom9041 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be almost impossible to update this stub!!! Why should Wikipedia list it as a stub?? I'll try to update this anyway-- Sean gorter {mind a chat?} e@ CVU( U T C)
The article notes that the Mosque and Chapel are not open to the public. Whether by design or accident, I was at the top of the hill lat week (Sat 19th Nov) and the Mosque IS open.....
I am a little thick, it seems. I have now managed to embed the most giant image of the chapel and made a mess of the article. Sorry :o( Could someone tell me how to put in a nice little image, with a caption, that does not make a hideous mess! Thanks and sorry. I could always send the image (and one of the inside of the Mosque) to someone if they could do it more easily? escort78 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This section should be rewritten as a very concise version of the main article Biblical Mount Sinai. The enthusiastic Georgian insertion needs toning down in line with historical facts .-- Wetman ( talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
98.64.10.49 ( talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There is disagreement if the steps located behind the St Katherine's Monastery are called "The Steps of Penitence". According to the Lonely Planet as well as a guide who lives in the area that showed me where the steps are started (I hiked them Dec 24, 2008), they are called "The Steps of Repentance". Legend has it that as punishment for worshipping another god while Moses was away receiving the Ten Commandments, a few people built 3000 steps up to Elijah's Basin before the 750 final steps to the top of the mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Why2jjj ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How can this mountain be simultaneously the highest peak in Egypt, and surrounded by higher peaks in the same mountain range? This is inconsistent.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Exodus 13:21, the Israelites were led by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This sounds to me like a description of a volcanic eruption. Exodus 19, beginning at v. 16, also sounds like volcanic activity. If that is taken at face value, modern Mt. Sinai would seem not to be the mountain described in scripture since it apparently is not a volcano. Has anyone mapped the geology of the region and located a volcano that might date the Exodus? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are other names to Mount Sinai that should be recognized, researched, and placed on the main article. These include:
Mt. Toor Koh-e-Toor Jabal-e-Toor
Such references are prominent amongst Muslims and Islamic texts. Are we not to recognize them?
Furthermore, the word toor in an of itself could be translated to mean "big mountain" or "big ox." Something else to take into consideration.
Example:
Here's a group of muslims praying at Koh-e-Toor, Egypt. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BELD3czPTgQ They are praying at Mt. Sinai, the surrounding topology (and a fair mind) should confirm that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a volcanic mountain named Toor elsewhere in the region...
Any non-bigoted thoughts?
192.12.83.106 ( talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Further references for Koh-e-Toor, at least, can be found through out the paragraph I compiled.:
Islamic culture suggests an alternative name to Mount Sinai, that being Koh-e-Toor or al-Toor (Mountain of Toor). [1] [2] [3] Furthermore a Scotish individual by the name of Thomas Stratton compared ancient Hebrew languages and Gaelic languages to find that a translation of "toor" in either language produces "a mount." [4]
192.12.83.106 ( talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Note 4 is from a fundamentalist Christian organization that is not authoritative on matters of history and geography. Note 5 is from the discredited pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt. I recommend that they be removed and replaced with better sources. I will do so soon unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. Wilson44691 ( talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hashem el-Tarif has been weighed against real information in the ancient texts and appears to be the most valid Mt. Sinai (ten commandments, Moses, etc.)without any real contest. Other arguments are agenda based and not fact based. Please see the Naked Archeologist from the History channel to get further perspective. I am not the one to input this information as I suck at citing information. It matters little whether anyone really believes this though. Most do not seek the truth as I do and as such will not care either way. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.247.224 ( talk) 05:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I recently made a few changes that another editor picked a bone with. Here's my reasoning:
Finally, "not helpful" is not a real reason and if anything wasn't "grammatical" you have to point it out. I can't see any grammatical problems. Str1977 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I make no claim about whether any of this is correct; I'm simply putting it here for others to access.
