[danholo]

The archaeological community is split in Israel. Some believe, some don't.

[Suska]

poetic retellings of borrowed stories

I distrust the idea that we can say who said stuff first that far back - the evidence we have cannot possibly be comprehensive. But more than that it seems to roll together with the general impression people get when they look at what became the Catholic lore - having seen these same stories from Sumeria and Egypt etc; resurrections and miracles etc. When moderns label Sumeria and Israel we know a history of warfare and bigotry - we know the depth of the modern divides. But the Levant was apparently continuously occupied, even by Homo Erectus and Cro Magnon and Neanderthal during the same period just before the Mesolithic. Human identity was not what it is now. Everyone had the same storybook and it may have even been told by tribeless bards or shaman.

That said the Moses story may indeed be more recent. Parts of it are probably extremely old and though it still means that there was some synthesizing going on it doesn't necessarily mean it was cultural theft. Anyone that was around would have had fair claim to any of the histories/myths still hanging around from antediluvian times and Genesis looks to me like exactly that - mashed together for the purpose of making it a compelling story to tell.

Paradigm, is that book you were reading by any chance On the Genealogy of Morality? I'm sorry if I'm a bit late to this thread, it's just that I'm taking Western Civ 1 right now and I may write my paper on such matters, possibly 'first evidences of modern behaviors' I don't know yet though. I find the Biblical stories fascinating.

[Social_Critic]

The story is fake, of course. There's no proof whatsoever. The guys who made it up could have said the Hebrews came from giant spaceships, and it would be just as reasonable. The walls of Jericho didn't come tumbling down, and there was no burning bush dictating laws to Moses. Like all religions, judaism is an invention used to unite people and make them follow an authority. Like all religions, it makes people intolerant, helps them justify hatred and war.

I prefer the more orthodox version, that hebrews were pastoralists who lived in the area around Hebron and Jerusalem. They were politheistic, had menorahs, developed their own alphabet, and eventually one faction decided to enforce a monotheistic religion with a single temple. This tells me the idea was based on the need to have a monopoly on sacrifices and the associated political power. As you know, they had to sacrifice animals and sometimes people in the temple, and this was a source of power for the guys who controlled it. If nothing else it gave them a lot of dead meat and leather as byproducts, which probably encouraged the development of the local sausage and furniture industry.

Thus, this religion, like all other religions with no exception whatosever, is a construct. And the construct requires codified tales, fables, and of course laws. Because the laws are the key to the whole shebang. They allow the ruling class to have power and control. And if you are not willing to break those ancient, meaningless laws, then you are just tied to tradition, and you are unable to break your spirit free.

[Suska]

You make too many assumptions I think. Is a story that is just a story automatically a lie? I would rather it be a story and read it as such. It's old, who knows. But certainly a unification of cults could be taken as something other than a cynical monopolization of sacrifices. Whatever that means. As though you met someone who was put out of work during this change and over a few pints discovered what demonic beings these monotheists were... Henotheists, I think, and Catholicism is a similar case: not the annihilation of worship, ordering and contextualizing into a set. Maybe no one was put out by this, and maybe they ate babies. There's no reason to assume either.

[Social_Critic]

I'm not making many asumptions, not really. Nothing I said was my own material. I read what they write at Ben Gurion University, and I strip if off the niceties and the polite language, which means I leave the brutal truth for you to sense just how sensitive the whole issue has become. If you want to read a bit about it, read Ze'ev Herzog's material, and go on from there. Being agnostic, and being an atheist when it comes to the standard religions, I have no problem being brutal here, because none of you are about to cruficy, burn me at the stake, or impale me. I wouldn't be this way in your faces, because I realize people get very medieval when it comes to defending their religion.

[Suska]

What you call revealing the truth I call applying modern assumptions. The fact that you deliberately remove the religious element from your version demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about. That said, I'm curious about these sources of yours.

