Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 07-05-2007, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

Yes, at least it seeems that Biblical maximalists consider it plausible that Moses was actually an Egyptian who was sympathic to the Hebrews. The story of the basket would in that case, I guess, be a later story made up (or borrowed) to make Moses one of them.

Of course we then end up in a fairly familiar place: everything we know about Moses is later mythical accretion and we know zippo about the supposed historical core.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu · 07-05-2007, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Yet, Israel Finkelstein's view of the archaeology of the area is that "Israel" and "Judah" (the names may have been invented later) were always separate kingdoms although both derived from the same general Canaanite population. IN this sense, the field surveys show that "Israel" was always the wealthier and more dominant state while "Judah" was a backward region until late in the 8th century BC.

Exactly, and they say even more: that there is no evidence that the Exodus happened while there is evidence it didn't happen. That would make it a fairly good gues that Moses didn't happen either, wouldn't it?

Gerard Stafleu

Gundulf · 07-05-2007, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tammuz

It seems that the mainstream position among historians today is that the exodus never happened, and that the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews (what is the difference between those terms anyways?) emerged from among the local Canaanite population.

Thus Moses is most likely a mythological character, right? But I would like to know if there is some historical truth - perhaps a historical human being - behind the man. In any case, which are the sources for the legends of Moses? Surely, they were not made up out of thin air, were they?

Being interested in history - and having being so since childhood - the OT and its stories are much more interesting than the NT.

Can anyone point to me where I can find this "mainstream" position among historians? When I first heard this on IIDB, I did a quick Wikipedia search on the exodus, (Wikipedia, of course, being the collection of all knowledge true, infallible, and unquestionably correct...) - and got the distinct impression that the dates of the event were disupted by historians, as some of the details, etc.

But I did not get the impression in the least that the consensus of scholarship is that it didn't happen and was simply mythical. Where exactly can I find these mainstream historians? (And, especially, without having to pay a whole lot of money for a book?) Any good internet links that could get me started?

gstafleu · 07-05-2007, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biomystic

As for Moses, in keeping with Jewish writers propensity to borrow neighboring pagan legendary figures and gods and do Hebrew make-overs on them, I think it's quite probable that "Moses" is a makeover and taming of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutmoses III who conquered Canaan about the time Moses was supposed to be putting around.

"Moses" is the Egyptian word for "son of" (cf "bar", "ibn"). So Tutmoses was the son of Tut (Toth), which brings up the interesting question: what was the son of Tutmoses called? OK, so the "moses" was only attached to gods when it came to naming pharaohs, but it is still interesting in an anti-anti-missile-missile-missile kind of way.

Anyway, this means that Moses was not necessarily named after a specific pharaoh, he could have been his own X-moses, where the Hebrews dropped the X for the obvious reasons.

Gerard Stafleu

Rick Sumner · 07-05-2007, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The story of the exodus is a fairly standard hero-story, with one interesting twist: the hero is not an individual (like Odysseus) but the whole Jewish people! You're right to say that it is myth, and if you want to find out more about that the primary field to look is not history but comparative mythology. A good start is The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

I've always been skeptical of our friend Lord Raglan. If his scale truly transcends time and culture, why do contemporary heroes score so much lower? Even restricting it to heroes who undertake a "journey," (as Raglan would have it), and omitting ones such as James Bond or Indiana Jones, they still score lower than their "hero-iness" should allow.

Why do more modern heroes like Dorothy Gale, Superman, Luke Skywalker, or Batman score lowly? They are all heroes in the sense that Raglan was looking for, but they barely rank (and I'm aware that the latter two are dependent on the former two--that was intentional--Raglan, and later Rank, didn't have any qualms about using dependent stories to create an illusion of compounding their points).

I could put together a scale that would accord high scores all of Raglan's heroes, and also included contemporary heroes like Superman and Dorothy (and by extension Batman and Luke). Does that mean my scale is better? Of course not. It means it's arbitrary. Why should I see his differently?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

gstafleu · 07-05-2007, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

The story of the exodus is a fairly standard hero-story, with one interesting twist: the hero is not an individual (like Odysseus) but the whole Jewish people! You're right to say that it is myth, and if you want to find out more about that the primary field to look is not history but comparative mythology. A good start is The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell.

I've always been skeptical of our friend Lord Raglan.

Good, because I didn't refer to him, and neither does Campbell to any significant extent. The concept of the quest of the hero is much wider than just a scale, as Campbell's book shows. If your idea of the hero is based on just the scale, you should definitely read Campbell's book.This, BTW, should be clear from the fact that I can claim the story of the ancient Jews as a "hero quest," while I'm pretty sure that this people scores rather low on Raglan's scale!

Gerard Stafleu

Minimalist · 07-05-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Yet, Israel Finkelstein's view of the archaeology of the area is that "Israel" and "Judah" (the names may have been invented later) were always separate kingdoms although both derived from the same general Canaanite population. IN this sense, the field surveys show that "Israel" was always the wealthier and more dominant state while "Judah" was a backward region until late in the 8th century BC.

Exactly, and they say even more: that there is no evidence that the Exodus happened while there is evidence it didn't happen. That would make it a fairly good gues that Moses didn't happen either, wouldn't it?

Gerard Stafleu

Yes, sir.

Biblical literalists always seem to balk whenever they are asked the question, "when did this happen?" They need to account for 400 years of bondage, and 480 years between Exodus and building the temple and 40 years of 'wandering' and a couple of odd months for incidentals. It isn't easy to account for nearly a millenium when archaeology simply refuses to substantiate your claims.

Thus, Finkelstein has convinced me. More to the point, he seems to have convinced William Dever and a lot of other real archaeologists.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.