oixo

I am the first to admit that I do not know much about pre/early Moses area and I haven't done much research on this matter, so excuse my blunt ignorance and take my questions as mere speculations, but I was always curious to know what archaeological evidences unearthed to verify Moses' existence. Do we know much about the pharaoh ruled at the time of supposed Moses? Did they conscript anything speaking or verifying of/the 10 plagues rained on Egypt and "magically" left the slave tribes (aka Israelites) unharmed?

Couldn't be that the Israelite tribes simply wandered off on to deserts for half a century, then concocted some divine man (aka Moses) and rallied the tribes to the place back occupied by Canaanites under [manly] devised set of canons and jump start a cultural and religious phenomenon of ancient Judaism? Is it true that once Israelites got to Canaan, they demanded them to leave the land because "God had promised them" as such? Did they simply massacre/wage wars against Canaanites and ultimately exterminate the majority of their population? Was the Torah, in its entirety, revealed to Moses or like Bible, it was augmented by the inspirational "trances" some of the Judaic followers were blessed with?

Toto

Here's the book you want to start with: The Bible Unearthed.

In short, no archeological evidence of Moses. No evidence of any wandering Israelite tribes that invaded Canaan.

And then, if you are interested in Moses - I have not read this, but the author writes well (he is a literary editor at the LA Times as well as an intellectual property lawyer): Moses: A Life (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Jonathan Kirsch

Doug Shaver

There is none.

Egyptian records from the time record nothing at all about any of the events mentioned in the Bible's account of the exodus.

There is no evidence outside the Bible that the Israelites ever spent any time wandering in any desert.

No, none of that seems to have happened. The book of Joshua seems to be entirely fiction without any basis at all in real history.

DLH

Here are some things to consider. Just for consideration.

Hecataeus of Abdera, Manetho the Egyptian historian, Lysimachus of Alexandria, Eupolemus, Tacitus and Jevenal all acknowledge Moses as the writer of the code of laws of the Jews. Numenius the Pythagorean plilosopher mentions Jannes and Jambres as the Egyptian priests who withstood Moses. From the time of Alexander to the Emperor Aurelian many ancient writers mention Moses as leader, ruler and lawgiver.

Keep in mind that skeptics once argued that Babylonian King Belshazzar, Assyrian King Sargon and Pontus Pilate were myths until archaeology later confirmed their historicity.

Author Jonathan Kirsch wrote: "The remnants and relics of biblical Israel are so sparse that the utter absence of Moses in any source except the Bible itself is neither surprising nor decisive . . . a life story so rich in detail and dialogue, so complex . . . could not have been made up."

Archaeologist Joyce Tyldesley: "Egyptian women achieved parity with Egyptian men. They enjoyed the same legal and economic rights, at least in theory, and . . . women could make adoptions."

The ancient Adoption Papyrus actually documents one Egyptian woman's adoption of her slaves.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary: "The payment of Moses' natural mother to nurse him . . . echoes identical arrangements in Mesopotamian adoption contracts."

Minimalist

And further, Egyptian records and correspondence from the Amarna Tablets indicate that from c 1500 to c 1140 BC the Egyptians maintained political control of Canaan.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war, Israeli archaeologists descended on Sinai seeking evidence of their "wandering" ancestors. They found nothing.*


* The Archaeology of Ancient Israel edited by Amnon Ben Tor. Pg 282.

-Jay-

Acknowledgement of longstanding traditions does not equal proof of those traditions.

So? That some characters appearing in Biblical stories have been historically confirmed isn't interesting. Indeed, it's to be expected. Nobody that I know of argues that the Bible contains no historical accuracies. The mistake is in extrapolating "some" to "most" or "all".

This is a most interesting quote. The first part comes from pg. 354 of Kirsch's book. The second and third parts are from pg. 358, and in context read:

Kirsch is not arguing in favor of an historical Moses here. Further, the existence of an historical individual (or individuals) named "Moses" somewhere in Hebrew cultural traditions is a far cry from confirming the exploits of the Biblical Moses. Indeed, if the best one can argue is that "way back when there was a man named Moses", one doesn't have a particularly interesting argument.

That the Bible gets some details correct, or close to correct, about ancient Egyptian customs is neither surprising nor unexpected.

