Talk:Brook of Egypt

message: Kuratowski, I can't find any source that identifies any branch of the Nile with the Brook of Egypt.  I have heard that wadi el-Arish is no longer considered valid either, but this article which is focused on the ethnography of the Late Bronze/Iron I transition in Canaan casually refers to the Brook of Egypt as the Nahal Besor on pages 11 and 12 when describing the Philistine settlement, and comments on the "traditional view" of it as wadi el-Arish on pge 12.  The identification of it as Nahal Besor is based on the geography given in the Bible that identifies Nahal Mizraim with the southernmost border of Philistia; historically, the Philistines had their southern boundary at the Nahal Besor.
:Where in the Bible is the southernmost border of Philistia even discussed let alone identified with Nahal Mizraim? Kuratowski's Ghost 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not my interpretation - it is commonly understood as a proper name in those verses, thats why its translated "Shihor" with a capital S. Suggesting otherwise would be "original research". Identification with the Pelusian arm of the Nile goes way back to commentaries such as Halevy and googling I see its also mentioned in Clarkes, although there doesn't seem to be anything good online on the subject. Identification with the Wadi El-Arish has been debunked repeatedly so I don't see how it can still be included as a viable opinion in the article, the very fact that Shur lies west of it makes it illogical. Identification with Nahal Besor suffers similar if not worse logical problems and seems to be a fringe view. Kuratowski's Ghost 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which verses are you referring to regarding the borders of Philistia. The southern border obviously meets up with the western border. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you can find good material justifying Besor please feel free to add it to the article. Presumeably it is part of a view that interprets the post-Exodus borders as being much smaller than the patriarchal borders (something which is not justified simply from the Biblical text.)
The history of the interpretation as El-Arish also shows that it is based on error, the first time the term is used it is a translation of Hebrew Sukkot used by Saadia Gaon. He identifies the Nachal Mitzraim with the "wadi of El-Arish", Sukkot being the place on the border with Egypt where the departure from Egypt was said to have occurred. Only later does one find that pilgrims mistake modern "El-Arish" as Sukkot hence the name for the latter and its wadi. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research? 

message: At least according to Archaeology of the Land of the Bible Volume II by Ephraim Stern, part of the Anchor Bible Reference Library.
:Stern says this but be careful of circular reasoning: "Nahal Mizraim is Wadi El-Arish (cos hey Easton's etc say it is), Nahal Musri is obviously a cognate of Nahal Mizraim, therefor Nahal Musri must be El-Arish, therefore we have Assyrian texts confirming that Nahal Mizraim is Wadi El-Arish ...." Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than a monument placed along the road (not evdience of any settlement) I'm not aware of any structures found near El-Arish dating before the Ptolemaic period ... can you elaborate. Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This doesn't sound right at all we have accounts from Sargon and Sennacherib. What you say about Herodotus is pure "original research". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nahal Musri" in Assyrian texts refers to the wad- el-Arish, and the "town of Nahal Musri" to the village of el-Arish 

message: Just curious on the Goshen question: Joshua 15 includes a long list of places given to the tribe of Judah.  My NIV and my NJPS Tanakh (and I'd presume the original, but I don't understand Hebrew), in verse 51, read "...Goshen, Holon and Giloh — eleven towns and their villages" and "...Goshen, Holon, and Giloh: 11 towns, with their villages." respectively.  No consideration is given about this Judean town in the article; should there be?  I don't know enough about this to do anything, other than what I did: because the question isn't fully addressed, I thought we shouldn't necessarily link the first occurrence of Goshen to the Land of Goshen — that's why I moved it to the second sentence.  I'd like to see someone bring in some source that discusses this question at all.  Nyttend 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goshen 

message: :Isaiah 23 speaks about the coast-land of Phoenicia, and how "on great waters the seed of Shihor, the harvest of the Nile, was her revenue; and she was the mart of nations." 
:That does not equate the two rivers. It seems to show how commmerce was conducted involving goods coming out of Egypt via the Nile and originating from the Shihor (which may have been somehow connected to the Nile).
:And in Joshua 3, the Shihor is explicitly mentioned as being BEFORE Egypt, not in Egypt itself (as the Nile is). Furthermore, it is defined there are as the boundary of the territory occupied by the Philistines, the northern boundary being Ekron. 
:There is no basis for the notion that the Shihor and the Nile are the same river.
:205.68.95.65 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you're right, or, at the very least, that the article has no citations demonstrating that the Shichor is the same as the Nile. I've removed the unsubstantiated claim. Alephb (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incorrect. The Bible does not equate the Shichor (and therefore Nahal Mitzrayim) with the Ye'or (Nile) 

message: A lot of this article reads as if it were a personal essay seeking to argue that the "Brook of Egypt" mentioned in the Bible refers to the "Pelusian branch," i.e. the very far right edge of the Nile delta. But Wikipedia does not host personal essays arguing for personal opinions. Instead, it summarizes (with citations) the views of experts. 
And yet, for all fourteen mentions of the Pelusian branch, not a single citation is given to an expert who claims that the Bible's "Brook of Egypt" is the Pelusian branch. There are two citations given related to the Pelusian hypothesis. There is a citation confirming that Assyrians mention a "Nehal Musri", and a citation confirming that the Pelusian branch was seen as the ancient eastern border of Egypt. Those two citations would be relevant if one were writing a dissertation to argue for the Pelusian interpretation, but as long as there is no citation confirming that any contemporary experts by the Pelusian interpretation of "Brook of Egypt," they don't belong in this article.
Accordingly, I will be removing claims about the Pelusian branch from this article. Anyone who can find appropriate citations supporting the claim that contemporary experts support equating the Brook of Egypt with it is welcome to add the stuff back in. Alephb (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelusian arm -- original research 

message: This doesn't seem to be an actual word. I found this (poorly prosodied) poem: "In short, in matters epiphemeral and fiducillary heinious, / I am the very model of a modern Stable-Genius.", which is clearly a nonsense verse. On the other hand, this book uses it in a neurological context, and here it has something to do with culture? Epi- is a prefix, but I don't think phemeral is. epi- + ephemeral would produce *epephemeral, modeling on epencephalic.__Gamren (talk) 03:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Epiphemeral"