Did Moses in fact exist?

[Rainbow Mage]

I acknowledge a Moses could have existed, just not as put forth in Exodus. There may have been a figure named Moses who led the Israelites at some point, but I doubt it's from Egypt. All evidence is suggesting the Israelites were originally Canaanites.

 

[Rakhel]

According to the story, the family of Jacob lived in Canaan before they lived in Egypt.

I do have a question though, how long does one have to live in a land before they are considered members of that land?

 

[Rainy]

There is much evidence to prove the Exodus account recorded in a book by Lennart Moller, The Exodus Case.

There are still 12 wells at Elim; a huge, split rock at Horeb, with evidence of massive water erosion; a blackened peak at Mt. Sinai; and much more physical evidence in Sinai.

Check out a youtube video Revealing God's Treasure - Mt. Sinai.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I am not sure. I know I certainly don't believe the Moses of the Bible exists. If an actual Moses had existed, or an Egyptian figure the Hebrew Moses was based on, he had to have been radically different then what the book of Exodus puts forth.

Thoughts?

Egyptian names, Moses, Phineas, Hophni are found in the Exodus accounts and this is surely an indication of an extremely close association with Egypt.
The Egyptian names appear to be limited to members of the tribe of Levi.
Further, Levi had no possession in the land.
I have heard this cited as evidence for a 'Levite only' sojourn in Egypt; the Levites having arrived in Canaan after the land had been distributed, and a place being found for them, in recognition of their kinship, as the national Priesthood and servants of the Tabernacle.
　
Whether or not the whole of Israel sojourned in Egypt, there is this evidence to suggest that at least the Levites sojourned there.
　
As to whether or not Moses was an historical character, the naysayers should have an answer for the existence of the family of the Mu****es.
The existence of a patronymic family of priests indicates to me the existence of a pater.
The family's existence is attested by the earliest scriptures, its influence waxes and wains throughout the scriptures with the prophet Jeremiah being, perhaps, its most influential member.
So if Aaron, David, etc's historicity can be attested by the existence of their familial presence through history, then why not Moses?

 

[outhouse]

then why not Moses?

because there is nothing to idicate his historicity, nothing at all.

just a myth that states he lived over 900 years old, we know fiction was added and there is nothing to indicate it is not %100 fiction

 

[Valjean]

"Yes, Virginia, there is a Moses"

There may be scant historical or archaeological evidence for a Moses or an Exodus, but he exists in the hearts of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

 

[outhouse]

There may be scant historical or archaeological evidence for a Moses

there is none

the exodus has but the slightest evidence,,, but it doesnt match the biblical account at all.

 

[Levite]

just a myth that states he lived over 900 years old, we know fiction was added and there is nothing to indicate it is not %100 fiction

Actually, the text says that he lived to be 120. Which, even if one takes literally (and, of course, that is a big if), is not that much more than some of the recent record-holders for old age.

And, as I pointed out previously, while there may be nothing to indicate the story is not fiction, there is also nothing that indicates that the story is fiction. There is no evidence one way or the other. Which means that it is no more reasonable to decide with complete certainty that it is entirely false than to decide with complete certainty that it is entirely true.

 

[outhouse]

nothing that indicates that the story is fiction

the credibility of the story itself proves fiction.

the fact the story was not written by any known authors, but rather many unknown authors who were not first hand eyewitnesses to the event that happened almost a 1000 years previous to its final version we have now indicates fiction

 

[esmith]

Moses early life, also unattested in Egyptian sources evokes cross-cultural folktales and Israelite cosmogonic motifs. His infrancy paralles that of Sargon of Akkad: protected by women from execution by an evil king, placed in a reed basket, and rescued. The term for Moses's basket is the same for Noah's ark (tevah). Above taken from a synopsis of a course by Professor Amy-Jill Levine; Professor of Religious Studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, the text says that he lived to be 120

im sorry your right about that. I get confused with all the other unbelievable ages. [mental issues i get noah and moses confused dyslexia ]

with the biblical ages being as bad as they are. I would not put any weight at all that "IF" moses existed he lived that long. Its just more bad information in my eye.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

The part about Moses' life I doubt most is the Egyptian element. As several people have already pointed out, the Egyptians are entirely silent about a person named Moses, and his story has several parallels with Sargon when it comes to the part of Exodus set in Egypt.

