Do you think Moses existed as a historical figure?

[Mycroft]

There's no historical evidence to suggest Moses, or a figure akin to him, ever existed.

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps

1. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Volume I: 10,000-586 B.C.R by Amihai Mazar
2. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times by Donald B. Redford
3. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeolog's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman
4. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did THey Come From by William Dever
5. The Israelites by B.S.J. Isserlin
6. From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel by Frank Moore Cross

and, more recently, …

1. Pre-Exilic Israel, the Hebrew Bible, and Archaeology: Integrating Text and Artefact by Anthony J Frendo
2. Israel's Ethnogenesis: Settlement, Interaction, Expansion and Resistance by Avraham Faust

And there's more.

But let me suggest an F-Protocol: read (in order) Finkelstein, Faust, and Frendo and let me know what you think.

Dever and Finkelstein are your best bets here.

Mazar is good for learning about the people who started the traditions.

Faust and Redford both biased and should be avoided, as the others cover the topics with more credibility.

Frendo wants to play both sides of the coin but is very biased and does not like what minimalist have produced with evidence.

Cross, this is an addition to his earlier book, and he over assumes way to much, and takes off in many unsubstantiated directions.



Of these 8 books I only recommend 2 Dever and Finkelstein.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

There was a similar consensus about the Trojan War, where in the 19th century people considered the events recorded as pure fiction until recently where historians have found a basic historical core for the story, supporting the view that there was a war at that time and place, the later accounts were just much more embellished, exaggerated than the actual events.

This is the same with Jesus' history where many accept a basic historical core, as far as I know, many archeologists whom have studied Egyptology have found it compelling to have been a basic historical core based on Moses - I accept that view, the Bible has been correct on many of its figures' historicity and people were skeptical of many of the Biblical figures until proven, archeologically.

You just can't expect same standards of historicity for ancient (1500 CE - ∞ BCE) humans as you can with modern (1800 - present) time and archaic (1700 - 1600) humans, there are a huge difference among these, when it comes to commoners like Abraham, his historicity is on level with the Chinese hermit living right now somewhere and what his historicity will be 1000 years after his death with no evidence for his existence - it doesn't mean he didn't exist, there are other methods to determine the historicity in history, it's not the same field as science as many people think or make it out to be.

As all historian experts agree on, I also find it absurd with these extremist materialized views on ancient history, you can as well doubt that there existed a very violent Black Death killing 100 million people, there is no evidence for those 100 million humans, let alone a world population of 400 million in the 14 century - perhaps a couple thousands and few millions for those that were popular at the time are preserved to this day, but for the average that are long gone, with the views people hold to religious figures, you could as well doubt the existence of this many people. People are abusing history with this extreme materialist logic, unlike science, if there is no evidence for an event, there is a huge chance it still happened to the point historians discuss it as a historical fact rather than a mere hypothesis as scientists.

People need to differentiate between history and science and not make it look like that we use or should use same criteria for the two. It's fruit and vegetables, not comparable.

 

[rusra02]

And you consider John 17:17 credible because of 2 Timothy 3:16 … and you consider 2 Timothy 3:16 credible because of ??? …

As I mentioned in a previous post, many person, places, and events mentioned in the Bible whose historicity has been pooh-poohed by Bible critics, have since been found to be historical. The Bible was completed 1,900 years ago and I believe it still stands as what it says it is, the word of God.
There is other evidence of the Bible’s inspiration: it's internal harmony, scientific accuracy, fulfilled prophecies, unusual candor, power to transform lives, and it's answers to fundamental questions unanswered by other religious writings; where we came from, what is the purpose of life, why do we suffer, and many more.

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

scientific accuracy

Do you believe the Sun circulate around Earth?

 

[outhouse]

, many archeologists whom have studied Egyptology have found it compelling to have been a basic historical core based on Moses - I accept that view

Then you do not know any credible ones.

No historian claim moses existed that has credibility. At best they leave the possibility open, nothing more.

the Bible has been correct on many of its figures'

Not before 1000 BC

Much of what is written is historically inaccurate.

You just can't expect same standards of historicity for ancient (1500 CE - ∞ BCE)

Your right we know more about that period then that of the Israelites, because the other civilization's had forms of writing.


Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC. There was no exodus, Israelite slaves were never in Egypt.


Israelites did however evolved from displaced Canaanites, which is not up for debate

when it comes to commoners like Abraham, his historicity is on level with the Chinese hermit living right now

Abraham has no historicity what so ever, and is deemed a literary creation by all credible historians.

Israelites never knew what lied beyond 1000 BC and even at that time we have mythology to explain their pseudo historical past

 

[rusra02]

Do you believe the Sun circulate around Earth?

No, I do not.

 

[outhouse]

No, I do not.

Flat earth???

 

[arthra]

I believe Baha'is accept Moses as a historical figure and a Manifestation of God...just as we accept that Jesus was historical. Did Moses compose the Torah... probably not..We would probably accept what scholars have suggested about the composition of the Torah. But we would say it was inspired although not entirely accurate and not to be taken literally word for word.

