Talk:Mount Sinai

No referenceis given for the bedouin trsdition

There are no references given for the bedouin tradition how do we know its true please add refrences

Can we have a picture of it?

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)

Sixteen months later and there is still no picture of the mountain itself! Mangoe (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Location

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)

100% right. Wikipedia is dominated by people who only look a scholarly evidence. And those scholars will claim that these people that actually visited the site and followed the biblical account to find it in Arabia are wrong. But they will never admit that the Saudi government has a fence and guards around Jabal al Lawz. And they will never admit that the top is burned and the rocks melted a smoothed by fire or that the locals call it the mountain of God. 2605:A601:AFFC:C200:8096:DD81:AFCE:49A9 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Location

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

When I edited the article I noted that Mount Sinai had been described as legendary (amongst other factual inexactitudes). user:sjc

There are two different issues here, and unfortunately the comments by RK and sjc do not, as yet, bring much clarity to them. The first issue is where is the place that people today call "Mt. Sinai." I am sure that people living in the Sinai peninsula, as well as cartographers, army personnel, and politicians agree to call a particular place "Mt. Sinai." This is an issue of a naming convention. I happened to live in Ecuador for a few years, and everytime I took a bus south, I passed through a town called Logroño. Everyone knew where Logroño was, and it was clearly marked on the map. But there is a second issue: was this place always known as Logroño? There are documents from the 16th century identifying a town called Logroño; is this the same town? In fact, everyone who studies Ecudorian history agrees that it isn't; there is an archeological site some distance away and that is the other (original) "Logroño." Well, similarly there is a text that mentions a Mt. Sinai around 3,000 years ago. Was that Mt. Sinai the same as the contemporary Mt. Sinai? That everyone calls a particular place today Mt. Sinai does not answer that question -- it merely informs us of a naming convention. It is possible that the contemporary Mt. Sinai and the ancient Mt. Sinai are one and the same. But that the two places having the same name does not prove that they are the same thing (anyone who has gone to an "Original Ray's Pizza" in New York knows exactly what I mean). The location of the original Mt. Sinai is an historical and archeological question.

Apparently there is some debate. It would be most helpful if RK and sjc could spell out some of the evidentiary reasons why some people make certain claims, and others reject them. All I know for sure is that just because a contemporary military map names a place as Mt. Sinai, that tells us nothing about where the Biblical Mt. Sinai was. Are there real "pros and cons?" Please list them in the article! Slrubenstein

Well, precisely Slrubenstein. The whole issue of Mount Sinai (geographical fact) as opposed to Mount Sinai (biblical fiction) is muddied by dint of the fact that we have two distinct concepts muddied by virtue of having the same name. I have no problem with some Jewish scholars questioning whether the Mount Sinai in southern Sinai is the same place as the one where Moses was purported to have received the 10 commandments; in fact, I would be rather inclined to side with them on a number of matters of geophysical evidence. However, the fact remains that if one talks of Mount Sinai in the 21st century, one can only be referring to the place which is clearly marked on most major modern Western atlases. The article should clearly be disambiguated into two articles Mount Sinai, the usual meaning of the term and Mount Sinai, (biblical location). Gebel Musa is clearly and unequivocally thought by the indigenous Bedu inhabitants to be the place most Westerners conceive of as Mount Sinai. It is marked as Gebel Musa on Egyptian military maps of the area.user:sjc

SJC, I don't understand. Previously you said that you disagreed with me, but now it looks like we agree to some extent. Am I missing something here? Now it looks like the only area of disagreement is that you think that only "some" Jewish scholars are uncertain. It is this specific claim that I disagree with. I think most historians around the world would deny that we know for sure the location of Mt. Sinai, or any location where the Israelites camped after their exodus from Egypt. RK

I would therefore politely suggest you should have had a look at what my original article said before leaping in. Moreover, most historians are not that interested (I would probably say 99.9% recurring). Those who have an interest in the subject of where Sinai may or may not have been by reference to a document of uncertain authorage and dubious provenance, constitute a very small number, the preponderance of whom happen to be adherents to the veracity of the aforementioned document and its associated religion. There are admittedly others who believe in other bits of a later appendage who also take a view but they represent a tiny wee minority and in my part of the world these people spend more time bombing and blowing each other up. I think you will find the great Sinai debate is very small potatoes indeed.

