Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Greatest I am]

Stop polluting the thread.

Stop not adding anything to the thread.

Regards
DL

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Albright's ideas have been refuted by his students namely Dever. Dever accepts there is no evidence for Moses. Perhaps you should read his work rather as he clearly establishes this. Rohl's views are solely based on his chronology which is not accepted by academy. If you reject his chronology his views amount to nothing. Fagan produces no new evidence, just speculation based on view's already accepted. Views such as there were a people identified as what we now know as Hebrew's in Canaan. He produces no evidence dating before this time frame.

I did not say any of those were supposed to be proving Moses' historicity, if you think that's my intention, you misunderstood my point. In context, I was merely pointing out historians whom are accepting his basic historical core, even if acknowledging minimal evidence for much of the biblical stories and legends.

Ancient historians, such as Josephus, relied on sources we don't have now because they are lost and those sources indicated Moses' existence and gave historians such as Josephus, Strabo and others reasons to accept his historicity, if these sources weren't lost, we would know much more about this than what the current consensus is saying, which is why this is justifying my decision to reject the hypothesis that Moses is a mythical figure.

Your views on Egyptians destroying their records is false since we have records from these time periods.... from the Egyptians....

I study history, I know more about this than you.

It is a historical fact that Egyptians weren't good record keepers (I didn't say we don't have any records at all from them), pharaoh Horemheb basically destroyed everything of Akhenaten's reign, even his tomb. If it wasn't for recent history around the 19th century from the find of broken statues, we wouldn't have known about Akhenaten at all.

Since Horemheb destroyed much from the Amarna period, we don't know much what happened back then, for example, we know very little about who succeeded Amenhotep IV, there is a dispute on whether Smenkhkare or Neferneferuaten was his successor due to insufficient records.

As I said, the Amarna period is very muddy, from an archeological point of view, and very little makes any sense, I find it plausible that the event would have been occurring around this time and credible historians don't deny Moses as a historical figure when taking this into account, basic things for historians that commoners like you and the majority of others do not know about, which is important to note in history and why a person cannot bluntly say as a fool "no pics, didn't happen," however this materialistic view is dominating like a plague/virus in the mainstream world and it worries me, since this also means arrogant ignorance regarding history rather than knowledge.

 

[Greatest I am]

The issue here is that people hold to the religious ideological view of Moses too much. Even if people compromise with the traditional story the idea they construct still must reflect a certain theological narrative otherwise other theological narratives taken as history collapse as the historical theological Moses narrative does.

I think that it is literal reading of myths that cause the breakdown of the wisdom the ancients wanted to pass on.

We do not read the Jewish works the way they were meant to be read.

Eden is one such place as Christianity call what happened in Eden our fall while the more intelligent Jewish view sees what happened in Eden as man's elevation.

The Jews were right and the Christians are not.

Regards
DL

 

[Shad]

I did not say any of those were supposed to be proving Moses' historicity, if you think that's my intention, you misunderstood my point. In context, I was merely pointing out historians whom are accepting his basic historical core, even if acknowledging minimal evidence for much of the biblical stories and legends.

Ancient historians, such as Josephus, relied on sources we don't have now because they are lost and those sources indicated Moses' existence and gave historians such as Josephus, Strabo and others reasons to accept his historicity, if these sources weren't lost, we would know much more about this than what the current consensus is saying, which is why this is justifying my decision to reject the hypothesis that Moses is a mythical figure. I study history, I know more about this than you.

It is a historical fact that Egyptians weren't good record keepers (I didn't say we don't have any records at all from them), pharaoh Horemheb basically destroyed everything of Akhenaten's reign, even his tomb. If it wasn't for recent history around the 19th century from the find of broken statues, we wouldn't have known about Akhenaten at all.

Since Horemheb destroyed much from the Amarna period, we don't know much what happened back then, for example, we know very little about who succeeded Amenhotep IV, there is a dispute on whether Smenkhkare or Neferneferuaten was his successor due to insufficient records.

As I said, the Amarna period is very muddy, from an archeological point of view and very little makes sense, I find it plausible that the event would have been occurring around this time.

Josephus thought the Hyksos were the Hebrews and he was wrong. Often history in antiquity is wrong wholesale as it was mixed with fiction and mythology. So no we do not take whole statements from historians from antiquity word's for factual statements. Do you accept other history which has mythology and religion mixed in as true? Do you accept Caesar Gallic Wars Journal's claims divinity due to his supposed bloodline? Do you accept the injection of Roman religion into the events in the work?

