E_muse

Again your 600 year/Danube river arguement meshes together different Biblical claims across different books contained in the Bible.

From reading James Still's article which mentions Sargon being placed in the river it would appear that the myth was attributed to two other people - Moses and Horus.

Horus (in Egyptian mythology), is the magical offspring of Isis and the dead Osiris (murdered by Seth).

If the myth was already well established, predating Moses by 1000 years, then it would seem foolish for the writer of Exodus to attribute the event to Moses, knowing that the Hebrews had been influenced by Egyptian culture.

However, the events in Exodus 2 seem to indicate a knowledge of the myth of Horus amongst the Hebrew people - and the symbolism used by Moses' mother could simply have been an appeal for sympathy - being unmistakable in the eyes of Pharaoh's daughter.

It is worth pointing out that there is absolutely no spiritual, supernatural, theological or miraculous significance placed on Moses' birth or rescue in the Biblical account. If Moses is a mythical figure then he is something less than Horus. In the Biblical text his life is permeated by failure.

In verse 22 of chapter 1 Pharaoh commands that baby boys be cast into the river. In a strange way Moses' mother obeys but in a symbolic way which could not have been mistaken by the Egyptian princess.

Because the incident in Exodus 2 is not intended to make any claim to divinity and has no spiritual significance attached to it (within the context of the Biblical text), I am inclined to think that the incident heightens the link between Israel and Egypt providing some evidence of Egyptian influence within Hebrew culture.

As mentioned above, I would suggest that Pharaoh's daughter could not have mistaken the symbolism and the link with myths in her own culture and what the mother of the child was requesting be done with him.

Again, as for archeological remains for this event Ion, what should we expect to find?

To answer 'Why believe?' I'm not expecting you to.

As I've mentioned before, the dictum of Aristotle commonly followed for all works of antiquity states that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to him or herself.

Couldn't the Egyptians have been washed ashore by the force of the water? The water came down onto the Egyptian soldiers and they were washed ashore.

The 'contradiction' you point out is contained within a passage and within a few verses. This would suggest that the author didn't see a contradiction.

Your appeal to the lack of a mention of Egyptian soldiers in Egyptian records seems to presuppose that Egyptian records must always be given the benefit of the doubt when compared to Biblical accounts. What is the rational basis for this?

The pyramids are an amazing feat and yet the Bible fails to mention them. So what significance can be placed on the failure of a writer to mention something remarkable? Can an author's silence really be used as evidence 'disproving' an event?

Again this seems to be broadening the arguement. Each alleged Biblcal contradiction contained in the Merrit and Morgan articles would probably require individual threads to discuss each issue raised.

If you have the intention of knocking out theists then the burden is on you to do it Ion.

I have now and it was a useful excercise.

Well, as I've argued above, I don't see a need to view Moses in the bulrushes as a myth, especially as there's no spiritual significance attached to it and nothing particularly miraculous. I think the textual evidence of this incident reinforces the Egyptian influence on the Hebrews with Horus being the only other individual to inherit the Sargon myth. I can also see a way in which its symbolism could have been employed to secure the safety of an endangered child.

I cannot see a rational basis for concluding that because Sargon and Horus are both mythological then Moses must be as well.

The Biblical texts fail to mention the extrordinary pyramids. As I've asked above, can silence be used to prove anything?

Well, the unstable nature of the rift valley doesn't make the parting of the Jordan river implausible, it would also appear that Jericho did tumble. There is evidence which makes the events described in Exodus plausible.

A lot of people would disagree with your final statement there.

They would also point out the failure of the scientific method to bring answers to some of what they consider to be their first order questions.

But they're not unsupported! There is evidence in nature which lends respectability to Biblical claims and the article you started with still only mentions archaeological discoveries as 'not conclusive'.

As I've said before, no alternative viewpoint is being put forward, but one must exist aside from the consensus view.

One of the biggest obstacles to belief is a lack of the miraculous in modern churches.

