The Evil One

Where else? How about THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD? Which gives us no reason to suppose there was an Exodus... and the known, established fact of Egypt's regional prominence is quite sufficient to explain the whole "names" thing. Postulating the Exodus is unnecessary to explain the evidence that we have.I do not buy the "Moses wasn't 100% wonderful therefore it must be the truth" story. Especially since he overcomes his youthful flaws to become a national hero, just as the Israelites overcome their slavish origins to become a mighty people. So a) there's no reason to suppose that this story is incongruent with Israelite nationalism b) there's no reason to suppose that promoting Israelite nationalism was the sole / primary purpose of the legend.

If you know of any other "elements" that are "indicative", I suggest you name them.

DrJim

But what is your evidence that this story comes from a time of expansion? Why can't a culture have invented a story of escape in a time of weakness? WHat date do you put for the Exodus text? And why can't a culture produce a tragic, complex hero?

Without knowing the exact circumstances of the writing of the exodus traditions, its expansions and the governing scribal and literary conventions, it is pretty presumpuous to say what the writer of the exodus myth could or could not have imagined.

In literature, a character can serve purposes beyond the simple actions necessary for the plot. Since he is such a complex character (probably composite, too), I think we must consider that Moses was intended in this version of the myth to express something of the foibles of life (the guy never makes it to the promised land himself). To interpret the exodus myth as only the narration of events and to look at features of the narration, characterization etc. only to attempt to prove historicity is an impovershed way of reading and an absurdly simplistic way of doing history. Its reductionism unjustifiably rules out the possibility of finding a complex and brilliant exploration of human nature in all its strengths and weaknesses, the meaning of history, sacralization of place etc.

Sauron

Uh, no. The point does not still stand, nor does repeating your wishful claim make it so.

Yes, you would. If the narrator wanted to make the story sound plausible, that is *exactly* what you would have.

Ignoring the fact, of course, that you haven't demonstrated "Moses" to be an Egyptian name in the first place.

What?

A single name?
One that you haven't even proven is Egyptian in the first place?
And you think it demonstrates that there is truth behind the Exodus myth?

Your standards of evidence are laughable. A single name demonstrates nothing of the kind.

Pretty miserable, actually.

Sauron

No plague satisfies all five conditions I gave - which is why I listed them as a group, leonarde. Your handwaving doesn't help your argument.

Wrong. The ancients didn't know everything, but they did know some basic things - quarantines, infections, etc. Even the Hebrews knew they needed to quarantine lepers. The preventative measures that the ancients took; well, they probably attributed it to mystical powers (i.e., boiling the knife used to cut the umbilical cord of a newborn baby wards off demons).

But your statement that they knew nothing is simply more of your ad hoc B.S. And, predictably, you cite no sources. Ever.

And naturally, you're just ad hoc'ing your way through the argument here. Source for your claim?

As I indicated: social status and wealth would have allowed some people to avoid the conditions and locations where such a plague would have occurred. One of the things about plagues is that they are worse in the cities, esp bubonic plague, because the concentration of humans is so high. But a small village of farmers 50 miles from the nearest large town or city wouldn't have the slightest risk from the plague in that city. The same would be true for any rich or influential person who lived in a private enclave (or villa) away from the city. Yet the Exodus plague of the firstborn would have assumedly affected that small village and the rich person as well - that is, if it had ever happened.

That assumes that it ever happened - which it did not.

Why focus on just livestock? It allegedly affected humans as well. And if there had been such a large die-off of livestock, that's a spectacular event that would very likely have been recorded.

No, leonarde, I'm asking for you to prove that any plague in Egypt's history ever satisfied all five of the conditions I gave. Here they are again:

a. affected both humans and animals;
b. selectively killed just the firstborn in every family, and no one else;
b. affected peasants, merchants, artisans, military and royalty alike, without respect to status or income ( and remember, that wealth translates to better food, cleaner living conditions, access to medicine, and generally avoiding circumstances and locations that breed epidemics);
d. had effective range all over Egypt at the same time, instead of being isolated to seacoasts, lower Egypt, upper Egypt, Sudan, etc.
e. done all this death and destruction within a very short timeframe,

4 And Moses said, Thus saith the LORD, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:
5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.
6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

Items a-e would be true of the alleged plague of the firstborn, but not of any random epidemic.

Dance for us some more, leonarde.

Sauron

So what?

By the same token, the ancient Israelites were "touched" by their proximity to great empires - Babylon, Assyria, and Egypt. So much that when they were crafting their national mythology during the time of Josiah, they could have easily borrowed an Egyptian name to make their story sound plausible.