You generalized one example for cover a time frame. Now you are back tracking. You also repeat what I said. We also do not need to rely solely on Egyptian records. We know about this figure due to secondary evidence which required for the Moses' time frame along with post and pre periods. This is what is lacking, which you acknowledge. The figure in the theological narrative is a construct. The narrative does not represent history. The historical core is obvious due to what we know of the Middle Bronze Age Collapse 2. We know about the collapse of the Canaanite client state confederation under the Egyptians, we know about the emergence of new cultures due to political isolation and migration. This does not mean the theological narrative has a core but the environment it is placed in does.

There is a lot of speculation regarding Moses. Which view are you putting forward?

I study history as well. B/A in History focused on antiquity. B/A in Archaeology. I am working on my PhD on Biblical Archaeology.

 

[Shad]

I think that it is literal reading of myths that cause the breakdown of the wisdom the ancients wanted to pass on.

We do not read the Jewish works the way they were meant to be read.

Eden is one such place as Christianity call what happened in Eden our fall while the more intelligent Jewish view sees what happened in Eden as man's elevation.

The Jews were right and the Christians are not.

Regards
DL

I completely agree but not with the examples. My example would be Homer's work. He pokes fun at parts of Greek culture in subtle ways all while uphold other values. Odysseus, Penelope and the suitors. Polytheism versus monotheism as part of a national identity in the Bible. The demonization of rebels which formed the North Kingdom while ignoring the justification for rebellion People often reduce a narrative to the basic cliches or modern cliches.

I disagree with your examples due to the idea that one is correct and one is incorrect. My view would be that both views are accepted as correct to the cultural and religious identification of the time frame. It is when one puts forward such theological narrative as true for all, a universal.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Josephus thought the Hyksos were the Hebrews and he was wrong.

Yes, I know that. He confused the two, I don't believe the Hebrews were ever slaves, though.

Often history in antiquity is wrong wholesale as it was mixed with fiction and mythology. So no we do not take whole statements from historians from antiquity word's for factual statements.

I more or less agree, but I would say mythology is a wrong term for this, I would personally use the term legend, and this was most likely due to oral transmission, humans used to rely on this way back then and not on write everything down, it's the natural exaggeration of oral messages through generations, but they almost all had some kind of historical core beneath the legends and fiction.

But the truth is that they knew things that we don't and never will due to our inability to access the sources that the ancient historians had. It's something hard to deny.

Do you accept other history which has mythology and religion mixed in as true? Do you accept Caesar Gallic Wars Journal's claims divinity due to his supposed bloodline? Do you accept the injection of Roman religion into the events in the work?

It depends, I accept the historical core beneath the Trojan War, which is the case with virtually every big historical event recorded in ancient times. I am not religious, I am not trying to be confirmatory biased trying to say the Bible is the Word of God and therefore every single word in it is true - I simply look at what we have and presumes the most rational here, for me at least. I don't believe in the Bible as a theological book, I don't see it as a divine book nor any of those examples you cited, but they are, myths and legends beside, possible historical sources.

My point is that while I do admit there is much historical inaccuracy in the books - they are books of myths and legends - but the legends have history.

Now you are back tracking.

No, I don't. Elaborate please?

You also repeat what I said. We also do not need to rely solely on Egyptian records. We know about this figure due to secondary evidence which required for the Moses' time frame along with post and pre periods. This is what is lacking, which you acknowledge. The figure in the theological narrative is a construct. The narrative does not represent history. The historical core is obvious due to what we know of the Middle Bronze Age Collapse 2. We know about the collapse of the Canaanite client state confederation under the Egyptians, we know about the emergence of new cultures due to political isolation and migration. This does not mean the theological narrative has a core but the environment it is placed in does.

I (almost) fully agree, it depends what you take of the Moses narrative as true and not, of course none of us accept the theological narrative, therefore from the historical narrative, one could claim it's false due to what you said about Jews and Canaanites, however such thing does not contrast, say, his life in Midyan or priesthood - it just means the Hebrews weren't the slaves, but Egyptian lepers. The Manetho story does claim Moses as a rebel during Akhenaten's reign, he claim him as a monotheist priest and ancient Egyptian. Moses' name is after all Egyptian, it's likely his race was altered due to oral transmission.

These few things important to note is why I think Moses is a credible historical figure or at least based on a basic historical core, since we do have some evidence, even if they don't resemble the biblical figure, which no one claims is fully true. When we say that the Bible is exaggerating, we usually don't have a good picture of how much exaggeration, but I will demonstrate it, it's established that the Noah story is derived from the Ziusudra story and in it, it declares that "the storm had swept for seven days and seven nights," in the Bible it claims "rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights." This should make a picture of how much the Bible exaggerates, it's most believable that the Moses story is as heavily embellished, if not more.

