| Revision as of 04:52, 2 May 2019 editFajkfnjsak (talk | contribs)329 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:47, 7 January 2025 edit undoErmenrich (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers22,390 editsm Reverted edits by 108.49.16.211 (talk) to last version by CewbotTag: Rollback |
| (680 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{vital article|topic=Philosophy|level=5|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts|class=B| importance= high}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Christianity |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism| class= B | importance= high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Judaism| importance= high }} |
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East|class=b|importance=}} |
|
{{WikiProject Religious texts| importance= high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Egypt |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ancient Near East |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Books }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Egypt |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Folklore |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mythology |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anthropology|oral-tradition=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|counter = 1 |
|
|counter = 3 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|algo = old(60d) |
| Line 18: |
Line 24: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Using John J. Collins as a source for history == |
|
== What are we doing with this: Mass Exodus. Redirect, merge or separate article? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The instance in which a large group of people, animals, or objects attempt to leave, evacutate or move to a different location. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Some famous exodus include the jewish exodus from Egypt to the promised lands. |
|
|
|
|
|
*Refugees ussally partake in exodus from troubled lands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is ] really an expert in history? On his Misplaced Pages page it appears he’s not a historian or an archeologist. |
|
|
I tried looking this guy up and couldn’t find any websites saying he’s an expert in history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention I can’t find any indication that his book was written with the help of someone who is an expert in history. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can’t we just replace him with a better source that is written by someone who actually has knowledge on history?] (]) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
It’s not an exodus unless it’s a mass exodus. |
|
|
|
:John J Collins does not have to be an expert in history to summary the ] of scholars working on the Exodus.--] (]) 18:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The source only said there is a consensus it’s a ]. It didn’t say “there is a consensus that it does not describe historical events.” Or at least it doesn’t directly say that. |
|
Redirect, merdge or seperate article? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::The definition of myth is merely a traditional story that explains things.] (]) 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Book of Exodus == |
|
== Merger == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I may have missed this discussion in the past, but why do we have separate articles for ] and ]? The Exodus only exists in the Bible, not in real history, so what is actually the difference? Should we not merge them? ] (]) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
Is there a reason why the name of this article does not start with "Book of"? All the other articles in the Old Testament category start that way, except for four of the five books of the Torah. If there are no objections, I'll have it changed. |
|
|
|
:The Exodus narrative covers four books, not one: "namely Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy". ] (]) 16:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Leave as is == |
|
== Banner in "summary" section == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is currently a banner at the beginning of the "summary" section that says "This section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view." It seems to me that a section giving a summary of the Book of Exodus is not the right place for critical analysis. A "summary" is supposed to be just as the word implies, a shortened synopsis of the book itself. The place for critical analysis should be in other sections of the article, otherwise the section would be more than just a summary. If the section is to include analysis, then it should be titled something other than "summary". I would like to remove the banner, but I wanted to see what other editors think before doing so. ] (]) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
Because of its controversy there is a lot of scope for expanding it, so I believe it should not be merged. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the summary section a bit more closely, I will say that it does need some work and does contain some subtle editorializing that would likely not be obvious to someone who has not read Exodus. But that is an issue irrelevant to the banner and whether or not the section should contain critique and analysis.] (]) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
== Woodcuts == |
|
|
|
:I agree.--] (]) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::I also agree, especially since we have another article on ] which discusses the text. It is referenced in the hatnote. I also edited the first three paragraphs of the summary to hew more closely to the text.--] (]) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have removed the banner. ] (]) 23:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Revert == |
|
{{u|Epiphyllumlover}}, you seem to be on a general woodcut-spree, and in this article you are definitely over-doing it. Please reconsider. ] (]) 11:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let me finish first, okay? They are beautiful woodcuts. Too bad the articles aren't longer for them.--] (]) 11:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Moderation. This article is not a ] gallery. But consider making a woodcut-galley in that article. ] (]) 11:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{tqred|The Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Orthodox Jewish, and Evangelical scholars, who are the majority of modern scholars, generally regard it as true}}—not true: most Catholic scholars and many Eastern Orthodox scholars find it unhistorical (the way it is described in the Bible). Generally speaking, there is no pressure for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars to obey traditional church dogmas, rather than the academic consensus based upon evidence. For them there is the realm of faith, which is not based upon empirical evidence, and the realm of historical knowledge, which is based upon empirical evidence. Most of them aren't fideists, so they agree with the consensus from mainstream archaeology. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible scholars and archaeologists are sophisticated believers, who find that taking the Bible at face value is childish. They are always prepared to interpret as metaphorical the already debunked parts of the Bible. ] (]) 08:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Edit war == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Konrad Schmid edit == |