What I was saying was that we should be more pragmatic. We should primarily show the place commonly conceived of as being Mt Sinai, and which is embedded in most peoples minds. Then we can explore the alternatives. The way the article was worded when I came to it, it read like Mt Sinai never existed in the first place. user:sjc

Yes, it seems there are three places involved, whose relation to each other is not yet clearly explained in the article:

• Gebel (Jabal) Musa
• Mt Sinai -- as marked on modern maps
• Mt Sinai -- as referred to in the bibble.

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)

I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, Tarquin. The biblical controversy is largely irrelevant to Mount Sinai (+ its geographical location) but pertinent to Mount Sinai, (biblical location). user:sjc

Right, Tarquin -- don't worry. It is pretty obvious that a Bible dictionary is referring to a Biblical location -- as long as the article makes that clear, and discusses the difficulties or different arguments over the location of the biblical location, I think it would be a very good article indeed. Slrubenstein

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

Danny, this is very illuminating -- I hope when you have time you will incorporate as much of what youjust wrote in the the article as you see fit. Thanks, Slrubenstein

I agree. None of the foregoing however actually changes the geographical fact that Mt Sinai, Egypt is where Mt Sinai, Egypt is. It is unlikely to ever move on a map again. The fact that it was probably somewhere else is irrelevant to the realpolitik of the situation. If we are going to have an article about a real geographical location, this should take primacy over historical and scholarly speculation, that's all. user:sjc

When I wrote this article originally, it was not about the biblical Mt Sinai, Egypt. It dealt with all the points of contention. The import of a load of 19th century Christian gibberish appears to have knocked this completely out of whack. I suggest we revert to my original stuff, and try again user:sjc

I did not realize that the bible dictionary stuff had been imported into a previous article -- I simply saw that RK was responding to that material. The article now distinguishes between the contemporary and Biblical "Mt. Sinai." Nevertheless, I think it is a mistake (and utterly unpragmatic) to think that an article on Mt. Sinai as a specific named place in the Sinai Peninsula today would be to "primarily show the place commonly conceived of as being Mt Sinai, and which is embedded in most peoples minds." Of course this is the case for anyone living or working in the Sinai. But the very reason that there is an article on Mt. Sinai in an English Encyclopedia is that "Mt. Sinai" is embedded in most people's (or more precisely, most Jewish, Christian, and Muslim peoples, and peoples influenced by Jewish, Christian, and Muslim literature, which is probably most people in Europe and the New World) minds, and the reason it is embedded in so many people's minds is because of the Bible. I bet if you asked a thousand people on the street of any major US city if they have ever heard of Mt. Sinai and they answer "yes," the vast majority will know if it because of the Bbible or something influenced by the Bible (like a Hollywood movie). And if you were to show them a current map of the Sinai peninsuly with "Mt. Sinai" marked on it, they would simply assume that this is the Biblical Mt. Sinai. Consequenly, an' article on "Mt. Sinai has to distinguish between the current named place and the Biblical Mt. Sinai, and explain any debates concerning the relationship between the two. It really doens't matter who wrote the article originally; it looks to me like it is improving Slrubenstein

Well, the general preamble now resembles what we started with but with a slightly clearer delineation between the geographical and biblical connotations. Forward to the past! [[user:sjc]

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:

1. A brief (2 sentence at most) definition of Mount Sinai;
2. An overview of the biblical legend and its relevance today;
3. A discussion of possible locations;
4. A history of Jebel Musa and the Santa Katerina monastery as the best-known contender (ancient monastery, scriptorium, etc.);
5. A brief piece on the site best known as Mount Sinai today (sites, tourism, etc.). I say brief, because IMHO this is probably the least important part of the whole picture.