If there ever was a Moses then it's the second half of Exodus that could tell us about him, and not the first. The first is too mythical.

 

[Caladan]

The part about Moses' life I doubt most is the Egyptian element. As several people have already pointed out, the Egyptians are entirely silent about a person named Moses, and his story has several parallels with Sargon when it comes to the part of Exodus set in Egypt.

If there ever was a Moses then it's the second half of Exodus that could tell us about him, and not the first. The first is too mythical.

You mean as mythical as Horus, Set and Osiris?

 

[dmgdnooc]

because there is nothing to idicate his historicity, nothing at all.

just a myth that states he lived over 900 years old, we know fiction was added and there is nothing to indicate it is not %100 fiction

Your assertion, that there never was a Moses, must also include that there never was an Aaron or David.
C'mon, you can still be an atheist and yet acknowledge the historicity of persons attested by the Bible and the presence of their families in history.
　
The Mu****es are mentioned in the earliest Hebrew scriptures (from the mid 9th century bc) and despite being removed from power at Jerusalem and made fugitives from Shiloh they remained a coherent family at least until the time of Jeremiah (mid 6th century bc).
　
Considering that the Aaronic Priesthood was firmly fixed in place throughout this period.
There were no privileges of wealth, power or position that accrued to the Mu****es from maintaining the insistance of their ancestry.
Therefore the continuing historical existence of a family of outcast priests who held themselves to be the descendants, by birth, of Moses is not nothing.
　
It is something indeed; and worthy of consideration.
Because maintaining the assertion of their familial origin ensured that they were excluded from the Temple service and the seats of power and wealth.
Why would they choose to remain outcasts for the 300 years covered by the records that are left to us?
Why would they exclude themselves if they, at the very least, did not believe that there had been a man called Moses who was their paternal head?
　
And if they had, in the mid 9th century bc, invented a progenitor for their family why choose to give him an Egyptian name?
Surely a Hebrew name would have better suited a deception.
Indeed why not claim Aaron for their father?
The Aaronids were already in power at Jerusalem, a deception claiming Aaron as their father would make much more good sense.
　
I reason that they were Mu****es because of descent, not deception.

 

[outhouse]

The part about Moses' life I doubt most is the Egyptian element. As several people have already pointed out, the Egyptians are entirely silent about a person named Moses, and his story has several parallels with Sargon when it comes to the part of Exodus set in Egypt.

If there ever was a Moses then it's the second half of Exodus that could tell us about him, and not the first. The first is too mythical.

biblical moses is a fable.

it was combined with their own traditions plus those of others before them like most biblical writing.

AGAIN there was a exodus out of egypt, what size and where to little is known.

 

[outhouse]

Your assertion, that there never was a Moses, must also include that there never was an Aaron or David.
C'mon, you can still be an atheist and yet acknowledge the historicity of persons attested by the Bible and the presence of their families in history.
　
The Mu****es are mentioned in the earliest Hebrew scriptures (from the mid 9th century bc) and despite being removed from power at Jerusalem and made fugitives from Shiloh they remained a coherent family at least until the time of Jeremiah (mid 6th century bc).
　
Considering that the Aaronic Priesthood was firmly fixed in place throughout this period.
There were no privileges of wealth, power or position that accrued to the Mu****es from maintaining the insistance of their ancestry.
Therefore the continuing historical existence of a family of outcast priests who held themselves to be the descendants, by birth, of Moses is not nothing.
　
It is something indeed; and worthy of consideration.
Because maintaining the assertion of their familial origin ensured that they were excluded from the Temple service and the seats of power and wealth.
Why would they choose to remain outcasts for the 300 years covered by the records that are left to us?
Why would they exclude themselves if they, at the very least, did not believe that there had been a man called Moses who was their paternal head?
　
And if they had, in the mid 9th century bc, invented a progenitor for their family why choose to give him an Egyptian name?
Surely a Hebrew name would have better suited a deception.
Indeed why not claim Aaron for their father?
The Aaronids were already in power at Jerusalem, a deception claiming Aaron as their father would make much more good sense.
　
I reason that they were Mu****es because of descent, not deception.

