No such thing as Moses

[_richardMdBorn]

Actually, if I remember my class on myth correcty, most myths start out as truth. Then after eons of time, and layer upon layer of additional flourishes, the myth bears little resemblance to its original truth.

But I could be wrong, because that class was a long time ago.

I should think so, yes, harm. I think of it as an ancient game of "telephone" (do you remember that game?) the stories for which originated amongst ancient tribal folk. I think we make the mistake of thinking that tribal orality has no basis in fact whatsoever.

I doubt we could ever achieve (i before e, except after c) evaluation of ancient tribal themes and cultural customs. We simply dig out pieces from deep beneath the earth and put them together to create a picture puzzle for which we will never have all the pieces. Do we understand the symbolism or cultural nuances in the language of the ancients? How is that even possible?

The stories of our own contemporary tribe are being told via the media. Does anyone actually think that, given our technology, our stories are told more accurately?

I refer you to Fox News.

How about CNN and MSNBC?

[_Brenton]

You also have the law giver from the Egyptian Book of the Dead -- Manou I think, but I haven't got it with me to check at the moment.
Men going up onto mountains to get laws from God is a very old motif.

Moses like the rest of the Bible is religious allegory and all within just characters. Much mithras, zeus, adons, thor, etc,.

Actually, if I remember my class on myth correcty, most myths start out as truth. Then after eons of time, and layer upon layer of additional flourishes, the myth bears little resemblance to its original truth.

But I could be wrong, because that class was a long time ago.

Well you might be right, but, the thing is that you cannot historically back a claim like that.

[_Jersey Girl]

How about CNN and MSNBC?

All of 'em, richard.

[_Calculus Crusader]

"The historicity of Moses is the most reasonable assumption to be made about him. There is no viable argument why Moses should be regarded as a fiction of pious necessity. His removal from the scene of Israel's beginnings as a theocratic community would leave a vacuum that simply could not be explained away." (Exodus, The Book of, John I Durham, The Oxford Companion to the Bible)

Dr. Durham is certainly correct. Didn't you get the memo that the Religiongeschichteschule has (rightly) fallen into disrepute?

[_Brenton]

That's entirely disagreeable. For one it comes from a biased resource.
As far as we know Israel already existed.

There is also the suggestion that Moses was not a real historical figure and that the Exodus did not occur at all. Some archaeologists have claimed that surveys of ancient settlements in Sinai do not appear to show a great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500–1200 BCE), as would be expected from the arrival of Joshua and the Israelites in Canaan. This suggests that the biblical Exodus may not be a literal depiction. Archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever, regard the Exodus as non-historical, at best containing a small germ of truth. According to Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.... The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus.

Biblical minimalists, such as Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, regard the Exodus as ahistorical. Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that the Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, is an idea that most biblical historians no longer support.

It's no more reasonable to assume Osiris, Manou, Cerridwen or any others existed.

[Guest]

That's entirely disagreeable. For one it comes from a biased resource.
As far as we know Israel already existed.

There is also the suggestion that Moses was not a real historical figure and that the Exodus did not occur at all. Some archaeologists have claimed that surveys of ancient settlements in Sinai do not appear to show a great influx of people around the time of the Exodus (given variously as between 1500–1200 BCE), as would be expected from the arrival of Joshua and the Israelites in Canaan. This suggests that the biblical Exodus may not be a literal depiction. Archaeologists such as Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever, regard the Exodus as non-historical, at best containing a small germ of truth. According to Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.... The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus.

Biblical minimalists, such as Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, regard the Exodus as ahistorical. Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that the Exodus, as depicted in the Bible, is an idea that most biblical historians no longer support.

It's no more reasonable to assume Osiris, Manou, Cerridwen or any others existed.

Wrong. Osiris is not remotely rooted in history. Comparing him to Moses only demonstrates that you do not have a firm grasp of historicity.

[_Calculus Crusader]

The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus.

Also, at least since Manetho, it has been suggested that the Hyksos expulsion is related to the Exodus and the Admonitions of Ipuwer is consistent with the events of Exodus.

[_Jersey Girl]

Also, at least since Manetho, it has been suggested that the Hyksos expulsion is realted to the Exodus and the Admonitions of Ipuwer is consistent with the events of Exodus.

Yes. Apparently there is reason enough to convince at least some, that the Hysksos expulsion was the Exodus.

[_Jersey Girl]

It's no more reasonable to assume Osiris, Manou, Cerridwen or any others existed.

I'm not familiar with who/what Manou or Cerridwen are however, wasn't Osiris an ancient fertility god? If so, how can you make a comparision between Osiris and Moses?

Welcome!

Jersey Girl

[_Brenton]

It's no more reasonable to assume Osiris, Manou, Cerridwen or any others existed.

I'm not familiar with who/what Manou or Cerridwen are however, wasn't Osiris an ancient fertility god? If so, how can you make a comparision between Osiris and Moses?

Welcome!

Jersey Girl

Wrong. Osiris is not remotely rooted in history. Comparing him to Moses only demonstrates that you do not have a firm grasp of historicity.

I'm making a comparison between historicity. They're both only mentioned in non-secular religious texts.
Osiris can actually be very strongly be compared to as a pre-Jesus ... Jesus myth. But that can be left to another discussion.

Moses has only been "rooted" in history because the the three largest religions purport this and have since their inceptions.

Manou is found within the book of the dead and he recieves laws from god.
The comparison I was making wasn't as to the similiarities in the story of Osiris and Moses ... but what I'm trying to get across is this:
I'm willing to bet all of you don't believe Osiris, Thor, Cerne, Mithra, Adonis, and all the others don't have roots in history. So why this fellow when there are so many other historical comparisons which bear resemblance?