Please let me know if you agree. Danny

I don't think I disagreed to start with. All I am saying is that in an encyclopedia article the geographical reality must be recognised prima inter pares.

Point 1. Is exactly the article I wrote originally, nothing more, nothing less; it is also the current first two blocks of the current article covering all conceivable bases.

Points 2 - 4 are entirely up to anyone who cares to write them and is prepared to spend hours wrangling the toss with all and sundry who have a take on this somewhat less than fascinating storm in a teacup. To draw a parallel, it is as ridiculous as trying to find the geographical location of King Arthur's court of Camelot: most of the evidence is apocryphal where it is not misleading. Since none of this provable, once you open the floodgates you will have to deal with and entertain every possible fruitcake theory on the block (believe me there are some very interesting theorists in the sphere of Mt Sinai's location.... They are almost as deranged, by and large, a bunch as the Arthurian romantics). Is Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia? Was there an undersea tunnel to enable the crossing of the Red Sea? Just exactly how many commandments did Moses receive in any case? I am not joking, these theories exist. There are people who are very robust in their defence and the asylums are not built large enough to accommodate 'em all. To add to the fun and games, every so often some comedian masquerading as an academic comes up with the true solution to the enigma amidst much media brou-ha-ha.

Point 5 is probably the most useful of all and of real practical value for anyone planning to visit the area. I might drag my pen out of bed to do this one. user:sjc

PS: I just followed the link to Camelot. It needs some serious attention. user:sjc

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

In response to sjc's caveat about how ridiculous it is to try to find the "real" Mt. Sinai -- I again want to encourage Danny to move his discussion of the possibly/probably mythic nature of the Exodus (as such; including all the Children of Israel together) into the article. I think that rather than view Danny's points 2-4 as expressing a trivial effort to "prove" where the real Mt. Sinai is, I think it would be more constructive to explore some of the reasons, historical and archeological, why it is so difficult to "prove" any one location as the "real" Mt. Sinai. The purpose of encyclopedia articles is to educate, and as Danny remarks we agree that a discussion of the current location of a place conventionally called "Mt. Sinai," however useful it may be for potential visitors to the area (unlikely in my view as I assume potnetial visitors will either have bought guide-books or checked out more detailed web-sites intended for tourists), would be practically useless to the general reader, who I think would be better-served by a (brief) essay revealing important issues in Biblical historiography and archeology. This was the intent of my oritginal remark, which was directed not only to sjc but to RK as well; anyone with knowledge of the controversy should put in more detail (and I repeat, not with an aim of "proving" anything about the location of Mt. Sinai, but with an aim of educating people more about archeology and historiography), Slrubenstein

Move

Are there any objections to moving this to Mount Sinai? Almost all the links there refer to this page. --Jiang 16:21, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Done yesterday. --Jiang 23:46, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

mt nebo

"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)

Change to Mount Horeb

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)

What about a subdivision to the "Biblical Mt. Sinai" expression?

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

Rewrote and Reorganized

I rewrote and reorganized the article, and I added other candiates for the Biblical Mt Sinai.--Tomtom9041 20:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved Biblical Mount Sinai

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)

Moved additional Biblical Mount Sinai edits to that page.--Tombombadil 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Editing Mount Sinai

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}(UTC)

Mosque

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.....

Well noted, but need a link for reference for the same.Wikibhai110 (talk) 09:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Image of Chapel

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)

"Religious significance"

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:

• Write here

98.64.10.49 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The 3750 "Steps"

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)

Confusion

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)

I think it's saying that Mount St. Catherine is the highest.Pedantrician (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Volcano?

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)

Alternative Names

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). 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."