I understand where your coming from, i have no personal stake in this what so ever. I could care less one way or another. For you I wish information was found proving moses was a real person.

I could be wrong but im under the assumption moses means "law giver", this would go along with the ten commandments. The ten laws came from the egyptian book of the dead. This sets said person up to be a mythical charactor based on what little ancient hebrews really knew about their own past.

this is how I see the reality of the situation with what we know so far.

people of unknown quantity left egypt, they carried storys of the past culture. A new story was told about this migration. the 10 commandments were cherry picked from oral tales originating from the book of the dead, it was a common fable that changed over almost a thousand years. The story changed as the times and beliefs changed but the theme remained.

remember these people were probably semetic egyptians or learned the semetic language and evolved into hebrews. They were not hebrews as we know them now when the exodus began.

we only know hebrews as they were in biblical writing after they became a known civilization.

there is very very little historicity of hebrews before 1000BC since the earliest forms of their language only go back that far. We have the pottery shard from 1000BC which is semi religious in nature and that's the oldest.

it sucks we have to rely on oral tradition which were written as fables to drag non-fiction out of.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I understand where your coming from, i have no personal stake in this what so ever. I could care less one way or another. For you I wish information was found proving moses was a real person.

I could be wrong but im under the assumption moses means "law giver", this would go along with the ten commandments. The ten laws came from the egyptian book of the dead. This sets said person up to be a mythical charactor based on what little ancient hebrews really knew about their own past.

this is how I see the reality of the situation with what we know so far.

people of unknown quantity left egypt, they carried storys of the past culture. A new story was told about this migration. the 10 commandments were cherry picked from oral tales originating from the book of the dead, it was a common fable that changed over almost a thousand years. The story changed as the times and beliefs changed but the theme remained.

remember these people were probably semetic egyptians or learned the semetic language and evolved into hebrews. They were not hebrews as we know them now when the exodus began.

we only know hebrews as they were in biblical writing after they became a known civilization.

there is very very little historicity of hebrews before 1000BC since the earliest forms of their language only go back that far. We have the pottery shard from 1000BC which is semi religious in nature and that's the oldest.

it sucks we have to rely on oral tradition which were written as fables to drag non-fiction out of.

As I understand it Moses carries the connotation of one who has been 'drawn out of' a reference to his being drawn out of the Nile.
Further it is seen as being Egyptian in names such as Tuthmose, Tuthmosis and others which I suppose should be understood as one 'drawn out of Toth' or some such.
Which undercuts your having Moses mean 'lawgiver' however I should mention that the negative confessions of the Book of the Dead (each version of which seems to be uniquely tailored to the person for whom it was prepared) could only in the most tenuous manner be compared to the Decalogue and no book of the dead would have included the first 4 commandments.
　
outhouse.
Sumerian is an amalgam of languages and the origins of modern Hebrew are clearly seen in its earliest forms.
Semitic peoples managed their herds, often as fringe dwellers, grazing as they moved between the deserts and the fertile plains.
A good slice of so called Sumerian is Semitic, particularly the technical terms dealing with pastoral activities.
But not all Semites were fringe dwellers, Babylon was a Semitic city, Akkad a Semitic hegemony, Akkadian a Semitic language.
And the word 'Hebrew' appears to be an appellative of the Canaanites refering to a Semite that had crossed over the Euphrates into Canaan from Mesopotamia. Gesenius.
Look in Sumer and Akkad for the origins of the Hebrew language and people, not in Egypt.
　
That there was no Hebrew alephbet until after they became a settled people is not proof that they did not write using Sumerian or Egyptian characters.
You are supposing that the language followed the development of the writing when it is clear that the development of the writing followed the language.
　
Does your theory originate with Carol Redmount's article in The Oxford History of the Biblical World?
If so you should consider the fact that the Bible is concerned with only one of those Hebrew families, or households, that of Abram the Hebrew which became, by blood and/or accretion, the Israelites.
As Gesenius notes, Hebrew, Habiru, Apiru was at that time a designation for all Semites who had crossed the Euphrates.
And may well have described others, non-Semitic, who had also crossed over, it seems to have been widely applied and regardless of familial or linguistic associations.
My point being that all Israelites are Hebrews but not all Hebrews were Israelites.
　
You can surely see that assuming that all Hebrews became Israelites is outlandish speculation; especially when familial associations were/are such a central feature of Biblical life - as seen in the case of the Mu****es who kept their family name even though it was a political and economic handicap.
　
Now, I haven't done any serious reading on this in over 12 years so maybe Caladan, or some other educated in the field, could point to a range of current texts that are suited to a study.
　
And another point on which I depart from you, Oral Traditions.
Oral Tradition, I think you will find, is not like a Chinese whisper racing around a classroom.
It is surprisingly resilient because all the listeners know the story already and are immediately aware of, and resistant to, any changes.
The core of an orality will be transmitted intact, most especially genealogical information.
The OT, in its various parts, was written to reflect and preserve that solid, and well known, oral core but also with an eye to current reigning political realities.
No offence, but I think you could do a little work on upgrading your respect for Oral Tradition and Oral History.
　
Now as to Moses, I accept, in large part, the Documentary Hypothesis so I do not suppose that there was a single writer of the Pentateuch.
But that there was a man named Moses who was a primary Israelite priestly figure associated with the (or an) Exodus and whose authority, in national tradition, was great enough that the Israelites as a whole could accept him in the position that J, E and P independently ascribe to him seems much the mostly likely case.
J, E and P, the earliest strands of Israelite literature (though often enough in competition one with the other) all agree on the importance of Moses.
And none dares ignore him, though it seems J and P may have had reason to if they could.
　
So, I reason that Moses was firmly entrenched in the minds of all Israelites long before these works saw the light of day.
He was a revered leader and stories were remembered about him around every Israelite campfire regardless of tribal affiliations.
　

