No such thing as Moses

[_krose]

Finkelstein does not speak for the entire profession and he is an apologist for his own ideas.

That's a very odd use of the word 'apologist.'

[_Calculus Crusader]

Finkelstein does not speak for the entire profession and he is an apologist for his own ideas.

That's a very odd use of the word 'apologist.'

Not at all. He is as wedded to defending his ideas as religious apologists.

[_Brenton]

No, Brenton. You're attempting to compare the historicity of a human being with an ancient fertility god.

Caesar, Baal and Molech are all mentioned in the Bible. Would you attempt to compare the historicity of those as well?

This is known as antropomorphism, among other things. It's combining some things which are REAL with an allegorical story to "mobilise" society.

"You're attempting to compare the historicity of a human being with an ancient fertility god...."
There really is no difference. Also, Osiris is actually better described as a dying and rising God.

When you understand that there's really no clear non-biblical evidence for Moses or the Exodus, you start to understand why people don't see him as real.

And then when you realise there are many other "law givers" who recieved laws from God ... it makes even more sense that he is just another law giver who communed with diety.
"If we do what God commands, then he wont send tornadoes, fire and brimstone, etc,."
To claim Moses is grounded in history in an infallible way needs to be questioned highly.

In Hinduism, Manu is a title accorded the progenitor of mankind, first king to rule this earth, who saves mankind from the universal flood. He is honest which is why he is called "Satyavrata", or oath of truth.

According to tradition, Manava Grihyasutra, Manava Sulbasutra and Manava Dharmashastra (Manusmriti) texts are ascribed to Manu (Sayambhuva). Manusmriti is considered by some Hindus to be the law laid down for Hindus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_(Hinduism)

There are more. When I have my copy of the Egyptian Book of the Dead with me I'll give you a direct quote from it.

Basically seeing the "Moses" likeness repeated throughout history is proof that law givers are a very old motif, repeated because people wanted "laws" to follow to please god so he wouldn't bring them unto destruction.

[_Sethbag]

I think one thing Brenton may be trying to say, and it's not coming across as clearly as he'd like, is that if Moses is most firmly rooted, in scripture, as the central figure of the Exodus, and it looks as if the Exodus itself never happened, then just how well-founded is this Moses character after all, and why? If the Exodus story itself were made up, then why not also its central figure?

I can't say whether it's more likely that Moses existed, or didn't exist, but if the only "evidence" we have of his existence is his starring role in a made-up historical claim, then this is dubious evidence indeed, and we are right to be skeptikel.

I think this is similar to the existence of Adam. Some might say that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden may well be metaphorical rather than literal, but that Adam probably did exist as a man. I personally can't agree with that estimation. I think it's pretty clear that the Adam and Eve story is mythology, and therefor I see no reason to assume that a man Adam ever existed, whom the story is based on.

Would Zeus have to have been a real man at one point? Would Apollo? How about Bael?

[Guest]

Would Zeus have to have been a real man at one point? Would Apollo? How about Bael?

I'd have to say absolutely not. I don't have the means to discuss it in length at this point (being that it's midnight and I'd like to sleep soon). But man worships that which is around him (nature). Nature was sometimes hostile to man, and so to explain the existence around them they created deities (aspects of the "One"). If they behaved maybe they wouldn't destroy them.

I think one thing Brenton may be trying to say, and it's not coming across as clearly as he'd like, is that if Moses is most firmly rooted, in scripture, as the central figure of the Exodus, and it looks as if the Exodus itself never happened, then just how well-founded is this Moses character after all, and why?

This is somewhat related to what I'm saying. More clearly though, I'm also saying that Moses should be a unique law giver (and he's not, the law giver is a very old motif, as seen in one example I've already given) considering Moses was supposed to be called of God, we would expect his story not only to be the earliest of these law giving stories, but also unique.
To deepen my point on these motifs in deities throughout many mythologies, lets just mention Jesus for a second -- a mythical figure as he originally began, and we can understand this when we see the numerous other savior dying and rising gods throughout the world. However since Jesus isn't the topic I'm not going to touch upon it.