|
{{ping|Fajkfnjsak}} Are you Fretheim? Then what do you change the abstract of what Fretheim stated? Do you think that the ]d ] does not ]erify the claim? Then say so, instead of going into wild tangents about objectivity. ] (]) 04:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I added Konrad Schmids opinion on the historicity on the event. It was undone for no reason. I added his opinion because he has one of the newer if not the newest books on the topic and he is well respected in the academic biblical community. I don’t know why it was undone and I see no reason to not leave it in. ] (]) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|Tgeorgescu}} Misplaced Pages is not a record of anyone's interpretation of purpose of religious text, Fretheim or anyone else. The article should remain neutral. As an encyclopedia, wikipedia, presents educational information about Exodus, from Freithem or otherwise. The rest of that sentence is an analysis of Exodus from Fretheim. But "the purpose" is a subjective personal religious experience. Fretheim's personal belief about what he thinks the purpose is should not be included as it is not an academic analysis. The way I phrased it and the citations I include present a neutral academic view. |
|
|
|
:No it was undone as this is one academic, and thus may well be ] to give his opinions any prominence. Does his opinion offer anything we do not already say? ] (]) 15:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Whether there was a historical person Moses is not the same question as to whether there was a historical Exodus, let alone an Exodus as described in the Bible. At least some scholars who believe in a historical Moses think he was a holy man/prophet who came to Israel from Midian rather than who led an Exodus out of Egypt.--] (]) 15:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I don’t have access to the full book on paper as I listened to it on audible, but he does talk about the evidence of what this historical Moses would have done in a part of the book. The quote I have is from the preview of the book on Google. Maybe if someone has the book they could give the full quote? I remember he says that he holds to a historical basis of the exodus. ] (]) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::But we already say "However, a majority of scholars believe that the story has some historical basis" so what does this add? ] (]) 15:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It’s adding a well respected scholar’s opinion, but if you dislike it that much leave it out I guess. ] (]) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:You must be kidding. ] is a theologian, not a historian or an archaeologist. So he has no expertise in ]. ] (]) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I mean, most of the people who are arguing for a historical basis for the exodus are using textual evidence. So I don’t really see how that affects anything ] (]) 01:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC) |
Not to mention I can’t find any indication that his book was written with the help of someone who is an expert in history.
Can’t we just replace him with a better source that is written by someone who actually has knowledge on history?CycoMa1 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I may have missed this discussion in the past, but why do we have separate articles for The Exodus and Book of Exodus? The Exodus only exists in the Bible, not in real history, so what is actually the difference? Should we not merge them? Wdford (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a banner at the beginning of the "summary" section that says "This section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. Please help improve this article by adding references to reliable secondary sources, with multiple points of view." It seems to me that a section giving a summary of the Book of Exodus is not the right place for critical analysis. A "summary" is supposed to be just as the word implies, a shortened synopsis of the book itself. The place for critical analysis should be in other sections of the article, otherwise the section would be more than just a summary. If the section is to include analysis, then it should be titled something other than "summary". I would like to remove the banner, but I wanted to see what other editors think before doing so. Vontheri (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Reading the summary section a bit more closely, I will say that it does need some work and does contain some subtle editorializing that would likely not be obvious to someone who has not read Exodus. But that is an issue irrelevant to the banner and whether or not the section should contain critique and analysis.Vontheri (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The Catholic, Orthodox Christian and Orthodox Jewish, and Evangelical scholars, who are the majority of modern scholars, generally regard it as true—not true: most Catholic scholars and many Eastern Orthodox scholars find it unhistorical (the way it is described in the Bible). Generally speaking, there is no pressure for Catholic and Eastern Orthodox scholars to obey traditional church dogmas, rather than the academic consensus based upon evidence. For them there is the realm of faith, which is not based upon empirical evidence, and the realm of historical knowledge, which is based upon empirical evidence. Most of them aren't fideists, so they agree with the consensus from mainstream archaeology. Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Bible scholars and archaeologists are sophisticated believers, who find that taking the Bible at face value is childish. They are always prepared to interpret as metaphorical the already debunked parts of the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I added Konrad Schmids opinion on the historicity on the event. It was undone for no reason. I added his opinion because he has one of the newer if not the newest books on the topic and he is well respected in the academic biblical community. I don’t know why it was undone and I see no reason to not leave it in. Mishael613 (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
_01.svg){kind=small}
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}