Talk:Book of Exodus

message: 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)
replies: text: The Exodus narrative covers four books, not one: "namely Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy". Dimadick (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, especially since we have another article on The Exodus 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.--agr (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the banner. Vontheri (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner in "summary" section 

message: —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)
thread_title:  Revert 

message: 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)
replies: text: No it was undone as this is one academic, and thus may well be wp:undue to give his opinions any prominence. Does his opinion offer anything we do not already say? Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Mishael613 (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But we already say "However, a majority of scholars believe that the story has some historical basis" so what does this add? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s adding a well respected scholar’s opinion, but if you dislike it that much leave it out I guess. Mishael613 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

text: You must be kidding. Konrad Schmid is a theologian, not a historian or an archaeologist. So he has no expertise in historicity. Dimadick (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Mishael613 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konrad Schmid edit