LAURENT GUYÉNOT • JULY 8, 2019
http://www.unz.com/article/the-arabian-cradle-of-zion/
Author: Joel Richardson Publisher: [United States] : Winepress, [2019] ©2019
isbn=1949729044 deisenbe ( talk) 15:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This should be at Biblical Mount Sinai, I now realize. deisenbe ( talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) samee converse 07:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
– Wikipedia should not be implying a view on whether Mount Moses is correctly named “Mount Sinai”. The location of Mount Sinai is one of the most disputed topics in Biblical Geography (e.g. “...far more difficult than any other problem of Palestinian Biblical Topography” [1]; “Few OT geographical questions have been more vigorously debated than the location of Mt. Sinai” [2]; “...a topic of serious disagreement among scholars” [3]). Although Christian tradition places Sinai at Mount Moses, we deal appropriately with an equivalent issue at Calvary. Also Google maps calls it Jebel Musa (Mount Moses). Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mount Sinai (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
If Mt. Catherine is the highest peak in Egypt, how can it be surrounded by higher peaks? 67.44.208.64 ( talk) 20:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this article is a good candidate for combining with the other Mt.Sinai article. It seems there is a lot of overlap between the two. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycarchitecture212 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mount Sinai article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are no references given for the bedouin tradition how do we know its true please add refrences
All of the pics on this page are "from Mount Sinai" - how about a picture OF Mount Sinai, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.177.44 ( talk) 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It's as clear as day Mt. Sinai's in Saudi Arabia and a tremendous amount of new evidence supports it as such as has been disclosed from Jim and Penny Caldwell, the late Ron Wyatt and others over the decades. Wikipedia's way behind the curve in changes in evidence to that effect proving it's far too Warren Commissionish in its overtly stubborn attitude to changes in recent archeological evidence. That Wikipedia completely dismisses new information is ludicrous proving beyond a reasonable doubt it is not a trusted source of information. I take what I read on this Internet Encyclopedia with a grain of salt. The rule hasn't changed that you get what you pay for. Corporate bribes must continue to support this site to their own advantages.-- 67.127.55.7 ( talk) 00:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed "south" because the location of Mount Sinai (or whether there even is such a place) is the subject of a huge debate, and there are those who believe that it is in the northern half of the peninsula. While it is traditionally associated with Santa Katerina, this is highly questionable. Danny
I think we need to be somewhat more pragmatic, Danny. If you look at any major Western atlas, Gebel Musa will be marked as Mount Sinai. The only people who question the name are Jewish scholars with a particular axe to grind, and many of them have long since given up the battle. user:sjc
SJC, your claim is false, as well as insulting. Most historians agree that no one knows for certain where the historical Mount Sinai really is, if it even exists as such. Your claim to the contrary is unsupportable. This point is a question of historical scholarship; please do not insult Jews as having "an axe to grind" simply because their modest claim ("We don't know where it is") happens to be the same as that of the historians ("We don't know where it is"). RK
Well, given that I have probably done more archaeological research in the Sinai Peninsula than most, having spent more than 3 years there, between Ras Abougaloum and Dahab, I think that I am fairly acquainted with the pros and cons. Not all Jewish scholars subscribe to this point of view, only some who subscribe to a particular position. I have a very nice military map of the Sinai which I acquired whilst on secondment to the UN in the Camp David pullout. It is quite clearly marked as Mt Sinai. Go to Eilat and ask directions to Mt Sinai. You will end up at Gebel Musa. BTW, I don't see any particular insult in my assertion; if you can find it, you are probably more than capable of locating the true Mt Sinai without my assistance. There is plenty of NPOV hedging in the article; just because you think something is the truth, it doesn't make other positions incorrect. You may not agree with its collocation with Gebel Musa; most of the world population does. user:sjc
