The Exodus Myth

[Craig B]

One way is to do it the Jesus did.... starve and thirst for 40 days.... that is a GUARANTEED meeting of god either as a hallucination after a couple of days or if he exists then in person after 10 days.

But hey... it's one way to make the trip cheaper.

Not just meeting god. You get to have a chat with the devil too, and fly to the top of the temple.

Matt 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred ... 5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple, 6 and saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up ...

 

[tsig]

How do you decide which part of the bible is true?

ETA: You are aware that there's as much evidence for the Exodus as there is for the Crucifixion?

So it is your contention that all the Roman accounts of crucifictions are made up? That is a very odd position to hold.

All your strawmen are belong to us.

Ah okay, so pointing out the Roman's principle method of killing people who had annoyed them is now a strawman?

Of course I was not referring to crucifixion in general but the Crucifixion of Christ, I even capitalized it to emphasize my point.

If you really thought I was saying Roman crucifixion didn't exist then your reading comprehension is poor or you are trying to dodge the point.

 

[ddt]

If I may comment.

Sure, you're welcome and your posts are always well thought-out.

No. Presumably he compiled existing tales and edited them.

From the multiple sources allowed for at 1) above.

Contact and mutual influence. This would determine the existence of a Torah and its five component books, even if the precise versions of these books were somewhat different.

Either or both of these.

OK, that's all accepted scholarship.

There's evidence for this in Deutero-Isaiah.

Here we have the first clear statement both of the uniqueness of god, and the fact that this god does both good and evil. This rejection of the other gods may have been initiated in Babylon under Persian influence.

Thank you. It's interesting that that is the first statement of God's uniqueness in the Bible/Tanakh. As a follow-on question, it makes you wonder why the redactors of the Torah did not solidly scrub it from references to other gods, like the one implicit in the Ten Commandments.

And as an aside, YHWH does plenty of evil before that - of course depending on your moral point of view - e.g., all those genocidal rampages.

However, Zoroastrianism has, in effect, two gods, one to do good and the other to do evil. This was only later adopted, in a somewhat diluted form, into Judaism and its derivatives.

Good point.

Good questions..... I shall soon write in length to explain more.... but for the meantime CraigB has put it very nicely.

Thanks, looking forward to that. At least your endorsement of CraigB's post says your ideas are not a radical departure with accepted scholarship.

 

[MG1962]

I was thinking of Copernicus for some reason, sorry. My brain-fart.

No harm no foul. Welcome to my world

 

[MG1962]

Of course I was not referring to crucifixion in general but the Crucifixion of Christ, I even capitalized it to emphasize my point.

If you really thought I was saying Roman crucifixion didn't exist then your reading comprehension is poor or you are trying to dodge the point.

No, because regardless if you think Jesus was the son of God or a third rate country carpenter. If he upset the Roman establishment in some way their preferred go to was crucification.

So in terms of evidence, there is nothing that says Christ could not end up on the cross. Exodus does not even have that going for it.

The Jews could not escape a country they were never subjugated in.

They could not destroy a city that is already destroyed when they got there.

We have no logistical explanation for keeping 2 million homeless people alive in very arid conditions for 40 years.

There is no geological process I am aware of that could open the Red Sea as described.

 

[MG1962]

But that still doesn't explain how the "star" could have pointed the way to the Magi. I think you're missing the whole point of I Ratant's posts.

Suppose that "star" (in your conjecture, a conjunction of two planets) stood to the SSW at the firmament. You're in Jerusalem, as Magi, and you follow the road SSW and arrive at Bethlehem. Fine. But in the real world, this "star" doesn't magically then stand overhead - it still points to SSW at the firmament - unless it's exactly at the same long/lat at the firmament as Bethlehem is on earth. But can you see the difference between the long/lats of Bethlehem and Jerusalem in the sky? So you walk on and you arrive at Hebron. And in Hebron, the "star" is still pointing to the SSW, so you pack up again and move on and arrive at Beersheba. And there again you see it pointing SSW, so you move on to - Dimona?

Because all our erstwhile experts here are forgetting one thing. Perception. The narrative talks about what the Magi thought they were seeing, not what they possibly actually saw.


The Star of Bethlehem was undoubtedly an astrological sign. And one probably only understood by the Magi themselves. Anything physical such as a comet supernova etc etc would have been seen by others, especially the Babylonians and Chinese. An no other chronicle at the time mentions anything unusual for a number of years either side of this event.

The whole mission of the Magi was probably a diplomatic decision and had bugger all to do with the son of God or anything like that, and the Magi unfortunately stepped straight into a hornets nest.

 

[I Ratant]

Err............no.

Germany was not called Germania because of Germanicus Julius Caesar, anymore than Africa was named after Scipio Africanus, or Asia was named after Lucius Cornelius Scipio Asiaticus.