If Jesus said that certain signs would follow those who believe in him and those signs are not evident in modern churches how can we know that anything Jesus said applies to them or that he is a part of the message they preach?

[ August 06, 2001: Message edited by: E_muse ]

Ion

This replies to E_muse's post of August 6, 2001, 4:56 p.m..

The quote
"It is worth pointing out that there is absolutely no spiritual, supernatural, theological or miraculous significance placed on Moses' birth or rescue in the Biblical account. If Moses is a mythical figure then he is something less than Horus.",
has my reply:
a baby is found in a basket adrift in the Egyptian Nile (or like E_muse points out, on the shore of the Nile) and is adopted into the pharaoh's household. He grows as Moses, rediscovers his roots and leads his enslaved Israelites to freedom after God sends 10 plagues against Egypt and parts the Red Sea to allow Israelites to escape. Israelites wander for 40 years in the desert, and under the leadership of Joshua conquer the land of Canaan to enter the promised land. Moses lived 120 years.
I see supernatural and miraculous in this Moses story, like me claiming of being age 600, drifting on the Danube, and other feats.
Finklestein, Meyers, Dever, Silberman, Thompson, Schiffman, etc., formed a scientific consensus by studying the archaeological finds: the lack of evidence for Joshua's conquests in the 13th. century B.C., the similarity in pottery, architecture, literary conventions and cultural details between the 'ancient' Canaanites and the 'new settlers' in the West Bank, show a continuity of the same population living uninterrupted there, and the case for a literal Exodus collapsing.

The quote
"Again, as for archeological remains for this event Ion, what should we expect to find?",
has my reply:
ash layers at conquered cities, traces (objects, sleletons), left in the desert and on the battlefields (the Greek battle of Marathon for example has them), or enemy (Egyptian) accounts, or third-party accounts.

The quote
"As I've mentioned before, the dictum of Aristotle commonly followed for all works of antiquity states that the benefit of the doubt must be given to the author, not arrogated by the critic to him or herself.",
has my reply:
any uncorroborated claim that is supernatural, is unbelievable.

The quote
"Couldn't the Egyptians have been washed ashore by the force of the water?",
has my reply:
it could be, it's just another unexplained claim, so why believe the unexplained?

The quote
"What is the rational basis for this? The pyramids are an amazing feat and yet the Bible fails to mention them. So what significance can be placed on the failure of a writer to mention something remarkable?",
has my reply:
the rational basis is to see the enemy of Israelites at that time, corroborate this human feat. The pyramids don't involve Israelites and Egyptians as enemies, but Exodus does.

The quote
"If you have the intention of knocking out theists then the burden is on you to do it Ion.",
has my reply:
lack of Biblical fossils, antagonism in between more than a million years of recorded history by archaeology and 6000 years claimed by the Bible, make the Bible unfounded. This is the knock-out of Bible believers: believing in something unfounded.

The quote
"I cannot see a rational basis for concluding that because Sargon and Horus are both mythological then Moses must be as well.",
has my reply:
there is not a shred of evidence for extraordinary Moses in Exodus, so why believe in extraordinary?

The quote
"The Biblical texts fail to mention the extrordinary pyramids. As I've asked above, can silence be used to prove anything?",
has my reply:
in alleged 'battles' in between Egyptians and Israelites, I want to see the Egyptian accounts backing-up (grudgingly) Israel. For pyramids, there is no dispute in between Israel and Egypt, and also the pyramids are undisputedly existing unlike Exodus.

The quote
"Well, the unstable nature of the rift valley doesn't make the parting of the Jordan river implausible...",
has my reply:
my claim of being 600, drifting on the Danube, etc., would be as good as Exodus, but I say with no proofs, I don't expect anyone to believe it. Same for the Bible. Looks to me like you go to long stretches of tolerence E_muse, to legitimize the unfounded extrordinary claims of the Bible.