My point is, if there are other mythical law givers -- what makes Moses special? He's just more of the same.


----

I'm afraid I don't understand why anyone wouldn't believe that a historical figure, Moses, didn't exist.

What's the deal?

Again, I'm curious to know how much evidence anyone here thinks they would have regarding ancients who lived thousands of years ago, whose stories were told orally (and much later textualized) and who believed they experienced God in the exact same way that people (and even political leaders on behalf of their country) believe that they experience God today.

I have a feeling that if we went with the position of many skeptics, we'd think that nothing could be known about the ancients, period.

The difference between a lot of the other ancients is that there are -secular- evidences. Not just religious allegory. We would expect to find something of Moses since he was the leader of his people, other than "the 5 books of Moses".

Let me explain it this way -- religion was an allegory to explain the world around them, to the ancients. Let's use Seth and Horus (who, the Ancient Egyptians strongly believe in at the time -- they are not mythology). Seth was the personification of Dark, and Horus was the personification of Light. Every morning Horus would win the battle against Set (and the sun would rise on the horizon, "Horus is Risen") but in the evening Set would conquer Horus and send him into the underworld and "the works of darkness" would arise. Are we sounding scriptural at all? Anyway back to where we were ... religion was the explanation for the world, much as science is today.

You're attempting to compare the historicity of a human being with an ancient fertility god.

There is very little historical evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as an existing human being. He is just another mythical figure. Most biblical scholars disagree with this, but, ofcourse they do -- however in recent times there are more scholars reaching the Jesus myth conclusion.
The only non-biblical references to Jesus don't actually refer to Jesus as a human being, but instead to the body of Christians, the worship of Jesus, "Christos" or the "Christ" which was not his name but a title which Christians used.

Jesus is a sun god.

[Guest]

Not at all. He is as wedded to defending his ideas as religious apologists.

So is everyone an apologist or just every scientist and researcher? Can anyone just be honestly willing to be led by the evidence to wherever it takes them?

If you claim that all researchers are apologists, you have stripped the term of all meaning.

[_Brenton]

Not at all. He is as wedded to defending his ideas as religious apologists.

So every scientist and researcher is an apologist.

Scientists are, generally, open to fluid change if the evidence suggests so.
Period.

[_krose]

Brenton,

You're fast. You replied while I was clarifying.

[_Calculus Crusader]

So is everyone an apologist or just every scientist and researcher? Can anyone just be honestly willing to be led by the evidence to wherever it takes them?

If you claim that all researchers are apologists, you have stripped the term of all meaning.

Everyone? No. Finkelstein? Yes. The idea that only religious scholars are invested in their ideas is patently absurd.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I think one thing Brenton may be trying to say, and it's not coming across as clearly as he'd like, is that if Moses is most firmly rooted, in scripture, as the central figure of the Exodus, and it looks as if the Exodus itself never happened, then just how well-founded is this Moses character after all, and why? If the Exodus story itself were made up, then why not also its central figure?

I can't say whether it's more likely that Moses existed, or didn't exist, but if the only "evidence" we have of his existence is his starring role in a made-up historical claim, then this is dubious evidence indeed, and we are right to be skeptikel.

I think this is similar to the existence of Adam. Some might say that the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden may well be metaphorical rather than literal, but that Adam probably did exist as a man. I personally can't agree with that estimation. I think it's pretty clear that the Adam and Eve story is mythology, and therefor I see no reason to assume that a man Adam ever existed, whom the story is based on.

Would Zeus have to have been a real man at one point? Would Apollo? How about Bael?

The difference between Adam and Moses is that Adam cannot be situated in a historical context. By way of contrast, Moses can. And the events of the Exodus are consonant with the Ipuwer Papyrus.

Incidentally, you don't even have to believe most of the plagues were miraculous, as they are generally consistent with natural phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions.