Why would you expect to find something of Moses OUTSIDE of the tribe that told his story and to whom the law was given?
I'm not talking about outside of his tribe, I'm simply talking about extra-scriptural texts. Every society has -always- had it's sceptics.
Jersey Girl: Brenton...as I stated, you were attempting to compare the historicity of a human being with an ancient fertility god. Anthropomorphism has not a thing to do with it. Moses was not presented as an anthropomorphic god in the Old Testament.
Actually even on the face of it he does represent Aries the ram, and this is why Jews blow the rams horn.
"Caesar, Baal and Molech are all mentioned in the Bible. Would you attempt to compare the historicity of those as well?"
I certainly would. Why believe in the existence of any deity?
Moses is put in mythological territory by assocation with other law giving men who recieved laws from God. We have Manou, Mises, Moses and others.
Now, it would be okay if their laws did not compare, but infact they do. The Egyptian Book of the Dead commandments are fairly identical. I'm just paraphrasing here, because I haven't got my copy with me ...
Egypt: "I have not killed"
Israel: "Thou shalt not kill"
Egypt: "I have no solten"
Israel: "Thou shalt not steal"
etc
Why do you think there is no difference between trying to compare a human being with an ancient fertility god?
Because they both have a "deity-ness" about them. Both are counterparts with the One God in some way or another. There is a difference in their characteristics, but they're both just an fantastical as each other.
Jersey Girl: The Bible didn't even exist when these stories were told or textualized. Your reference to "non-biblical" is entirely irrelevant.
It is in-fact, not. Every society has still had it's scribes, and we would expect to find something -- whether ancient scrolls, or something else. You are quite right to say that biblical writings are fairly recent in a historical context in comparison with other scriptures from other societies.
Where else would you expect to find mention of Moses outside of these tribal stories?
Something without the folklore, basically. Something other than the writings we HAVE, something other than faith documents.
You cannot use these documents describing Moses we have, because, by comparison with other mythologies, and with the use these documents have we see they are faith documents.
So you have to put them aside, you cannot use faith to historically reference someone. What else is there? Moses is just folklore.
Jersey Girl: Please show me anywhere on this thread, in any of my posts that I claimed "infallibility".
I'm not particuarly adressing your comments (until now). I was making an example.
Jersey Girl: What has Hindu law got to do with Moses, Brenton? I'm not sure what you're trying to convey. Is it that you think there were other law givers? I don't dispute that.
Well I'm glad you don't. It's simple. Mythology by assocation.
Brenton, with all due respect, law givers are part and parcel of societies. Are you saying that all law givers are likenesses of Moses? What has this got to do with whether or not Moses was a historical figure?
Simply that he wasn't a historical figure. He was just a story attached to the tribal deity of the time, which gained leverage because it was spread by it's devoters in their time, for example those living in Alexandria.
The simple answer is, they're all mythologies. What makes this one special?