192.12.83.106 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Poor sources added (Notes 4 & 5); should be removed and replaced

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)

Removed both as non-WP:RS. The last sentence fragment: there are no volcanoes in the Sinai Peninsula. should be modified as no recently active volcanoes... per the geology section above. Vsmith (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There is more proof of the biblical mountain of God in a different location.

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)

Discussed in the Hashem el-Tarif article. "See also" link to it added. Hertz1888 (talk) 08:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent small edits

I recently made a few changes that another editor picked a bone with. Here's my reasoning:

• I removed the word "Orthodox" from the sentence "Orthodox Christians settled upon this mountain in the third century AD."
  What is the word supposed to say here? Though there were orthodox - as opposed to Gnostic - Christians around in the 3rd century (201-300) the word may lead readers to understand this as "Eastern Orthodox", especially since the next sentence begins with "Georgians from the Caucasus".
• I think it strange to pipe a reference to God to the article on God's name and unnecessary to use that name as in "Yahweh dwelt at Mount Seir".
• I'd prefer to mention the actual religions instead of the misnomer "Abrahamic religions".
• The sentence "assuming that they did not cross the eastern branch of the Red Sea/Reed Sea in boats or on a sandbar" is just strangely worded and boats and sandbars don't make any difference to the argument put forth here, that - so some people think - it was the eastern branch, the Gulf of Akaba, that was crossed.

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)

Two more changes:

• "Book of Exodus in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran." may confuse when you first read it. I first read a list "in the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran", which of course is strange given the Torah is part of the Bible. The same holds true for what the passage is actually saying "in Exodus, the Bible and the Ouran" - Exodus is in the Bible.
• A small NPOV issue. The article said: "The Song of Deborah, which some textual scholars consider to be one of the oldest parts of the bible, suggests that Yahweh dwelt at Mount Seir".
  Stripped of the sub clause - which is true but adds little to what the sentence is trying to say as a whole, this reads: "The Song of Deborah [...] suggests that Yahweh dwelt at Mount Seir"
  In my eyes, this is a bit ... suggestive. Isn't it rather that some scholars say that the Song suggests that (that actual text only says that God "went out from Seir [and] marched from the region of Edom", not that Seir was God's dwelling place. Str1977 ^(talk) 05:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A couple of points. This edit changed "important sacred places in the Abrahamic religions." to "important sacred places in the Judaism and Christianity." Which is of course ungrammatical. And wrong, the change left out Islam. The grammatical error was probably an accident, but not the rest.

Secondly, the Torah is not part of the Bible. The Bible is a Christian text, the Torah is of course Jewish.

Third, Yahweh is the name of a god. Whether that was the monotheistic god of Judaism at that time, I don't know. But there is a difference. 'God' with a capital G is not always identical to Yahweh. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

1. At first, I was under the impression that the importance of this place for Islam is overstated - but I have no intention of pushing that point.

2. The Bible is not merely a Christian text - there is a Jewish Bible a.k.a. the Old Testatement a.k.a. the Tanach. Anyway, the Torah a.k.a. the Pentateuch is part of the Bible no matter how one understands the term and the Bible can never be an entity sitting next to the Torah.

3. It is the name of the god but it is used in neither of the three religions that worship Him. And the article God is not identical to monotheism so I don't see how your "I don't know" makes any difference. Str1977 ^(talk) 17:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No, Yahweh was a local god before the name became used by Judaism and Christianity. The article God is irrelevant to this discussion. And the Hebrew Bible is not the same as the Christian Bible.Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"...was a local god before ..." - Even if you were correct - and whatever your claim actually means -, in the context it was about the God of the Bible in the context of the Jewish and Christian religions. Hence, your claim is actually irrelevant.