[Social_Critic]

I remove the religious element from my discourse because I'm not religious, and I think the religious content is meaningless. In other words, I haven't been brainwashed into believing that a huge horde of Hebrews escaped from Egypt, wandered around the desert for many years without leaving a single trace, and then invaded Canaan and Moab and genocided the local population in an orgy of destruction encouraged by the supernatural being which had chosen them to park themselves in the cross roads of empire.

Don't you get it? If God had really wanted to help the Hebrews, he would have taught them to build large seagoing canoes and would have sent them to Hawaii. Chosen my behind. The only thing that made the Hebrews special was their location, which made them the victims of endless invasions and butt kickings by more powerful entities. And the admirable thing about them is their ability to survive in spite of having been beaten like drums for 3000 years.

Regarding where to start, look up "Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" by Ze'ev Herzog, who was the head of the Archeology Department at Ben Gurion University when he authored that paper. It's a paper that's so loaded most of you won't ever hear about it. It destroys the basis for the Jewish religion, which means it also destroys Christianity and Islam.

[Suska]

Deconstructing the Walls of Jericho" by Ze'ev Herzog

This is basically the story which Mircea related yes?

I remove the religious element from my discourse because I'm not religious, and I think the religious content is meaningless.

In other words you don't know what you're talking about.

The historicity of biblical tales is dubious, even Jesus as a single actual individual is problematic. This is a problem for literalists. The Bible is the West's book. It's big, it's old, it's been poorly treated, but it's still history and it's still wisdom. The method appears to me obvious, equally obvious is the impossibility of corroboration. I don't think ancient names correlate to the modern and I think the stories get compacted on occasion to form a more cohesive narrative - all of this comes from an oral tradition. You take the same evidence as I see and imagine villains. I see stories worth telling held dear enough to pass for thousands of years from memory to memory.

[margot]

I'd like to be pragmatic and say it never happened, but it would not be honest. There is very great evidence of the Exodus - far more than whatever is written in the Gospels, Quran or most any other scriptures. Let me list a few of what I refer to as evidences.

1. No proof of Moses. This is technically correct, but then again, we have a text which clearly states Moses' burial will never be found - not quoting this makes the charge a lie by omission. This is a remarkable statement, because it ended up being correct, even when we see burial sites of almost every figure in the Hebrew bible, including older ones like Abraham and his family, Moses' brother Aaron and many others. Here, the absence of proof becomes the proof, and should we ever find Moses' burial place - the Hebrew bible becomes dis-credited.

With regard the exodus:

2. First and foremost we have PROOF the Israelites were in Egypt around the time of Moses. A 3,500 year Egyptian stelle mentions a 'WAR WITH ISRAEL'.

3. Thereafter we have PROOF the Israelites returned to Canaan and held that land its sovereign kingdom upto the Roman invasion of 70 CE. This begs the question, how did all the Israelites, accounted as 3 million in the book of Exodus, get to Canaan - and how can this not be termed an EXODUS? Did they fly there or just pop up?

4. We have a writing which records every cubit travsersed, with routes, nations, wars and a host of incidents which can be traced today. It begs the question where did the Israelites get this data - did they have access to a secret libraray? Did they make it up retrospectively? Can anyone make up 1000's of names, dates, genealogies of themselves and nations gone by - even with a super computer?

5. The descriptions of Egypt are the best we have, including of Egypt's then contemporary kings, cities, diets, religions and terrain - with not a single error. Of note, we do not find camels or tomatoes listed in Egypt.

Those are the factors which give credibility to the Exodus, to the extent it is not credible to deny it.

The factors that discredit the Exodus are that Sinai was Egyptian at the time with many Canaanite cities that paid tribute to the Pharaoh and were in turn protected by Roman garrisons.

Secondly there is no evidence for large populations or sudden destruction of Canaanite cities in what is now Palestine.. Some scholars will go to far as to allow that the great conquests Joshua may have been minor skirmishes.