The quote
"A lot of people would disagree with your final statement there. They would also point out the failure of the scientific method to bring answers to some of what they consider to be their first order questions.",
has my reply:
ask these people not to use anything from science and technology for a few moments (starting with a faucet delivering water for example, with a glass mirror to see themselves, with electricity and heat, medications, etc.) and they die immediately. Ask them not to use anything from religion, and they are happy like me.

The quote
"But they're not unsupported! There is evidence in nature which lends respectability to Biblical claims...",
has my reply:
which evidence of the parting of the Red Sea for Israelites, and at the same time the swallowing of Egyptians? The 'enemy' Egyptians, haven't even noticed this Egyptian 'disaster' in their records.

The quote
"As I've said before, no alternative viewpoint is being put forward, but one must exist aside from the consensus view.",
has my reply:
the alternative like I wrote two other times, is that ancient Canaanites are now Israelites, with no wandering in the desert, parting of the Red Sea, Jericho, in between. The Canaanites just stayed home, all the time, then claimed a divine destiny.

The quote
"If Jesus said that certain signs would follow those who believe in him and those signs are not evident in modern churches how can we know that anything Jesus said applies to them or that he is a part of the message they preach?",
has my reply:
I don't believe in Jesus' claims. We can discuss about them.

E_muse

For those who are interested, the Los Angeles Times article can be found in its entirety HERE.

E_muse

Ion:

Earlier in the discussion you said:

However, in LAT article he is actually quoted as saying:

Here he seems to put down his inability to get his work published to an anti-Bible bias rather than an alleged lack of proof.

Where did you get the information about Wood's work as being deemed lacking in proofs?

Apikorus

Ion I don't understand why you invoke Schiffman and Meyers in your discussion of the exodus. Presumably you mean Lawrence Schiffman and either Eric or Carol Meyers. All of them work on Second Temple Judaism and not on the late Bronze/early Iron period. In fact, Schiffman is not an archaeologist at all; his focus is on textual issues - particularly the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran halakha. The Meyerses dig at Sepphoris and Masada, which are principally Roman period sites. They've written commentaries on some Persian period literature such as Haggai and Zechariah, but I don't think either has written much at all about Iron Age Palestine (or earlier).

Dever and Finkelstein of course have much to say about the issue of Israelite origins. Other scholars who are known for their work on Bronze/Iron Age material would include Frank Moore Cross, Baruch Halpern, Amihai Mazar, John Holladay, Donald Redford, P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Lawrence Stager, et al.

E_muse, Bryant Wood is best known for his work on Jericho, but alas it is likely wrong. Wood believed that Garstang's original (1930's) date of ca. 1400 BCE for City IV at Jericho was correct, even after it was strongly challenged in the 1950's by Kathleen Kenyon. Wood's arguments did not attract any support within the archaeology community and were strongly criticized by Piotr Bienkowski, who is generally regarded as the preeminent authority on Jericho. Recent radiometric dating of grain samples from Jericho confirms Kenyon's date of ca. 1550 BCE for the destruction of City IV.

[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

E_muse

Again, for those interested, HERE is an alternative view to the consensus from a theistic stance.

Ion

E_muse, Apikorus' post tells you about Bienkowsi on Wood.

Apikorus, I write about Carol Meyers, a professor specializing in Biblical studies and archaeology at Duke University, who thinks the texts of the Bible are not to be read literally: "People who try to find scientific explanations for the splitting of the Red Sea are missing the boat...".

Apikorus, archeologist journalist Neil Silberman, worked with Israel Finklestein on the book "The Bible Unearthed", book offering in 2001 the theory that Exodus was written during King Josia of Judah -600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 B.C.-, as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire.

Lawrence Schiffman, chairman of Hebrew and Judaic studies at New York University, says: "I am not arguing that archaeology proves the Exodus.". So, again, without proofs, why believe in extraordinary Exodus?