The name Germanicus was an agnomen given to him after his victories in Germania. Likewise with the Scipios after the battles of Zama and Magnesia, respectively. They are honorary titles based on the place of their military exploits.

The name Germany comes from an old Latin word from which the modern words "germaine" and "germinal" are derived. It meant "brotherly" or "related to". It most likely meant that the various Germanic tribes all spoke a related, common language.

By the way, saying Germanicus conquered Germania is a bit of an exaggeration. The Romans barely made inroads east of the Rhine. And the correct name is Deutschland, from the old German "diut" meaning "the people".

Pedantic mode off.

.
They did build good roads and bridges... been on them!

 

[I Ratant]

...

Also as a disclaimer... I hated history when I was at school.... I am an engineer.... we do not need history

...

.
SIR!
I resemble that remark... I have probably 500 history books here, loved it all my life, even when engineering stuff for Lockheed!
Even contributed to making history with the Lazy L... "out of town"...

 

[I Ratant]

Of course I was not referring to crucifixion in general but the Crucifixion of Christ, I even capitalized it to emphasize my point.

If you really thought I was saying Roman crucifixion didn't exist then your reading comprehension is poor or AND you are trying to dodge the point.

.
ftfy.

 

[HansMustermann]

Because all our erstwhile experts here are forgetting one thing. Perception. The narrative talks about what the Magi thought they were seeing, not what they possibly actually saw.


The Star of Bethlehem was undoubtedly an astrological sign. And one probably only understood by the Magi themselves. Anything physical such as a comet supernova etc etc would have been seen by others, especially the Babylonians and Chinese. An no other chronicle at the time mentions anything unusual for a number of years either side of this event.

The whole mission of the Magi was probably a diplomatic decision and had bugger all to do with the son of God or anything like that, and the Magi unfortunately stepped straight into a hornets nest.

Well, it's not clear at all what sense the story even makes.

Matt is pretty clear it's about a star, and not only that, but one that moves and can stop above a specific house. It's also very specific about it being about the birth of the Jewish messiah -- hell, they even ask specifically to worship him -- although we can probably agree that the Zoroastrians would not have given a flip about it. On top of that they bring some rather ritual gifts for specifically that kid, not, say, for Herod, and end their mission by outright snubbing Herod, which doesn't sound very diplomatic. It's also unclear exactly what the diplomatic mission would have been with Herod, who was just a Roman puppet king of no real concern to the Persians.

Once you remove all the incredible elements, there is not much of a story left, so I just have to wonder if it happened at all.

 

[tsig]

Well, it's not clear at all what sense the story even makes.

Matt is pretty clear it's about a star, and not only that, but one that moves and can stop above a specific house. It's also very specific about it being about the birth of the Jewish messiah -- hell, they even ask specifically to worship him -- although we can probably agree that the Zoroastrians would not have given a flip about it. On top of that they bring some rather ritual gifts for specifically that kid, not, say, for Herod, and end their mission by outright snubbing Herod, which doesn't sound very diplomatic. It's also unclear exactly what the diplomatic mission would have been with Herod, who was just a Roman puppet king of no real concern to the Persians.

Once you remove all the incredible elements, there is not much of a story left, so I just have to wonder if it happened at all.

Looks like MG is in full retreat and is throwing overboard parts of the NT to go faster.

 

[ddt]

Because all our erstwhile experts here are forgetting one thing. Perception. The narrative talks about what the Magi thought they were seeing, not what they possibly actually saw.

The Star of Bethlehem was undoubtedly an astrological sign. And one probably only understood by the Magi themselves. Anything physical such as a comet supernova etc etc would have been seen by others, especially the Babylonians and Chinese. An no other chronicle at the time mentions anything unusual for a number of years either side of this event.

The whole mission of the Magi was probably a diplomatic decision and had bugger all to do with the son of God or anything like that, and the Magi unfortunately stepped straight into a hornets nest.

The problem with this is that there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever for all of this. As you say, no-one else mentions anything unusual in the sky. And you don't give any evidence for any kind of diplomatic mission either. What would these Magi have been doing at Herod's court? Negotiate the release of the 10,000 Roman POWs of Carrhae? A bit late. And why doesn't Josephus tell us about such a thing then? Your remark about "hornets nest" also implies they would actually have gone to Bethlehem and would have deviated then from their purported diplomatic mission. What idiot would do that?

And after all, we're talking here about a tale we only know from an author who has other uncorroborated tall stories. Like a 3-hour lasting eclipse (during the Crucifixion), or a massive zombie rampage through downtown Jerusalem (after the Resurrection) which no-one else tells us about.

Brainache's explanation seems much more reasonable: Matthew just wanted to cram another "OT prophecy" into his tale. And made a dog's breakfast of it.

 

[ddt]

.
They did build good roads and bridges... been on them!

I think you're exaggerating now. Some of those roads feel like they date back to Adolf, but not as far back as Hermann.

