lpetrich

Archeologists have arrived at a consensus that the Exodus and the Conquest had never happened, a consensus that has a certain consequence that they have not talked much about.

That Moses was largely or entirely mythical.

That is because much of his biography, if not most of it, is tied to events that never happened, meaning that a historical Moses could not have confronted the Pharaoh and led the Israelites to freedom. So if there was a historical Moses, was he some now-obscure local leader who got embellished by generations of mythmakers?

That would also explain why Moses's burial site has never been found; even Deuteronomy's writer(s) did not claim to know where it was ("He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is.", Deut. 24:6).

Ray Moscow

I think that Moses was mostly (or perhaps entirely) mythical. Certainly some elements of his life are mythological.

However, various possibilities of an historical Moses (HM) have been put forward. The one that comes to mind is Freud's, who thought he was an Egyptian who led a band of Egyptians out of Egypt (though I don't think archaeology supports this idea).

Ray

premjan

It was probably constructed as a legend composite out of various events, some hundreds of years after the fact.

It reads like a national myth rather than history. Krishna and the Mahabharata are probably the same.

Asha'man

I think looking for a historical Moses is a lot like looking for a historical Gandalf.

Once you know that the setting for the story is purely fictional, that the events it describes are not even a shadow of a real event, then it's a safe bet that the characters in the story are merely characters.

Chili

He was myth like Jesus was except that he did it wrong and led his followers into what has become known as hell. Jesus pointed this out in John 6:49 and 58 where the distinction is made between second hand bible passages and bread from heaven that was alluded to in Jn.5:39-40.

The evidence of this is that 40 years of purgation in the desert and die nonehteless is equal to hell on earth. Jesus showed us how to do it in 40 days and live forever (be eternal).

Harry Bosch

Please provide evidence for this that is outside the bible.

Cheerful Charlie

You have more liklihood of finding a historical King Arthur. Moses is based on hundreds of years of story telling. There was no exodus, no Moses on the mount, no bloody genocidal invasion of Canaan. Whether there was a man known as Moses or some similar name that was corrupted that gave these tales a germ of historicity is something we can never know.

What is important is we know the tales of Moses on the mount communing with God is nonsense and that is what is important.

The Moses/Joshua tall tale of genocide in Canaan is false, its faux history.What did happen is in about 1200 BCE the proto-Israelites were creating a series of unfortified hilltop farms in the near East. There was no bloody invasion. By the time they wanted a history, their real beginnings were long forgotten. Somebody with a priestly agenda made up one with an agenda. It has a lot of laws about tithes and what sacrifices are to be made by priests, and only 8 mentions of marriage, mostly "don't marry Canaanites". About four pages of minute instructions though for making the tabernacle. The main theme of all of this is, if you abandon God and his laws (and his priests) you will suffer heavily. With lots of fables demonstrating just that.

Reading this with a jaundiced eye looking for things like that tells you what this was all about and it wan't sober history.

CC

Minimalist

The pharoah who ousted the Hyksos from Egypt was named Ahmose I, c 1550 BC. It's fairly easy to see how that could have been garbled into "Moses" in the intervening centuries.

Note that the bible tale never identifies the pharoah by name. In later periods, when literacy had begun in the region, they name the late 10th century pharoah, Sheshonq I ( Shishak in the bible tale) and the 26th dynasty pharoah, Necho.

One of the favorite claims of bible thumpers is the old, "why would the Hebrews give themselves such an unglorious history if they were going to make something up?"

The answer is that you have to understand the time and the purpose of the tale. Finkelstein argues that both Egypt and Judaea found themselves in the position of watching as their Assyrian overlords were defeated by Babylon which allowed a window of opportunity for territorial aggrandizement. The competition for Judaea was not Assyria, it was a revitalized Egypt under the 26th Dynasty. Hence the story of how once before the Judaeans, mere slaves but with the help of god, defeated the mighty Egyptians. In order to do this again, people had to fully accept the laws of Yahweh. The tale having been written by the Yahweh-Alone club in the temple of Jerusalem, this makes a certain degree of sense.

In any case, it didn't work. Necho summoned the Judaean king, Josiah, to a meeting and then killed him and that was that for Judaea. Egypt's dreams lasted a few more years until the Babylonians crushed them at Carchemesh.

John Kesler

You mean Deuteronomy 34:6. Anyway, the burial of Moses is interesting because there are different traditions regarding exactly who did the burying.

The Masoretic Text and Samaritan Pentateuch say that "he," presumably God, buried Moses. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QDeut), the Septuagint, and some manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch say that "they," the Israelites, were responsible. And then there is the NT book of Jude, which, according to the church father Origen, derives the tradition contained in verse 9 from the Assumption of Moses:

It seems logical to infer that the reason Michael wanted Moses' body was so that he, perhaps accompanied by subordinate angels as in The Testament of Abraham, could bury it. Philo may be drawing on the same tradition:

So who buried Moses: God, Michael, or the Israelites?

Chili

Such as saints in heaven?

Purgatory and our prayers for those in Purgatory?

Confessionals instead of 'hatching boxes' in churches?

The arts?

No charismatic holy rollers allowed in Catholic churches?

No patient endurance songs as part of our liturgy?

No boasting about longsuffering?

No altar calls organized by those who are on fire for the Lord?

Their assurance of better days ahead when they die?

No madatory bible studies?

No boasting about salvation, or humility?

No spontaneous combustions but many incorruptables?

No religion peddling to others and no religion shopping by disguntled believers?

For Catholics religion ends when they "enter the race."

For protestants religion begins when they "enter the race."