[Social_Critic]

Ok Suska

The Bible is the West's book. It's big, it's old, it's been poorly treated, but it's still history and it's still wisdom.

. I don't even use the Bible when I look at the original texts. I read the translation of Hebrew texts by Jews who translate the stuff into English. The Bible to me is a sideshow, an edited book, copied from older texts, and hardly relevant when it comes to discussions about Exodus.

And when it comes to Exodus, both the Hebrew text and therefore the Bible fall apart. Those who refuse to see this are just shocked and suffer from cognitive dissonance, which of course is very human.

As a couple of us mentioned before, it is supremely absurd to claim that tens of thousands - or hundreds of thousands - of Hebrews who ran away from Egypt in a hurry were able to travel around, fight, dwell, die, be born, eat, defecate, and break plates all over the Sinai for a long period of time without leaving a single trace. What you guys need to do, if you want to say Exodus happened, is to claim that since we live in parallel universes, it happened in aln alternate reality, and that somehow the story got here and was adopted. The claim that it happened in an alternate reality is just as fantastic as saying they did it in our own universe, but at least you get around the lack of any archeological or tangible proof. Those who say Exodus happened are just unable to accept that the Hebrew religion is full of holes, and this of course makes Christianity and Islam just as holy.

[margot]

The Exodus story claims that 600,000 ablebodied men left Egypt along with wives, parents, children, herds and 2 midwives.

That would make about 2 million people.. Even now Sinai can't support 2 million people and herds.. There isn't enough water and pasture.

Its a silly story if taken literally because Sinai was Egyptian at the time and its only a ten day walk to Palestine.

[Social_Critic]

Margot, that arithmetic is a bit off. If there were 600,000 able bodied men, and 1/3 of them could fight, then they had 200,000 would be soldiers?

But according to the written record, Ramses II entered the battle of Qadesh against Muttawaili's Hittites with four divisions and 20 thousand men plus an elite personal corpos. The Egyptian records show the Hittites had approximately 27 thousand soldiers show up at the battle, their army being composed of Hittite and allied "nations" interested in overthrowing Egyptian hegemony of the city of Qadesh, located in what today is Syria.

This tells me there's something wrong with the Hebrew numbers as claimed by the Hebrews. If Moses could take so many of them from Egypt, then they had no need to fear the "real" Egyptians, because the Pharaoh just couldn't put together an army big enough to fight such a large host.

Of course, there's other issues we can bring to bear, the Hebrews never left a single trace of themselves in Egypt, they left no trace of the movement in the desert, and it's impossible to feed and water so many people. I should know, I lived in a camp in the desert we supplied by truck and air transport, and sometimes we ran low on fresh food, so I would personally range as far as 100 km to see what I could find at nearby villages. And when you have 200+ men to feed, making lemonade takes a lot of lemons.

This whole idea of hundreds of thousands or millions running around like they say they is beyond ridiculous. I'd say the number would have to be at best 1000 - and they still got to figure out where they came from, which I suspect may have been somewhere remote like Medina, rather than Ramses II's Egypt.

[margot]

LOLOLOL.. The Exodus story is absurd.. unless you take it as pure allegory.

Escape from bondage.. slavery of ignorance and not knowing God.

Crossing the Yam Suf.. water.. representing crossing out of "Chaos"..

[Ryan Austin Clarke]

Yes, the Exodus did happen. It's one version of history that sometimes agrees ... and other times disagrees with the history produced by Ramesses II. In the Bible the person named Moses is more than likely also Muwatalli II and Thutmose III ( or Thutmose II ). Most Egypt historians believe Ramasses and Thutmose ruled during seperate time periods. I believe both were of the same 'family,' and were involved in civil war which is both recorded in the Bible and Egyptian history.

The Battle in which Moses holds his staff into the air ( with the help of Aaron ) in Exodus 17 is in fact the same battle in history commonly called the Battle of Kadesh ... which is also the same battle known as the Battle of Megiddo.