 

[Craig B]

Thank you. It's interesting that that is the first statement of God's uniqueness in the Bible/Tanakh. As a follow-on question, it makes you wonder why the redactors of the Torah did not solidly scrub it from references to other gods, like the one implicit in the Ten Commandments.

That is a very interesting observation. Redactors of texts are often reluctant to mess about too crudely with the revealed word of the divinity passed down by revered ancestors, so on that basis outmoded archaisms are possible to explain. But if, say, it is argued that Judaism was invented from scratch in the propaganda department of the Achaemenid monarchs, it is indeed difficult to account for these primitive features of the early books of the Tanakh.

 

[ddt]

That is a very interesting observation. Redactors of texts are often reluctant to mess about too crudely with the revealed word of the divinity passed down by revered ancestors, so on that basis outmoded archaisms are possible to explain. But if, say, it is argued that Judaism was invented from scratch in the propaganda department of the Achaemenid monarchs, it is indeed difficult to account for these primitive features of the early books of the Tanakh.

That's a very good point indeed, and I agree that makes it hard to reconcile with a Persian new invention. Just for fun, I looked up how often Asherah is mentioned in the OT. According to Strong's Concordance, #842, that is a whopping 40 times; most of those are mentions of Asherah poles. It is interesting, though, to note how the KJV obscures this fact by translating it consistently with "groves" instead of "Asherah poles".

 

[jimbob]

Thank you. It's interesting that that is the first statement of God's uniqueness in the Bible/Tanakh. As a follow-on question, it makes you wonder why the redactors of the Torah did not solidly scrub it from references to other gods, like the one implicit in the Ten Commandments.

Pteppic knew that the Sun was rolled across the sky by a giant dung beetle and was a boat and a hole in the sky and also to be a flaming ball of gas orbiting the Disc.

There is precedent within the bible though.

Genesis looks to have two slightly contradictory accounts tacked together,the Priestly version and the Jahwist version - one could read them as being slightly different accounts of creation but not necessarily contradictory, but it gets a bit harder with the flood (IMO).

I think it does make sense if a believer is codifying their tribal creation myths and *does* have a respect for the sacred tales, in that case, mightn't change the stories, just put them in order.

 

[Giordano]

No, because regardless if you think Jesus was the son of God or a third rate country carpenter. If he upset the Roman establishment in some way their preferred go to was crucification.

So in terms of evidence, there is nothing that says Christ could not end up on the cross. Exodus does not even have that going for it.

The Jews could not escape a country they were never subjugated in.

They could not destroy a city that is already destroyed when they got there.

We have no logistical explanation for keeping 2 million homeless people alive in very arid conditions for 40 years.

There is no geological process I am aware of that could open the Red Sea as described.

An interesting form of proof: there is nothing that says Christ could not have ended up on a cross? Given that, there is nothing that says that Obama is not a secret KKK member.

I don't wish to argue if there really was physical Jesus or if he irritated the Romans enough to be crucified. That has been discussed elsewhere on this Forum. But if you are also intending that much of the rest of the New Testament story is correct, such as Jesus being born of a virgin, spending a bad weekend in Hell, being resurrected, turning water into wine, healing the sick with a miracle, then there is a lot of impossibilities here too. If you believe these things, then I don't think your definition of impossibilities in Exodus is that different from these impossibilities If you think these Christ New Testament things were only metaphor, then why was his crucifixion not a metaphor too?

 

[I Ratant]

I think you're exaggerating now. Some of those roads feel like they date back to Adolf, but not as far back as Hermann.

.
Considering their 2000 year age, and comparing to modern roads... they were in good condition!

 

[I Ratant]

The problem with this is that there is no corroborating evidence whatsoever for all of this. As you say, no-one else mentions anything unusual in the sky. And you don't give any evidence for any kind of diplomatic mission either. What would these Magi have been doing at Herod's court? Negotiate the release of the 10,000 Roman POWs of Carrhae? A bit late. And why doesn't Josephus tell us about such a thing then? Your remark about "hornets nest" also implies they would actually have gone to Bethlehem and would have deviated then from their purported diplomatic mission. What idiot would do that?

And after all, we're talking here about a tale we only know from an author who has other uncorroborated tall stories. Like a 3-hour lasting eclipse (during the Crucifixion), or a massive zombie rampage through downtown Jerusalem (after the Resurrection) which no-one else tells us about.

Brainache's explanation seems much more reasonable: Matthew just wanted to cram another "OT prophecy" into his tale. And made a dog's breakfast of it.

.
That the Magi got there at all is a miracle in itself!

 

[ddt]

.
Considering their 2000 year age, and comparing to modern roads... they were in good condition!

Oh, you really were speaking about Roman roads? I thought it was only a remark on the state of some of the Autobahnen, some of which seem to still have the top layer from Hitler's times.