An article from the Baha'i perspective can be found at

Notes on Judaism from a Baha'i Perspective

 

[outhouse]

I believe Baha'is accept Moses as a historical figure and a Manifestation of God...just as we accept that Jesus was historical. Did Moses compose the Torah... probably not..We would probably accept what scholars have suggested about the composition of the Torah. But we would say it was inspired although not entirely accurate and not to be taken literally word for word.

An article from the Baha'i perspective can be found at

Notes on Judaism from a Baha'i Perspective

But that is not credible history. It is apologetic in nature, and remains unsubstantiated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I mentioned in a previous post, many person, places, and events mentioned in the Bible whose historicity has been pooh-poohed by Bible critics, have since been found to be historical.

^ This is becoming tiresome, if not childishly worthless.

 

[rusra02]

Flat earth???

"There is One who dwells above the circle [sphere] of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)
Imagine that over 2,500 years ago, the Bible got it right!

 

[Zulk-Dharma]

@outhouse, I have you on ignore - which is why I didn't read your posts earlier. Keep this in mind and I suggest you to not reply more and expect a reaction in my future threads.

Then you do not know any credible ones.

No historian claim moses existed that has credibility. At best they leave the possibility open, nothing more.

David Rohl, William G. Dever,
William F. Albright, among others, are some Egyptologists, scholars or archeologist whom accept the historicity of Moses and a basic historical core based on the Biblical Moses and/or Exodus that are mostly legends (historical events not confirmed). Brian M. Fagan also wrote in his book, The Seventy Great Inventions of the Ancient World, that there is a basic historical core on the legendary Biblical Moses. These are certainly acclaimed in their fields and thus, definitely "credible" unless by "credible" you mean every scholar whom disagrees with your confirmation bias - I certainly hope that is not what you by that word. Minimalists are, in fact, those that are not reliable due to their confirmation biased nature.

As I said, this is genuine proof and which is why I accept such a view.

Not before 1000 BC

Citation needed for this lie. Ahab, Xerxes I, Joseph, David are just a few of several examples. And regarding the "Much of what is written is historically inaccurate," you're wrong again - I need a citation for that too, the Bible is actually being more and more reliable, from a historical perspective, since these characters keep getting historically verified age after age, the Bible is after all a history book recording ancient historical events of those time, it is an encyclopedia for those events to the people of the time.

Your right we know more about that period then that of the Israelites, because the other civilization's had forms of writing.

I tried to use reading comprehension, but that made no coherent sense, the grammar is as bad as it can ever be - what message are you trying to convey? I know English might not be your first language, but we need to understand the basics of what you're trying to say - if you're unable to do this, go to a website speaking the language that you're speaking. Isn't the Bible an Israelite writing? Also, what makes you think other inscriptions of other civilizations are more reliable - how don't you know the inscription is a partial part of their own bible?

Israelites did not exist prior to 1200 BC. There was no exodus, Israelite slaves were never in Egypt.

Not true, we know that the Israelites are dated to that from the earliest sources we have, but not that they couldn't have existed prior to that date, they most definitely did, we just do not have evidence to confirm this -that they didn't exist prior is your personal perception and that is not the objective viewpoint. About "no Exodus," that's simply your flawed viewpoint once again, the 1200 BC years in Egypt from an archeologist viewpoint are very muddy, we know very little from those time due to the fact that the Egyptians weren't very careful recorders of events and things that happened prior to those events - they actually destroyed everything from this period - in fact, there is a good chance the Exodus happened around a century prior 1200 BC around Amenhotep IV's reign where an Exodus could have been according to various early historians.

Abraham has no historicity what so ever, and is deemed a literary creation by all credible historians.

I suggest to re-read my post again instead of replying back with no substantial efforts to a misquote.

What proof do we have that Ötzi ever lived prior to his mummy? Would that mean he didn't exist? Flawed viewpoint.

Israelites never knew what lied beyond 1000 BC and even at that time we have mythology to explain their pseudo historical past

The Bible explains much historical accurate events with very little mythology here. It's current history that is far behind to catch up due to pseudo-historical opinions (such as those that you adhere to) that slow advancement. It's actually not for very long until we found archeological events for King David that the Bible probably was based on. Also, you think Israelites were modern humans in their knowledge of history in their time? That's the stupidity in your arguments that invalidates it and makes me regret to have discussed with you, which is why I usually have you on ignore for being exactly that person I am criticizing in my previous post - you commit fallacies, I cannot help but think how miserable your foolishly materialistic way of thinking is.

 

[Shad]

I do not take the extreme position that if a person or event mentioned in the Bible is not corraborated by some outside source, that person or event did not exist. That view has been proven erroneous many times, as in the examples mentioned. Since the Bible has been shown to be historically accurate time and again, there is no valid reason, IMO, to doubt it's historicity where outside verification is lacking at present.