In short, the reason why there isn't much evidence is because that the exodus wasn't nearly as great as described in the Bible, it isn't the first time Bible exaggerates such thing, it also did it with King David and King Solomon. And also because, the Amarna period has very little historical proof of anything behind it now, it's a muddy period. We do know about the Egyptian inscription mentioning Israel in 1200 BC quite negatively, it makes us wonder and a reason why the exodus would have happened around this time between Amenhotep IV and Horemheb in the 18th Dynasty.

But this is my opinion on Moses' historicity and exodus, I was simply explaining that the real story isn't as black and white as outhouse thought it was and that he shouldn't speak of it like this or at all about it with such a limited, materialistic, inanely blunt viewpoint as if it was a fact.

I study history as well. B/A in History focused on antiquity. B/A in Archaeology. I am working on my PhD focused on Biblical Archaeology.

Sorry for making assumptions about you. That was pompous of me.

 

[outhouse]

I would say mythology is a wrong term for this, I would personally use the term legend, and this was most likely due to oral transmission,

IT actually is more correct then legend. Literary creations are often labeled mythology when events never took place.

but they almost all had some kind of historical core beneath the legends and fiction.

Not true.

Fiction was used, and they wrote in rhetorical prose.

These few things important to note is why I think Moses is a credible historical figure

Its not important, it is not historical.

since we do have some evidence

You have none that is credible or in context.

We do know about the Egyptian inscription mentioning Israel in 1200 BC quite negatively

Not only was it not negative, it sounds like you know little about the Merneptah Stele. It only states a semi nomadic people who's seed was laid top waste.

These were proto Israelites.

But this is my opinion on Moses' historicity and exodus

And no credible historian follows this. No credible school teaches it either.

What you fail to address. Is the Canaanite origins not even debated anymore because the factual evidence is so solid.

Proto Israelites after 1200 BC factually used the Canaanite alphabet, Cananite mythology, Canaanite deities, and language.

Within years of the bronze age collapse when Canaanites disbanded and had no where to go. Imagine that.

That is why there is no debate about the Canaanite heritage of Israelites.

History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[


The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I don't believe the Hebrews were ever slaves, though.

Do you reject the evidence for Semitic slaves or simply deny that any of them deserve the appellation "Hebrew" and, if the latter, based on what reasoning?

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Do you reject the evidence for Semitic slaves or simply deny that any of them deserve the appellation "Hebrew" and, if the latter, based on what reasoning?

I made my point clear in the post, in the seventh paragraph. I don't think they were Hebrews/Israelites/Jewish slaves, this is partially due to the lack of evidence, but also due to other things.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

@outhouse, the post was not dedicated to you. Keep yourself outside discussions where I speak with others.

IT actually is more correct then legend. Literary creations are often labeled mythology when events never took place. Not true. Fiction was used, and they wrote in rhetorical prose. Its not important, it is not historical. You have none that is credible or in context. Not only was it not negative, it sounds like you know little about the Merneptah Stele. It only states a semi nomadic people who's seed was laid top waste.These were proto Israelites. And no credible historian follows this. No credible school teaches it either.

What a foolish and self-defeating post, also completely pointless other than conjectured, apologetic rhetorical with no substance to offer at all.

You fail to cite any sort of citation for your inane non-sequiturs, which holds no academic value, most - sorry, all - of what you wrote here was stupid, polemics with a rigid position from an argumentative stance, because I have never witnessed any of them actually change their position. Either people are open minded, and are willing to exchange information and ideas in conversations, or they already have all of the opinions that they ever care to possess. Since people like that rarely offer useful information, and never in a useful way, I'm not going to spend any time in such a debate with you.

Also, don't reply to posts without even understanding them - did you even know what the misquote you've quoted from even was supposed to mean and address or do you reply simply for the sake to show your blunt, material stupidity/ignorance in this field? Your invalid opinion (not fact or scholarly consensuses) with no credibility holds no value to me.

I suggest kindly for the last time to re-read my post before replying with your ignorance, otherwise, I will ignore you and get this final.

You keep using the word "credible" and avoid the evidence I provide by noting some irrelevant point that "credible" (without naming them, you're most likely referring to the Copenhagen School that are widely criticized and not considered for credible) scholars disagree, yet you ludicrously avoid to address them being 'credible' with clearly no understanding of what the term means — for example, what do you define as credible, everyone who agrees with your silly views pre-determined through confirmation bias?

Sorry to say, but I know what I'm talking about here and with an ignoramus like you who is confirmatory biased and not here to learn, I suggest to stop spreading any more of your nonsense to me. You really have no knowledge on this subject of history, yet you seem to be so eager to show how ignorant and blunt you are on it, it's quite pitiful.

Is this desperation really something anyone needs to stoop to, especially you? Answering mature conversations with kindergarten arguments just shows someone has little, if anything, to offer the conversation.