SJC, you are arguing against a point that I am not making. Of course I agree with you that there is a mountain today called "Mount Sinai", and that many maps mark it as such. What kind of person would disagree with this fact? I agree with you. I was talking about a different subject, that is, whether or not this mountain is known for sure to be same mountain that Moses actually climbed on! Historians do not agree on this issue. I don't understand how my comments could be so miscontrued as to be saying anything else. RK
Yes, it seems there are three places involved, whose relation to each other is not yet clearly explained in the article:
I apologise for this whole debacle, since I probably started it off by shunting the content from a Easton's Bible Dictionary page. -- Tarquin 12:53 Aug 8, 2002 (PDT)
Too bad I actually had to work today, so I am getting into this debate pretty late in the game. Sjc, I have also spent considerable time in the Sinai. I have climbed Mount Sinai several times, and I have the t-shirts to prove it ;-). I think Slrubenstein answered pretty well, but I want to add to this a bit. Yes, there is a site in the southern Sinai Desert that has been identified as Mount Sinai for about 2,000 years. In other words, the basis of this identification is tradition (and I am in no way disparaging the importance of tradition). The question is, however, whether this tradition corresponds with the historical facts. I do not want to get into a debate here over identifying biblical sites, but even later locations, such as Golgotha are controversial. In fact, there are two Golgothas, two Gethsemanes, and countless locations for the Last Supper. They all appear on maps too, even though it is possible that none of them is right. The Sinai problem is compounded by the very question of whether there really was an Exodus. Most scholars will tell you that there wasn't (or at least that there wasn't one on the scale described in the Bible). Assuming that the Bible itself was written in Palestine during the First Temple Period, the authors themselves may never have seen Mount Sinai or known where it was. For this reason, modern scholars--Jewish, Christian, and Muslim alike--have questioned with authority whether the site known today as Jebel Musa is identical with the mountain intended by the biblical authors. Plenty of other options have been proposed. Since this article is about the biblical Mount Sinai, it is certainly worth inserting that there is a serious question over whether this current Mount Sinai is the same Mount Sinai intended in the Bible or not. I also believe that it is seriously worth inserting that the story of Mount Sinai and the Giving of the Law, is itself challenged by most modern scholars, and not accepted as unquestioned fact as it was by the authors of the Easton Encyclopedia. Finally, this is a debate that will repeat itself time and again. Where is Mount Nebo? Where did the Israelites cross the Red Sea. Later on and in another continent, where is Camelot? You cannot identify legendary sites with certainty. That's why I switched normally to often. Oh, one more thing, some of the biggest Mount Sinai critics are Catholics (de Vaux, Viviano, etc.) Danny
Sjc, your response far above was certainly surprising. Rhetorical too. Yes, 99.999 of historians do not deal with the minutiae of the biblical period in Egypt-Palestine. I am sure that RK was talking about that teeny tiny percentage that does study the history, write on it, etc. As for their ethnic/religious origins, Kenyon would certainly be surprised at being insinuated as Jewish. So would her father, a prominent clergyman in the Church of England (and chronicler of the various codices, including Sinaiticus). So would de Vaux--in fact, he would probably have given up his monkhood if it leaked out. Today, Israel/Palestine/Sinai/Jordan is home to many of the most important archeological investigations taking place anywhere. Investigative teams represent top universities around the world. Insinuating that they are predominantly Jewish or suggesting that they have a "faith"-based agenda is both ridiculous and offensive. Nor can you justify a sweeping rejection of all Israeli archeologists, regardless of what you think about their politics. In many instances, it is their work that has shattered the basic myths that shaped our perception of the Bible and the period in which it was created. In other words, it ain't all BAR (Biblical Archeology Review), and even Shanks and Co. shouldn’t be discounted off hand. As for people blowing people up, that is so far removed from the topic of this discussion that it is hardly worth comment.
Now to the issue itself. I very much disagree with your changes though I think I can understand why you made them. Correct me if I'm wrong but essentially it is a map thing. The map says Mount Sinai, so this is Mount Sinai. Describe it as such. Go on to say that the biblical Mount Sinai is legendary.