Ion

This is to E_muse's post with a link supporting in 1998 the theist literal beliefs in Exodus.

2001 consensus I keep mentioning, includes the 1998 view. I read in the 1998 view, the same disprove of Exodus factuality through archaeology by Dever, the same concern of unrecorded human feat by other sources than the Bible, and teasing about possibilities, but no evidence of extraordinary.
Why believe in extraordinary Exodus, then?

Ion

Apikorus, the main reason I am in this forum, is to learn from such posts.

E_muse, I am of course learning from your posts too. Thanks.

E_muse

But the Israelites could simply have been attributing favourable conditions beyond their own control to a divine being who was on their side.

Being put in a basket is not supernatural. The parting of the Jordan can easily be explained as the result of natural forces. Living to age 120 is not necessarily a supernatural feat. It is extrordinary, but not impossible as a natural phenomena.

You merely present a consensus interpretation of archeological finds.

I've provided a link to a theistic site which raises the 'lack of evidence' arguement. Let me know what you think.

The fact that something is unbelievable isn't proof of its non existence.

The actuality of an objective event is not governed by the way it is perceived or whether anyone believes in that event or not - the only thing which can alter is our perception and rationalisation of the event.

'I can't believe in God' is a statement about me, not about God.

Because I'm open to the possibility that the full breadth of human experience transcends my own and that of my contemporaries. That the breadth of human experience transcends my ability to understand it.

Total unbelief requires me to claim that I, as an autonomous being, know enough about the universe to completely rule out any supernatural intervention in human affairs and the need to superimpose my own worldview onto the experiences of others. Complete arrogance.

But as I've stated above, lack of corroboration does not disprove an event, it might only make it more difficult to believe and belief statements are personal and subjective as they vary from person to person.

If you are asking for this corroboration as proof then you must demonstrate why the request for such corroboration is reasonable in the first place. Why would we expect the Egyptians to admit to such a defeat? Do they include defeats by other nations in their writings?

As I understand it, ancient writers concentrated on highlighting victories and did not write exhaustive accounts of their histories, including the defeats.

Again this raises issues concerning the literal nature of Genesis, a completely separate book to the Exodus.

You obviously allow ancient text as evidence because you have used the absence of a mention of the Israelites in ancient Egyptian writing as one proof of the Bible's unreliability.

If Egyptian writing can be used as evidence why can't Biblical text?

But do the Egyptians give grudging accounts of other battles involving other nations in which they are defeated? Your request is only reasonable if this is the case surely?

Indeed. I think your term 'unfounded' is too strong.

Belief is entirely subjective and doesn't make any statement about whether an event took place or not.

Your arguement seems to state that any claim to an extrordinary event which cannot be proved must be considered a lie or in some way false.

What is the rational basis for this?

However, it is possible to prove you are lying regarding the 600 years/Danube claim beyond reasonable doubt because of literary evidence (birth certificate) and the testimony of those who were alive prior to your birth, saw you born, saw you as a baby, saw you grow up, photographs etc, etc.

Proof which demonstrates a claim to be false is not the same as a lack of proof IMHO. You seem to consider them to be the same thing.

To summarise in question form: How can a lack of corroborating evidence or my inability to believe an event be used as proof that the event did not happen?

An event might go unwitnessed and belief is subjective and idiosyncratic.

How can you apply something which is true for yourself to the whole of mankind? I really can't believe you just said that Ion

This last statement suggests that because you find all your needs met within the scientific method then this is also true of everyone! Where's your 'hard evidence' for that? Surely you're joking? Please say you are!

The quote
"But they're not unsupported! There is evidence in nature which lends respectability to Biblical claims...",
has my reply:
which evidence of the parting of the Red Sea for Israelites, and at the same time the swallowing of Egyptians? The 'enemy' Egyptians, haven't even noticed this Egyptian 'disaster' in their records.

That's the consensus view isn't it?

Well, belief/unbelief isn't evidence regarding truthfulness.