Each account is according to a different 'fighting faction' ... one by the Egyptians. One by the Jewish people following Moses. And one by the folks who couldn't make up their mind as to whom to follow ... either Ramesses or Thutmose.

[The Immortal Goon]

I skimmed this thread at best, though in case it hasn't been brought up, Moses could have an Egyptian etymology. It's all very plausible (though difficult to prove) that Moses was an Egyptian that followed the Akhenaten creed. This would explain the complicated way that Exodus justifies someone with an Egyptian name, raised by Egyptians, and in a prominent enough position to ask audience with the Pharaoh was Hebrew (ie, he wasn't). The fact that he tried to push monotheism so hard, had a tradition of laws, and set everything up might speak to him transmitting an old Egyptian creed to the Hebrews more than anything else.

[margot]

The mummies of Thutmoses 2 and 3 have been found in Egypt.................

Kadesh is in the South... Megiddo is in the North.

Yes, the Exodus did happen. It's one version of history that sometimes agrees ... and other times disagrees with the history produced by Ramesses II. In the Bible the person named Moses is more than likely also Muwatalli II and Thutmose III ( or Thutmose II ). Most Egypt historians believe Ramasses and Thutmose ruled during seperate time periods. I believe both were of the same 'family,' and were involved in civil war which is both recorded in the Bible and Egyptian history.

The Battle in which Moses holds his staff into the air ( with the help of Aaron ) in Exodus 17 is in fact the same battle in history commonly called the Battle of Kadesh ... which is also the same battle known as the Battle of Megiddo.

Each account is according to a different 'fighting faction' ... one by the Egyptians. One by the Jewish people following Moses. And one by the folks who couldn't make up their mind as to whom to follow ... either Ramesses or Thutmose.

[Ryan Austin Clarke]

The Battle of Kadesh is today thought to have taken place near the Orontes River in present day Syria. The Battle of Megiddo is thought to have taken place in Israel somewhat close to the Jordon River. Both battle sites would have been located in the Kingdom of Kadush and both 'battle descriptions' recorded in history are somewhat the same ... so perhaps they are the same battle told by both sides.

I should note that Moses of the Bible also being an Egyptian pharaoh is highly likely ... although most who study history might disagree.

I will admit my prior statement should only serve as a thesis ... proof is very limited ... and studying Egyptian/Jewish/Hittite history is extremely difficult due to what limited historical artifacts remain ... but nevertheless I believe that while today most historians argue the 19th and 18th dynasties of Egypt occurred during two different time frames ... that in fact ... they overlapped in time with the 18th dynasty being associated with Moses and his followers ... and the 19th dynasty being associated with Ramesses.

[Social_Critic]

Well Ryan when you say

I should note that Moses of the Bible also being an Egyptian pharaoh is highly likely

you do put forth an interesting thesis.

This thesis of yours reminds me of Thor Heyderhal, the guy who built the Kontiki to prove the Incas had settled in Polynesia. Maybe you can recruit several million volunteers, go to Egypt, and then cross into the Sinai on foot, dressed like Egyptians from Ramses II's times, and wonder around with them for 40 years. This will give you a really good data set on the amount of burial sites and pre-cropolithic material such a horde leaves behind while criss-crossing the desert.

[Ryan Austin Clarke]

This thesis of yours reminds me of Thor Heyderhal, the guy who built the Kontiki to prove the Incas had settled in Polynesia. Maybe you can recruit several million volunteers, go to Egypt, and then cross into the Sinai on foot, dressed like Egyptians from Ramses II's times, and wonder around with them for 40 years. This will give you a really good data set on the amount of burial sites and pre-cropolithic material such a horde leaves behind while criss-crossing the desert.[/quote]

The Bible is based upon 'oral tradition.' That is, much of the old testament was originally scribed by 'word of mouth.' You should keep that in mind when you use terms such as 'wonder around with them for 40 years.' In the Bible, the number 40 appears very often ... used in terms of days, months, and years. The correct meaning of Moses and his followers rambling the desert for 40 years ... is they rambled for a very, very, very long time ... the exact length of time no one could remember exactly.