I see a Wikipedia article on "Mount Sinai" as something more than a brief description of some pinprick on an Egyptian military map (which I am sure says Jebel Musa anyway) or some exotic hike in the Lonely Traveler's Guide to Egypt. After all, the legend of Mount Sinai is, for better or for worse, an intrinsic part of Western civilization--the site where God purportedly gave the Ten Commandments: a basis of our morality.. Do I believe it happened? No. Nor do I believe in the story of the Resurrection, but I do believe that those two legendary events had a lasting impact on our society and culture.
The fact is that some 1800 years ago, a group of people felt so attached to the story that they decided to set up a monastery at what they believed was the site. Why did they believe it? Who knows? Possibly because it was the tallest mountain in the general region, or because it fit some of the descriptions given in the Bible, or because there was a tradition among the local Bedouin that this was a holy site. Helena did more or less the same thing in Jerusalem about 100 years later, when she wandered around, picking out sites connected with the Crucifixion. Modern scholars challenge her sites, regardless of how many processions march down the Via Dolorosa every Friday (and the scholars aren’t just Jews either: note the Garden Tomb--okay, it's 19th century and wrong, but it does make more sense than the Holy Sepulchre). She was dealing with events that took place in a city that was almost continually occupied since that time some 300 years earlier. Meanwhile, our intrepid monks in the Sinai were looking for a site from some 1500 years earlier in an uninhabited wilderness (assuming that the Exodus refers to some event in c. 1250 BCE at the very latest). They picked a place, called it Mount Sinai, and the name stuck, sort of (the Bedouin call it Jebel Musa, not Sinai, and that is how it is known in Egypt--and I too have been there). It was especially popular with pilgrims/tourists, who would pay good money to see the mountain and even the Burning Bush (which appears on tourist maps too, btw—I sure hope we aren’t going to say in the relevant article that it is the Burning Bush).
The question that (the handful of interested) scholars ask(s) today is whether those early monks and recluses were correct in assuming that this mountain was the same as the one described by the authors of the Book of Exodus, or whether those authors intended another mountain, or whether they intended any real geographical location at all. See my comments above for that.
Why is this important? As someone who has participated in archeological surveys of the Sinai Peninsula, you know that there is absolutely no evidence of a mass exodus of Semitic tribesmen from Egypt to Palestine. Nevertheless, this event is intrinsic to our culture. It is the birth of Judaism and, by extension, of Christianity and Islam. In fact, the Last Supper was a seder meal celebrating this very event, while Christ is often compared to the Paschal Lamb. It is no coincidence that Easter coincides with Passover, since both are spring festivals of rebirth. It would seem important to me to understand what really happened, if anything at all. Within the context of Mount Sinai, a key event in the Exodus story, maybe we are looking in the wrong place.
I therefore suggest that the article be rewritten, and I would be happy to cooperate with you on this. We both agree that the Easton material is crap. My suggested outline is:
Please let me know if you agree. Danny
Hi, I'm glad we agree on most points, though I wonder whether 5 is the most uselful. I certainly agree about the crackpots--in fact, I've run into Vendyl Jones professionally a couple of times myself (to name just one). As I see it, this article is an ideal place to introduce the basic concepts of biblical archeology and the distinction between fact and fancy when tackling the biblical epic from a historical perspective. (In a previous comment, I actually drew the same comparison with Camelot that you do.) I agree with Slr that most people identify Mount Sinai with the one mentioned in the Book of Exodus, rather than the tourist site, which is why point 2 is so important. 3 is why this is considered Mount Sinai, other reasonable candidates, and reasons for and against, and 4 is about a fascinating ancient monastery that was an important player in biblical scholarship (Codex Sinaiticus) and the rise of monasticism. My suggestion is that we revert to the original article you wrote, and I will add the relevant material. Once again, the biblical Mount Sinai came first. This site's importance today is that it was identified (albeit a long time ago) with that site. Danny
Are there any objections to moving this to Mount Sinai? Almost all the links there refer to this page. -- Jia ng 16:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Judaism further teaches that the exact location of the original Mount Sinai was deliberately kept secret, so that no one would be tempted to erect a shrine at the tomb of Moses (itself an unknown location near in the territory of Moab.)"