 

[BigRed]

Not everyone believes Jesus was god you know, and even if he was, he was a god with human limitations. He was in human form, and probably didn't remember before he was born anymore then we do.

Mark 9:4
Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.

If the Gospel says Jesus spoke to Moses, then if Moses doesn't exist doesn't that make the gospel a fraud?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Mark 9:4
Elijah appeared to them along with Moses; and they were talking with Jesus.

If the Gospel says Jesus spoke to Moses, then if Moses doesn't exist doesn't that make the gospel a fraud?

It makes that particular element of the gospel a myth, as I never said the gospels were infalliable texts. Remember, you're dealing with a Gnostic here, not a Christian. I know the gospels are traditional accounts, not eyewitness testimonies.

 

[outhouse]

Look in Sumer and Akkad for the origins of the Hebrew language and people, not in Egypt.

I have studied this and agree somewhat. wiki semetic for a clear basic understanding of the history.

That there was no Hebrew alephbet until after they became a settled people is not proof that they did not write using Sumerian or Egyptian characters.
You are supposing that the language followed the development of the writing when it is clear that the development of the writing followed the language.

they were not really hebrews at the time of the previous cultures writing, if you study this you will see hebrews dont go back much past what 1250BC ISH then 250 years later we start finding the earliest writings. Semetic language does not indicate a hebrew.

SO the storys we have in genesis are not really hebrew storys at all but really earlier fables told to semetic speaking people who evolved into the hebrews. Some storys may have been from semetic origins, many were not.

The OT, in its various parts, was written to reflect and preserve that solid, and well known, oral core but also with an eye to current reigning political realities.

wrong there are many mistakes in the bible due to bad oral tradition. this is common knowledge.

does the bible not list a few different genealogies?

No offence, but I think you could do a little work on upgrading your respect for Oral Tradition and Oral History.

Im sorry I have studied it, and dont agree. You cant base any accuracy with genesis because its such a patchwork compiled together. Much of it is myth and we know the origins of some of the myths come from sumerian and egyptian cultures. Much of the writing is nothing but fiction based on previous storys with a hebrew twist.

if the oral tradition stayed in one culture then I would agree, but we have a few different cultures involved here and the normal rules for oral tradition do not apply in any sense.

I wont ask you to learn history before you make comments you may not fully understand.

But that there was a man named Moses who was a primary Israelite priestly figure associated with the (or an) Exodus and whose authority, in national tradition, was great enough that the Israelites as a whole could accept him in the position that J, E and P independently ascribe to him seems much the mostly likely case

your confusing the man moses with the story of moses. There is no way with any certainty we can make a man out of the story with what we have.

I do love talking about this with you because of your knowledge on the subject.