Part of the problem with 'exact dating' in the Bible and other timewise historical texts such as written by Josephus is some ancient cultures followed a 'moon calendar' and others followed a 'sun calendar' and yet othes followed a 'star calendar' which used both the moon and sun for timing.

40 is significant in the Bible because, for example, after 40 days you usually knew, one way or the other, if a pregnancy had occurred. The use of the number four is common in the Bible as well ... the meaning of which is
1. beginning 2. middle 3. end 4. story after the end of the story.

So when you read historical texts remember that what you read was told as a story by word of mouth, over and over and over again, until someone wrote the story down ... typically after it had been told ( and alterations made to the story ) thousands of times.

I'm not going to waste 40 years of my life trying to convince you Moses was in fact an Egyptian pharoah ... and the 'old testament' of the Bible is an ancient Lower Egyptian text telling the story of how a group of people enslaved first by early Hittite cultures ... then by Upper Egyptians (who forced the Lower Egyptians to trash the ecosystem) ... finally achieved 'cultural freedom' under the reign of King David ( who himself was part Greek-Hittite-Egyptian ).

[septimine]

The story is fake, of course. There's no proof whatsoever. The guys who made it up could have said the Hebrews came from giant spaceships, and it would be just as reasonable. The walls of Jericho didn't come tumbling down, and there was no burning bush dictating laws to Moses. Like all religions, judaism is an invention used to unite people and make them follow an authority. Like all religions, it makes people intolerant, helps them justify hatred and war.

I prefer the more orthodox version, that hebrews were pastoralists who lived in the area around Hebron and Jerusalem. They were politheistic, had menorahs, developed their own alphabet, and eventually one faction decided to enforce a monotheistic religion with a single temple. This tells me the idea was based on the need to have a monopoly on sacrifices and the associated political power. As you know, they had to sacrifice animals and sometimes people in the temple, and this was a source of power for the guys who controlled it. If nothing else it gave them a lot of dead meat and leather as byproducts, which probably encouraged the development of the local sausage and furniture industry.

Thus, this religion, like all other religions with no exception whatosever, is a construct. And the construct requires codified tales, fables, and of course laws. Because the laws are the key to the whole shebang. They allow the ruling class to have power and control. And if you are not willing to break those ancient, meaningless laws, then you are just tied to tradition, and you are unable to break your spirit free.

But really, I think the story of the exodus, (ignoring the numbers perhaps) is much more reasonable than a lot of other stories that we know were written as a National Epic. The Hindus wrote the Mahabharata and couldn't help but put in spaceships and huge wars between such ships. They couldn't help but have entire cities destroyed from the air. In the same vein, consider the Aeneid. The hero meets all kinds of monsters that couldn't possibly exist, visits Hades to talk to his dead father, and is visited IN PERSON by various deities of the Roman Pantheon. The Havamal has a lot of the same thing. A guy building a fence around Asgard by means of a magic horse. Dwarves giving a god gold. A god decending to Hel to drink from a magic well. Now compare that to the basic ideas in the Exodus (or even Genesis) God takes a slave people and marches them from the cities of Ramses (which did exist BTW) to just beyond Jordan. lead by a human leader and a priest. The miracles for the most part are reasonable. They get hungry -- God gives them food. They follow a pillar of fire and smoke (which most moderns seem to think is a volcano, perhaps Santorini). None of this is nearly as implausible as flying machines destroying huge Indian cities during god-on-god warfare, or Aeneas going to Hades for a one on one chat with Dad, or Othinn going down to Hel, hanging from a tree and drinking special mead to get smarter.

That's what makes the story of the Exodus much more likely to represent real events. Even if they might be somewhat exaggerated, they on the whole are something that could have happened in ancient times. Nothing in the accounts would be out of place in a Bronze Age world.