what the connection between tomb of Moses and mt Sinai?
and by the way, by searching the internet, jebel Musa is not favored much as Mt Sinai... but the article clears that point more or less/ -- Urij 12:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since no one answers my question I changed the article to my best opinion. It is a primary edit only and if no one will delete it I will add the Eliya encounter with God at mt Sinai and the mention in the new Testement.-- Urij 06:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Mount Sinai is actually at these coordinates: Besides the biblical image where moses gets the laws of god from the burning bush is mount horeb. Basically, he obtains the laws and shows them to the human race at mount horeb. However, he ascended into mount sinai to obtain those laws. 28°35'44.48"N 35°20'3.63"E is mount sinai, he was taken into a ufo or simply traveled back to retrieve the rest of the egyptian peoples and 'descended' to mount horeb or the first mount sinai where a large population of the egyptian race (2 million) were still camping. There were 2 mount sinais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd777 ( talk • contribs) 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSv8KkihLOA
This is the real evidence, when viewing this documentary it was chockingly clear that these guys have seen and taped all the necessary evidence.
I really dont believe in the christian God but everything mentioned about the Exodus (Mozes leads the slave out of Egypt) seems to be reality. The exodus is the EXIT out of Egypt, after that they go the mount Sinai so it cant be in Egypt. Just look and youll be amazed...they see everything on their route to mount Sinai: bitter water, the palmtrees and watersources, temple, the cave, the burialplace of the golden lamb, and around this mountain the gouvernement has installed some fences, some gards and the only warning written also in English that when entering the area they have the right to kill you...isnt this strange? why would they gard this mountain? Youll see why...they go at night and see the truth.
Hopefully some will watch it, others will never know. Theres more going on in history that they dont tell.. example: the piramide of Gizeth is build in 20years. if so, this would mean they placed 1 stone of 2 ton in 2 minutes...without cement, so good you cant even put a knives blade in between the rocks...come on, how is this possible, they even admit they cant build it today...
also the mayans are insteresting, their calender, their high knowledge of astronomie, just search.
Greetz
I rewrote and reorganized the article, and I added other candiates for the Biblical Mt Sinai.-- Tomtom9041 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Created its own article and moved pertinent pertinents to it. Its obviuos that there are those who are conflicted and refuse to see that others do not agree that the Biblical Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai are coterminus.-- Tomtom9041 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It would be almost impossible to update this stub!!! Why should Wikipedia list it as a stub?? I'll try to update this anyway-- Sean gorter {mind a chat?} e@ CVU( U T C)
The article notes that the Mosque and Chapel are not open to the public. Whether by design or accident, I was at the top of the hill lat week (Sat 19th Nov) and the Mosque IS open.....
I am a little thick, it seems. I have now managed to embed the most giant image of the chapel and made a mess of the article. Sorry :o( Could someone tell me how to put in a nice little image, with a caption, that does not make a hideous mess! Thanks and sorry. I could always send the image (and one of the inside of the Mosque) to someone if they could do it more easily? escort78 12:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
This section should be rewritten as a very concise version of the main article Biblical Mount Sinai. The enthusiastic Georgian insertion needs toning down in line with historical facts .-- Wetman ( talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
{{geodata-check}}
The coordinates need the following fixes:
98.64.10.49 ( talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There is disagreement if the steps located behind the St Katherine's Monastery are called "The Steps of Penitence". According to the Lonely Planet as well as a guide who lives in the area that showed me where the steps are started (I hiked them Dec 24, 2008), they are called "The Steps of Repentance". Legend has it that as punishment for worshipping another god while Moses was away receiving the Ten Commandments, a few people built 3000 steps up to Elijah's Basin before the 750 final steps to the top of the mountain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Why2jjj ( talk • contribs) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
How can this mountain be simultaneously the highest peak in Egypt, and surrounded by higher peaks in the same mountain range? This is inconsistent.-- Filll ( talk | wpc) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
According to Exodus 13:21, the Israelites were led by a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. This sounds to me like a description of a volcanic eruption. Exodus 19, beginning at v. 16, also sounds like volcanic activity. If that is taken at face value, modern Mt. Sinai would seem not to be the mountain described in scripture since it apparently is not a volcano. Has anyone mapped the geology of the region and located a volcano that might date the Exodus? Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 14:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are other names to Mount Sinai that should be recognized, researched, and placed on the main article. These include:
Mt. Toor Koh-e-Toor Jabal-e-Toor
Such references are prominent amongst Muslims and Islamic texts. Are we not to recognize them?