A text being right in certain parts is not acceptable grounds for demeaning it right when there is no external evidence. The parts of the Bible which are proven to be right were right due to secondary evidence. Produce evidence of Moses then you have a case. Until you do so you have no justification for stating Moses is a fact.

 

[Shad]

@outhouse, I have you on ignore - which is why I didn't read your posts earlier. Keep this in mind and I suggest you to not reply more and expect a reaction in my future threads. David Rohl, William G. Dever,
William F. Albright, among others, are some Egyptologists, scholars or archeologist whom accept the historicity of Moses and a basic historical core based on the Biblical Moses and/or Exodus that are mostly legends (historical events not confirmed). Brian M. Fagan also wrote in his book, The Seventy Great Inventions of the Ancient World, that there is a basic historical core on the legendary Biblical Moses. These are certainly acclaimed in their fields and thus, definitely "credible" unless by "credible" you mean every scholar whom disagrees with your confirmation bias - I certainly hope that is not what you by that word. Minimalists are, in fact, those that are not reliable due to their confirmation biased nature.

As I said, this is genuine proof and which is why I accept such a view. Citation needed for this lie. Ahab, Xerxes I, Joseph, David are just a few of several examples. And regarding the "Much of what is written is historically inaccurate," you're wrong again - I need a citation for that too, the Bible is actually being more and more reliable, from a historical perspective, since these characters keep getting historically verified age after age, the Bible is after all a history book recording ancient historical events of those time, it is an encyclopedia for those events to the people of the time.
I tried to use reading comprehension, but that made no coherent sense, the grammar is as bad as it can ever be - what message are you trying to convey? I know English might not be your first language, but we need to understand the basics of what you're trying to say - if you're unable to do this, go to a website speaking the language that you're speaking. Isn't the Bible an Israelite writing? Also, what makes you think other inscriptions of other civilizations are more reliable - how don't you know the inscription is a partial part of their own bible? Not true, we know that the Israelites are dated to that from the earliest sources we have, but not that they couldn't have existed prior to that date, they most definitely did, we just do not have evidence to confirm this -that they didn't exist prior is your personal perception and that is not the objective viewpoint. About "no Exodus," that's simply your flawed viewpoint once again, the 1200 BC years in Egypt from an archeologist viewpoint are very muddy, we know very little from those time due to the fact that the Egyptians weren't very careful recorders of events and things that happened prior to those events - they actually destroyed everything from this period - in fact, there is a good chance the Exodus happened around a century prior 1200 BC around Amenhotep IV's reign where an Exodus could have been according to various early historians. I suggest to re-read my post again instead of replying back with no substantial efforts to a misquote.

What proof do we have that Ötzi ever lived prior to his mummy? Would that mean he didn't exist? Flawed viewpoint. The Bible explains much historical accurate events with very little mythology here. It's current history that is far behind to catch up due to pseudo-historical opinions (such as those that you adhere to) that slow advancement. It's actually not for very long until we found archeological events for King David that the Bible probably was based on. Also, you think Israelites were modern humans in their knowledge of history in their time? That's the stupidity in your arguments that invalidates it and makes me regret to have discussed with you, which is why I usually have you on ignore for being exactly that person I am criticizing in my previous post - you commit fallacies, I cannot help but think how miserable your foolishly materialistic way of thinking is.

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.

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

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A text being right in certain parts is not acceptable grounds for demeaning it right when there is no external evidence. The parts of the Bible which are proven to be right were right due to secondary evidence. Produce evidence of Moses then you have a case. Until you do so you have no justification for stating Moses is a fact.

True. The occasional overreach by some minimalists is zero justification for a blanket presumption of historicity. It should, however, serve as a warning to those who too eagerly embrace minimalism.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Dever accepts there is no evidence for Moses. Perhaps you should read his work rather as he clearly establishes this.

Specifically …

Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

- What Did the Biblical Writers Know and when Did They Know It? (pg. 97)

After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.

- ibid (pg. 99)

Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...

- ibid (pg. 121)

 

[Greatest I am]

I am interested in your responses. I chose "Maybe. Half historical, half fictional."

If we all agree that the historical Moses as related in the Bible never existed, then we have to account for what (if anything) he is based on (since it was likely oral tradition before it was written down).

You can argue that some ancient Jewish scribes made it all up, which is possible, but some educated guesswork can be made, since it's also possible for it to have a historical core beneath the legends and myths.

Remember that Jesus went around asking, who do they say I am.

In the Jewish tradition, it was expected that each generation would have someone representing all of their mythical characters.

That is why Jesus took the type of the messiah. I guess that he did not want to just be another prophet.

Most scholars today see Moses as a fictional character and try to see his more esoteric side. This first link speaks to that. The second is to show the Jewish reasoning for knowing that Moses was fiction.

RaceandHistory.com - Doubting the Story of Exodus

Regards
DL

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Remember that Jesus went around asking, who do they say I am.

Stop polluting the thread.

 

[Shad]

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.