Talk:The Exodus

Inclusion of Americans in lead

I feel that the final bit in the lead about the narrative resonating with Americans is not due. This is not a major aspect of the Exodus, and its placement in the lead feels like Americo-centrism. Surely the narrative has resonated with all sorts around the world who have been culturally exposed to Abrahamic religion—why is relatively recent American history in the lead? I know of no other overview/reference source that introduces the Exodus with discussion of its presence in American imagination. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:30, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at article content, it doesn't fit per WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The corresponding subsection in the body of the article, The Exodus#As historical inspiration, lists US political movements as well as liberation theology in Latin America. The real problem is that this section isn't broad enough. The Exodus has been used as inspiration for may modern political movements. I'm afraid I know little about that subject, but The Book of Exodus: A Biography (2019), cited in the source list, seems to discuss it fairly extensively. I've found some other possibly useful sources listed in The Pentateuch (2012) by Walter J. Houston:

• Cone, James H. (1997). God of the Oppressed, Revised Edition.
• Croatto. J. Severino (1981) Exodus, a Hermeneutics of Freedom.
• Gottwald, Norman K.; Horsley, Richard A., eds. (1993). The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics.
• Pixley, George V. (1987). On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective.
• Sugirtharajah, R. S. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. (There are several editions of this one, the most recent of which seems to be 2016).

A. Parrot (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The Exodus has had influence on social, religious, and political movements in many places throughout history. That there's a section on America alone is because there's not relatively enough on other places and eras. Not a single reference overview source so emphasizes the Exodus's influence on American movements. It is just not lead-worthy. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point. The lead summarizes the article. If you’re unhappy that that section is mostly about America (although liberation theology is not particularly American, you can expand it to include other areas.—-Ermenrich (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the major aspects of the article. Not every section of the article needs a blurb in the lead. As it stands, the lead's blurb of the American influence is way overweight. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ermenrich In what way has consensus been formed that there's no undue weight given to Americans in the lead? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

In what way has a consensus been formed that it is undue weight?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

None has; if there had I would have removed it. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There have been two substantive replies, mine and A. Parrot's. Neither supports a removal of material - instead we propose adding more.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to removing one of the two US examples from the lead, giving us this sentence: "The narrative has also resonated with various groups in more recent centuries, such as among African Americans striving for freedom and civil rights, and in liberation theology." A. Parrot (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That would be a great improvement. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Adaptations

Such as film, theater and TV series. 87.218.84.124 (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I need to explain to you why I'm not comfortable with using the word "accurate." Saying "scholars believe the account is inaccurate," especially without including the word "historically," carries some very loaded assumptions, namely that it was intended to be a facevalue factually accurate historical account when it was written, which it wasn't. Most scholars also believe that the Book of Exodus was written to make theological points, not to serve as a record of literal history. Sure, they may have believed that the Exodus literally happened exactly as described, but what mattered to them – and what also matters to the vast majority of Jews and Christians today – was what it meant for them and their faith in the present. That's why I changed "accurate" to "strictly historical" to remove the underlying assumptions conveyed by that word. GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Current text/[change under discussion]:

The consensus of modern scholars on the historicity of the Exodus is that the Pentateuch does not give [an accurate/a strictly historical] account of the origins of the Israelites, who appear instead to have formed as an entity in the central highlands of Canaan in the late second millennium BCE (around the time of the Late Bronze Age collapse) from the indigenous Canaanite culture. Most modern scholars believe that some elements in the story of the Exodus might have some historical basis, but that any such basis has little resemblance to the story told in the Pentateuch.

I don't read this problem, IMO it's clear to the reader that "accurate account of the origins of the Israelites" refers to history, no assumption on author intent is needed here in the WP:LEAD compressed "Exodus as history" context, though the article states "Scholars argue that the Book of Exodus itself attempts to ground the event firmly in history," which seems to allude to "intent". Like I said in my ES, the "strictly historical" wording is IMO worse. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång on the wording in the lead. Whether the Israelites thought that every part of the exodus narrative was literally true is besides the point - they certainly believed something like the Exodus happened.—-Ermenrich (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

References

False

@Pongao: The idea that 2-3 million people escaped from Egypt, and then took over Ancient Canaan is absolutely false. A very small scale Exodus cannot be proven false, but the bigger than life Exodus is completely fake.

Christine Hayes stated: "People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, while set in an actual place and referencing actual historical people and actual historical events, was also substantially fake. The Flashman Papers, written by George MacDonald Fraser, cite many actual places and many actual historical people and many actual historical events, but they are also works of fiction. Ditto Sherlock Holmes, Harry Potter, Biggles etc etc etc. Using the phrase "a genre mistake" is a splendid euphemism. Wdford (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Significance in Islam

can someone please add one more important thing about the significance of Exodus in islam that Muslim remember this day by fasting on it and that Muslim observe it in the Hijri calendar and it's called Ashura. Also you might want to link to the wiki page of Ashura and you'd find all about it there ~2026-41360-00 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)