I never claimed the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible were the same - but a) they can both be called Bible, b) they have a very large overlap, c) the Torah is part of either so putting the Torah next to the Bible is like putting New York next to the United States. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be a claim that Jews call the Torah the Bible. Is that what you are saying? Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of my original reservations having already been dealt with, it remains for me to say that I don't see it as constructive that the linking specifically to the Tetragrammaton, in relation to the Israelites, was changed to a generic god. That seems a step in the wrong direction, and I would like to see it changed back. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Now I see Dougweller has covered that point too. If there is a consensus to restore the original linking, we should proceed. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus on that. But maybe Tetragrammaton simply suffers from a silly name. Str1977 ^(talk) 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sinai in Arabia material

I make no claim about whether any of this is correct; I'm simply putting it here for others to access.

• http://sinaiinarabia.com
• The Arabian Cradle of Zion. Moses, Muhammad, and Wahhabo-Zionism

LAURENT GUYÉNOT • JULY 8, 2019

http://www.unz.com/article/the-arabian-cradle-of-zion/

• Mount Sinai in Arabia : the true location revealed

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)

Coming in late. Richardson is a fringe writer, those books not self-published seem to be published by WorldNet Books. Doug Weller talk 11:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  samee  converse  07:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

---

• Mount Sinai → Mount Moses
• Biblical Mount Sinai → Mount Sinai

– 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)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It's tricky to determine how RS commonly refer to this mountain, because if you do a literature search for either "Mount Sinai" or "Mount Moses", you're obviously going to get a biased sample. Instead, I tried searching for mentions of Saint Catherine's Monastery, which is located at the foot of the mountain in question. Reuters, The Atlantic, Britannica, and The Guardian, all describe the monastery as being near "Mount Sinai". None of them mention the name "Mount Moses". The only RS I found that used an alternative name was UNESCO, which initially refers to it as being at the foot of "Mount Horeb", then later says "centred on the holy mountain of Mount Sinaï (Jebel Musa, Mount Horeb)". I'm not concerned about POV implications of using "Mount Sinai", given that it seems to be the overwhelming common name. Colin M (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment re COMMONNAME I didn't want to comment here, but I have to point out that the commonname argument doesn't work here. The problem is that Mount Sinai is the common name for BOTH articles. The question is which of the two articles should be allowed to have its title be the common name? @Colin M and Rreagan007:. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  That's a good question, and I'm not sure. In terms of page views, Mount Sinai wins, but only by a 3:2 ratio. Based on that, it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that there's no PTOPIC. However, I think the calculus of PTOPIC-ness changes when the topics under consideration are closely related. If someone is looking to read about Tide laundry detergent and we send them to Tide, they're pretty far from where they want to go. If someone is looking to read about Biblical Mount Sinai and we send them to Mount Sinai, that's much less of a blunder. We're sending them to an article that's at least highly relevant to what they're looking for, and which includes a link to their ideal target article in the first sentence (in addition to a hatnote). If we had to choose between Mount Sinai and Biblical Mount Sinai as ptopic, the views would seem to slightly favour the former (though of course it benefits from currently being at the base name), but the latter topic arguably has more long-term significance. One nice thing about the current status quo is that Biblical Mount Sinai is a very elegant form of natural disambiguation. Whereas it doesn't seem like Mount Sinai is as easily naturally disambiguated. "Mount Moses" fails naturalness and recognizability. The best alternative I can think of would be something like Mount Sinai, Egypt. Colin M (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• And what about Mount Moses? Where does that page go?
  I could agree with the 2nd move proposed (putting the Biblical page at the main title), but I do not think the 1st move is a good idea. Nobody calls it Mt Moses. I could support an alternative. Srnec (talk) 02:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are arguments on both sides, but the status quo makes the uses very clear to readers. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
• Comment from nom: The more I think about this, the more I think that there is no primary topic. I originally thought of the biblical mountain as being the obvious primary topic, but now I am not so sure. So perhaps the best route here is to move Mount Sinai (disambiguation) to Mount Sinai. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

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)

Height

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)

Combine with other Mt.Sinai article

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)