The
overwhelming modern scholarly consensus is, according to
William Dever, that Moses is
a figure of myth, not of
history
I looked at the William Dever link but alas that article holds naught of what you claim.
The following are two extracts from that article that contradict your claim -
********** Quote **********
Dever argued that this 'folk' religion, with its local altars and cultic objects, amulets and votive offerings, was representative of the outlook of the majority of the population, and that the Jerusalem-centred 'book religion' of the Deuteronomist circle set out in the Hebrew Bible was only ever the preserve of an elite, a 'largely impractical' religious ideal.[5]
Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[11]
********* Unquote *********
Of course if you misquoted the link and in the light of the foregoing I see it as only an opinion and not a proven fact. How does one confirm or deny a myth? Guess work and conjecture ?!