Furthermore, the word toor in an of itself could be translated to mean "big mountain" or "big ox." Something else to take into consideration.
Example:
Here's a group of muslims praying at Koh-e-Toor, Egypt. www.youtube.com/watch?v=BELD3czPTgQ They are praying at Mt. Sinai, the surrounding topology (and a fair mind) should confirm that.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a volcanic mountain named Toor elsewhere in the region...
Any non-bigoted thoughts?
192.12.83.106 ( talk) 06:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Further references for Koh-e-Toor, at least, can be found through out the paragraph I compiled.:
Islamic culture suggests an alternative name to Mount Sinai, that being Koh-e-Toor or al-Toor (Mountain of Toor). [1] [2] [3] Furthermore a Scotish individual by the name of Thomas Stratton compared ancient Hebrew languages and Gaelic languages to find that a translation of "toor" in either language produces "a mount." [4]
192.12.83.106 ( talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
References
Note 4 is from a fundamentalist Christian organization that is not authoritative on matters of history and geography. Note 5 is from the discredited pseudoarchaeologist Ron Wyatt. I recommend that they be removed and replaced with better sources. I will do so soon unless there are good reasons to do otherwise. Wilson44691 ( talk) 17:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hashem el-Tarif has been weighed against real information in the ancient texts and appears to be the most valid Mt. Sinai (ten commandments, Moses, etc.)without any real contest. Other arguments are agenda based and not fact based. Please see the Naked Archeologist from the History channel to get further perspective. I am not the one to input this information as I suck at citing information. It matters little whether anyone really believes this though. Most do not seek the truth as I do and as such will not care either way. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.247.224 ( talk) 05:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I recently made a few changes that another editor picked a bone with. Here's my reasoning:
Finally, "not helpful" is not a real reason and if anything wasn't "grammatical" you have to point it out. I can't see any grammatical problems. Str1977 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I make no claim about whether any of this is correct; I'm simply putting it here for others to access.
LAURENT GUYÉNOT • JULY 8, 2019
http://www.unz.com/article/the-arabian-cradle-of-zion/
Author: Joel Richardson Publisher: [United States] : Winepress, [2019] ©2019
isbn=1949729044 deisenbe ( talk) 15:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
This should be at Biblical Mount Sinai, I now realize. deisenbe ( talk) 15:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) samee converse 07:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
– Wikipedia should not be implying a view on whether Mount Moses is correctly named “Mount Sinai”. The location of Mount Sinai is one of the most disputed topics in Biblical Geography (e.g. “...far more difficult than any other problem of Palestinian Biblical Topography” [1]; “Few OT geographical questions have been more vigorously debated than the location of Mt. Sinai” [2]; “...a topic of serious disagreement among scholars” [3]). Although Christian tradition places Sinai at Mount Moses, we deal appropriately with an equivalent issue at Calvary. Also Google maps calls it Jebel Musa (Mount Moses). Onceinawhile ( talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mount Sinai (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
If Mt. Catherine is the highest peak in Egypt, how can it be surrounded by higher peaks? 67.44.208.64 ( talk) 20:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I think this article is a good candidate for combining with the other Mt.Sinai article. It seems there is a lot of overlap between the two. What do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nycarchitecture212 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)