What you fail to address. Is the Canaanite origins not even debated anymore because the factual evidence is so solid.Proto Israelites after 1200 BC factually used the Canaanite alphabet, Cananite mythology, Canaanite deities, and language.Within years of the bronze age collapse when Canaanites disbanded and had no where to go. Imagine that. That is why there is no debate about the Canaanite heritage of Israelites. History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[ The Israelite ethnic identity had been created, not from the Exodus and a subsequent conquest, but from a transformation of the existing Canaanite-Philistine cultures

What the hell are you on about? Do you even read what you're replying to? What you fail to address. Is the fact I keep telling you to use some basic reading comprehension and read in context except for these misquoted, non-sequitur posts of yours addressing nothing but your bluntness, ignorance and the fact that you misread or misunderstood about everything that I write in my posts, usually quoting things and avoiding the citations or (partially) quotes things that shouldn't be quoted since they are immaterial.

I will ask you, is English your first language? Answer me this first.

As I said, in the other post "But this is my opinion on Moses' historicity and exodus, I was simply explaining that the real story isn't as black and white as outhouse thought it was and that he shouldn't speak of it like this or at all about it with such a limited, materialistic, inanely blunt viewpoint as if it was a fact."

You're disregarded. I even debunked you on your claim that the Bible isn't a valid historical source and that it mentions no figures prior to the 1000 BC, which is just wrong and you knew it, I corrected you on it - you seem to believe in the fallacious argument from ignorance, what I call for one not accepting historicity for people just because of not the criteria of evidence you wish it to be, but that's just your foolishness. ​

 

[outhouse]

avoid the evidence I provide

When will you start?

Provide credible sources.

You fail to cite any sort of citation

I gave a credible source showing the Canaanite origin of their mythology and deities.

Keep yourself outside discussions where I speak with others.

You don't get to tell anyone anything. This is public, and when we see people posting opinion without credible sources, they will get called on it.

I even debunked you on your claim that the Bible isn't a valid historical source and that it mentions no figures prior to the 1000 BC,

You did no such thing.

The bible is not a 100% historical source, and I never claimed it was absent of historicity.

What character prior to 1000 BC has historicity?

 

[outhouse]

David Rohl, William G. Dever,
William F. Albright, among others, are some Egyptologists, scholars or archeologist whom accept the historicity of Moses

Not true.

Dever does not accept the historicity as you describe. Supply credible source. Your opinion is not even correct less being credible.

Dever follows what I posit to a T

Moses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


William Dever agrees with the Canaanite origin of the Israelites but allows for the possibility of some immigrants from Egypt among the early hilltop settlers, leaving open the possibility of a Moses-like figure in Transjordan ca 1250-1200

Citation needed for this lie.

You stated the bible has been correct on many characters. I sated not before 1000 BC


You have in no way shape or form produced anything credible, that shows any character before this time is accurately portrayed in the bible.

 

[outhouse]

The issue here is that people hold to the religious ideological view of Moses too much. Even if people compromise with the traditional story the idea they construct still must reflect a certain theological narrative otherwise other theological narratives taken as history collapse as the historical theological Moses narrative does.

Agreed.


Not one bit of Moses can be substantiated. I leave a possibility for a historical core. But to date there is factually no solid connection to date.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you reject the evidence for Semitic slaves or simply deny that any of them deserve the appellation "Hebrew" and, if the latter, based on what reasoning?

I made my point clear in the post, in the seventh paragraph. I don't think they were Hebrews/Israelites/Jewish slaves, this is partially due to the lack of evidence, but also due to other things.

But you acknowledge the existence of semitic slaves in Egypt. Yes?

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

But you acknowledge the existence of semitic slaves in Egypt. Yes?

From different time periods, distinct from the Amarna period? Yes, there are some. Some Hyksos could have been captured as slaves from time to time different time periods, but they have virtually nothing to do with Israel's current descent.

 

[Kenny]

The Jews were right and the Christians are not.

Regards
DL

In as much as even Jews have different views, I would say that your statement is hardly verifiable. Your word alone isn't quite convincing either

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From different time periods, distinct from the Amarna period? Yes, there are some. Some Hyksos could have been captured as slaves from time to time different time periods, but they have virtually nothing to do with Israel's current descent.

Have you read Redford's "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times"?

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Have you read Redford's "Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times"?

I haven't, I will put it on my list of books to read.

But what's the point of sharing this question?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I haven't, I will put it on my list of books to read.

Let me ask a related question: during what period of time. let us say between 1440 BCE and 1000 BCE, would you claim that their was an absent of semitic slaves in Egypt, and upon what do you base this claim?

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

Let me ask a related question: during what period of time. let us say between 1440 BCE and 1000 BCE, would you claim that their was an absent of semitic slaves in Egypt, and upon what do you base this claim?

After 1500 BC there were no more Jews as slaves in Egypt, because it was around this time period the Hyksos were expelled.