wavy_wonder1

High five for expressing my sentiments exactly!


Finis,
ELB

show_no_mercy

There's no evidence that "Moses" said that. It would be more accurate to say that the Deuteronomist said that. For all we know, the Greek name "Moses" (it would actually be closer to "Moshe" in Hebrew) could have been an invention (along with Joshua [ie "Jesus"], David, and Solomon) of the Persian elites who resettled Judah with people who later called themselves -- or were called by these Persian elites -- "Judaites" thus "Jews".

spamandham

I think this says more about your skeptical inclinations than it does about the evidence for these men.

In regards to Homer, of course we should doubt his historicity. You have no doubt at all about him!? We don't even know when he supposedly lived, or anything about him. The stories attributed to him were first fixed hundreds of years after his purported lifetime. Prior to that, we have little clue as to what they looked like or how long they had been circulating.

Moses is an obviously mythical person. There certainly was no such historical figure, as nothing attributed to him is supported by archeology, and he plays an obvious theological propoaganda role.

wavy_wonder1

I don't think that's so 'obvious', and the 'archaeology' for a single historical personage wouldn't be something just hiding in plain sight in the sands of the Sinai wilderness. In my judgment the independent traditions about Moses in the Hebrew bible are enough to satisfy the case for his historicity. But that's a topic for another thread.


Finis,
ELB

ercatli

Thank you everyone for your comment, mostly unfavourable, but I guess that goes with the territory. I won't be commenting in detail as that would only take more time, but a few brief responses .....

1. Some of you criticised me for lack of evidence - I "only" quoted scholars, whereas you wanted to engage with the detailed arguments. But history is first of all about actual facts (what texts say, what is their context, etc) and only the experts can do that.

2. A couple of you criticised me for being a "drive-by". But I have been a member since 2006, and return from time to time, as is my right. Had we got somewhere in the acceptance of expert conclusions, we might have gone further.

3. Tim, I have received lots of advice here, so pardon me if I give some - you really should avoid making such strong definite statements when you actually don't understand - as here. It works like this .... (1) Many people today believe the resurrection happened (whether they are right or wrong, it is a fact that they believe it). (2) Two millennia ago, no-one believed in the resurrection (it was before Jesus allegedly had grown up). (3) Belief in the resurrection had to start some time. (4) It is of interest to historians when, where and how a belief began, and study of this is a legitimate part of historical study. (5) When historians study this matter, they find that belief was very early, with a few years probably of Jesus' death. (6) Thus, regardless of whether you or I personally believe or disbelieve in the resurrection, my statement that the scholars, in the main "argue for early belief in the resurrection on historical grounds" is correct, meaningful and not "nonsensical".

4. Thank you squiz for your kind words. I would be happy to discuss further with you, publicly or privately, if there was anything further to discuss.

I appreciate the careful comments you have made about whether we can trust the experts. Here is a brief response to a few of them:

You have to be selective. I have read Sanders, Powell, Evans, F Watson, C Tucket, J Paget, Bockmuehl, Borg on how they take great pains to separate personal belief from historical analysis, and most others (from memory, e.g. Crossan, Meier) would do the same. If someone doesn't do that, I tend not to use them. Would that sceptics would do the same with those on their side who do not so distinguish belief from fact! And, contrary to the claims of others here, Grant isn't the only secular historian I could quote along similar lines - I have already mentioned RL Fox & AN Sherwin-White, and I could add E Judge.

Is this a fact or a myth? I have "Jesus:The Final Days (or via: amazon.co.uk)" by Evans and Wright in front of me now, and Wright says quite directly: "this does not amount to "proof" of Jesus' resurrection". Like many scholars, he outlines what he thinks are historical facts - the empty tomb and the resurrection appearances (whatever the explanation one might give them - Sanders, even the Jesus Seminar and I think Grant conclude similarly) - then argues that no-one has come up with a satisfactory explanation of these facts, apart from that the event actually occurred. So he too distinguishes historical facts from his own conclusions.

I think you are being unnecessarily pessimistic, and I'm sorry you feel this way. I'd like to discuss more. And like I've said many times, the only valid starting point must be to be sceptical of both the overly christian and the overly sceptical scholars, and go with those who use standard historical methods.

Best wishes to all of you, and thanks again.

Toto

Historians may debate when the belief in the resurrection started, but NT Wright tries to justify the Resurrection itself as a historical event. This is not history; it is pure religion, and it is a misuse of history for religious purposes. It is the creation science of the profession of history.

spamandham

It would be if there were any truth to the stories involving Moses. But there isn't. There was no Exodus, there was no 40 years in the desert, there was no slaughter of the pre-existing inhabitants of the promised land, no 10 commandments tablets, and no ark of the covenant...nothing. None of this is historical even if we discard all the obvious magical nonsense, it's all fantasy.

Moses is the Hebrew version of Remus and Romulus. There seems to be an odd sort of modern arrogance that proliferates, where we think that the ancients had no creativity at all and couldn't possibly just invent stories. No. Everything had to have a historical root no matter how absurd it is.

We all have our own judgments, of course.

show_no_mercy

And if we were all still speaking Latin and living in the Roman empire, there would be "no doubts" about the historicity of Romulus and Remus.

spamandham

Even worse, NT Wright does not even feign objectivity nor pretend to approach history in a scientific manner:

http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_J...surrection.htm

On the other hand, the Frei school have overstated their case about the nature of historical investigation. By no means all historians today believe that they are ‘objective’ or ‘neutral’, attaining fixed and unalterable results by supposedly scientific means. On the contrary, I myself stand in a line of historians who have explicitly renounced that pseudo-objectivity and have instead argued for a form of ‘critical realism’ in which the interaction between the historian and the subject matter is fully allowed for

i.e., he's a well educated creative writer, spinning tales that support his theological preconceptions. I hope this attitude does not pervade the mainstream, but from what I can tell, it does.

wavy_wonder1

I see what you're saying, but I think an evaluation of whether not Moses did several of the things the Pentateuch says he did isn't the same question as whether he actually existed and is responsible for some of the traditions in the Pentateuch.

There was no exodus on the biblical scale and timeline, for sure. But several scholars see some validity in a contingent of Semitic refugees leaving Egypt and being incorporated into the existing 'Israelite' tribes in Canaan. The conquest tradition is irrelevant, since Moses isn't associated with it anyhow. But the ark of the covenant nonexistent? I would say that goes against so many lines of evidence that it's not even funny. (e.g. its independent attestation, it's historical importance as a palladium of war and symbol of Yahweh's rule and presence, its connection with the ancient fragment of a war song in Nb x, reflected in Ps lxviii, etc.) But could Moses have been a lawgiver or cultic functionary at a sacred mountain out in the desert in Midianite territory (one recalls the totally mundane tradition/s about him being the in-law of a Midianite priest) where various desert tribes and elements making pilgrimages from Canaan (including early Israelites?) worshiped?

And I don't think everything has to have a historical basis. There are obviously many fictional personages accreted to real personages and events that, as Martin Noth would put it, 'enrich' the folk narratives and other kinds of narratives in the Pentateuch. But there's too much you have to explain away for no reason in my opinion to deny Moses' historicity.


You can open up a thread on it if you care to.


Finis,
ELB