Above and beyond the existence of Moses as an historical individual, though, is the fact that his exploits, most especially the Exodus from Egypt, are completely unattested in the archaeological and historical records, but are rather refuted by those records.

regards,

NinJay

Tom Sawyer

As I understand it, the Egyptians were excellent record keepers. Wouldn't the death of the entire population's firstborn children and the destruction of one of their armies be the type of thing they'd want to make a note of?

DLH

Yes, exactly. Keep in mind that we are discussing the historicity of Moses. Might as well ask the cat.

That some characters appearing in Biblical context - not stories - have been historically confirmed isn't interesting unless you had previously argued that they didn't exist only when the subjective archaeology and the archaic history confirmed them, then it is supposed to have some import to which you would care to subscribe. When you say "some" to "most" to "all" you are only making the point. It doesn't matter what history says, it doesn't matter what archaeology says or what the Bible says. You believe what you want to believe. That is what it is about. All of the discussions regarding the historicity or the archaeological evidence is nonsense.

No. One doesn't. And if someone other than Kirsch from long ago said otherwise it wouldn't make a bit of difference. I think you are beginning to see my point but you can't see your own. Though they are the same.

You see? There isn't anything remotely truthful or revealing about your opinion or your ability to gather evidence or "facts" any more OR LESS than the Bible. It is a moot point.

Which means nothing. You argue against nothing? No. You argue against what you believe. What you believe is that Moses didn't exist or specifically that there is no historical or archaeological records of him that have been found which means nothing. And if they were found, it would still mean ... NOTHING!

YEAH! We are so smart we learned nothing!

Toto

Do we have to go through this every time a new apologist arrives?

No skeptic ever argued that Pontius Pilate was a myth. Never. We looked.

Belshazzar was not a king as far as anyone knows. (See the same thread above.) Sargon? Lots of apologists claim that skeptics refused to believe in Sargon based on the one reference to him in Isaiah - at least, I assume, until the discovery of cuneiform records showed that the legends of Moses were hauntingly similar to the legends of Sargon.

DLH: This is the internet. Saying that you don't read links is like bragging that you don't read books at school. The argument that Quirinus was governor twice, or other kludges meant to harmonize the various stories in the Bible has been demolished. There is no point in reprinting that entire text each time some newbie shows up with the same arguments.

DLH

[Laughs] Right. The Egyptians were excellent record keepers and the writers of the Bible were Bronze age goat herders on dope, right?

The Egyptian kings list or annals - including the fragmentart Palermo Stone, the Turin Papyrus (even more fragmentary) are as good as it gets. The writings of Manetho along with astronomical calculations, based upon the lunar phases and the rising of the "Dog Star (Sothis)" are primarily what modern day historians and Egyptologists have to work with.

The works of Manetho are used to give some sense of order to the fragmentary lists and inscriptions that are preserved in later historians such as Josephus, Sextus Julius Africanus Eusebius and Syncellus (collectively from the 1st to the 9th Centuries C. E.)

Studies in Egyptian Chronology, by T. Nicklin (Blackburn, Eng., 1928, p. 39): "The Manethonian Dynasties . . . are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less independent princes, partly . . . of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt."

Professor J. A. Wilson states: "A warning should be issued about the precise historical value of Egyptian inscriptions. That was a world of . . . divine myths and miracles . . . The historian will accept his data at face value, unless there is a clear reason for distrust; but he must be ready to modify his acceptance as soon as new materials put the previous interpretation in a new light." - The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 280, 281.

Now typically the Bible isn't taken as seriously as secular histories such as

But there are thousands of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible. And manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures go back to within a hundred years of the time of the writing of the original books.

You can't argue that the Bible is of a supposed supernatural order when it is often the same for other secular histories.

It is a political issue with Skeptics not an historical or religious one. Muslims and Christians are on the political agenda, not just anyone who believes in fairy tales. The Native American isn't in the political sights of the skeptic, only those who pose a political threat.

I can't remember the name of that Egyptian Queen who carved the name of her predecessor out of the records because she didn't like her.

* mod note: cribbed from W.G. Waddell, Manetho (or via: amazon.co.uk) cited here.

**mod note: the material in orchid text boxes should be attributed to FF Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (or via: amazon.co.uk), copyright various years by the Inter-varsity Fellowship.