Assuming that Moses is even an Egyptian name in the first place - which you have never proven, nor given any sources for.

Your rebuttal here only makes your own position weaker.

Sauron

Bumping this, since leonarde seems to be on a roll today....


Gonna support your claim, leonarde? I mean, with sources and not ad hoc statements?

Sauron

Gee. You just skipped over a whole bunch of other evidentiary sources - archaeology, comparative history, forensics, etc. - and jumped right to the biblical narrative. I can't imagine why you'd do that. Could the reason possibly be that there is no extra-biblical evidence whatsoever for the Exodus story? And that you're unwilling to face that fact, so you quickly skip over such evidentiary sources and hope that nobody notices you doing so?

And you say this, based upon what?
Your extensive examination of how many national mythologies?

Can you list the ones you studied here for us, and the conclusions you drew from this examination? Or is your claim above just another ad hoc assertion?

Unless the priests are writing the story and want to make it clear to the politicians exactly who holds the reins of power in Israelite society.

Except:

1. You have yet to prove the name is Egyptian in the first place;

2. You have yet to prove that the name - if Egyptian - wasn't simply borrowed by the narrators at a later time.

leonarde

Here's something I just found:(leonarde's emphasis)

Above from:
http://www.oldtestamentstudies.net/l...area=egyptpent

Part of above, centering on the words for "linen" in OT:

So I guess my pal from the previous page was wrong.....It isn't just a matter of (an) Egyptian name(s).......The ancient Egyptian language left its imprint on the ancient Hebrew language.

Cheers!

DrJim

Well whoopty-doo...

What does this prove? All it demonstrates is some level of linguistic exchange: Egypt and Israel are not all that far apart: the words may have entered Hebrew from any kind of trade etc.
Egypt ran Palestine from time to time: are you seriously suggesting there could be no similar terms for what were probably trade items?

Have you really scored a victory for your cause?

You have proven nothing about the Exodus. To do that you must demonstrate how those words could ONLY have been adopted by Israelite slaves in Egypt. All other possibilities, including that the words were adopted into some NW semitic languages long before the time of the alleged exodus, need to be ruled out.

leonarde, you are completely lost. Making good time, mind you, but still completely lost.

Sauron

For the audience:
the site is making the argument that since the Hebrew word for "linen" used in Exodus is similar to the Egyptian word, that indicates that the Hebrew text must have been written at the time of the Exodus.

Ther are numerous flaws with this line of reasoning:

1. There are 34 occurrences of this word "sheshiy" (linen) in Exodus. However, of the 34 occurrences of this particular word for "linen", 30 of those occurrences are repetitive descriptions about the tabernacle and the clothing of Aaron and the priests. By that I mean a chapter that reads like:

* Moses commanded that linen be used...
* Then the word went out to gather linen...
* A clever craftsman worked with the linen...
* The linen garments were ready for the priests...

And so on and so forth. Indeed, those 30 repetitions are confined to just three chapters: 28, 36 and 39. So it is deceptive to position this as being frequently used throughout Exodus. Repeating the same phrase over and over again hardly constitutes independent occurrences of this phrase in the text.

2. This word sheshiy is NEVER used in Leviticus, Numbers, or Deuteronomy, even though the events of those books supposedly occur at the same time (or within a generation or two) of the Exodus. And the players we see active in those books (Moses, Aaron, etc.) are still alive and very much part of the narrative story. Instead of seeing the word "sheshiy" in thre remaining Pentateuch books, we see the other 6 or 7 words for "linen" suddenly being used, and "sheshiy" drops out of usage all the way until Esther. That's very hard to explain, if you are making the argument that this word supposedly proves that Exodus (the book) was written near the time of the alleged Exodus event.

3. According to this site, the timeline for the usage of this word "sheshiy" by Egyptians (as evidenced by Egyptian documents) stretches from as early as 2100 BCE to approx 580 BCE. That means that cross-pollenation of this word from Egypt to Israel could have occurred anytime over a period of approx 1500 years. So that means that the word was in current usage in Egypt all the way up to Nebuchadnezzar's time, and the destruction of the Temple. Which means that the Exodus storywriters could have borrowed it at any time before approx 580 BCE.

What you *needed* here, leonarde - and what you don't have - is an Egyptian word that was only used during the alleged Exodus time, and then fell out of usage in Egypt after that point. That would allow at least a semblance of being able to "date" the usage of the word and the possible contact with Egypt, in order for Hebrew to acquire the word.

Keep dancing.