The Exodus Myth

Leumas said:
Why slaves out of Egypt when they were Canaanites there all along and all they had to say was that they were oppressed Canaanites who toppled their oppressive classes for instance instead of descendants of Babylonians who were enslaved in Egypt and freed by an Egyptian prince to go and massacre and holocaust the Canaanites in order to take over their land?
Click to expand...

Why not? Other people were claiming mythical origins too. The Romans were claiming to be the descendents of Troy refugees. The British Celts were claiming to be descendants of Greeks. The Greeks meanwhile were fancying they were really descendants of Egyptians.

Especially if you're going to claim a duty, nay, even divine mandate, to slaughter those other guys, I'd think it helped to make up that you're a totally different group. "We're all X, so let's slaughter and enslave each other" just doesn't work as well.

Plus, the Exodus story isn't even that big a mystery. The current dominant theory among scholars is that it was invented during the Babylonian exile, and had a final revision by the end of it. Basically the first versions had nothing to do with Persians and their monotheism, as Persians just weren't there yet.

It's basically just a bunch of displaced people inventing an "we've been through this before, and God delivered us, so he'll do it again" comforting story. Plus, he's promised them that land before, so surely he'll bring them back there again.
 
Last edited:
HansMustermann said:
Why not? Other people were claiming mythical origins too. The Romans were claiming to be the descendents of Troy refugees. The British Celts were claiming to be descendants of Greeks. The Greeks meanwhile were fancying they were really descendants of Egyptians.

Especially if you're going to claim a duty, nay, even divine mandate, to slaughter those other guys, I'd think it helped to make up that you're a totally different group. "We're all X, so let's slaughter and enslave each other" just doesn't work as well.

Plus, the Exodus story isn't even that big a mystery. The current dominant theory among scholars is that it was invented during the Babylonian exile, and had a final revision by the end of it. Basically the first versions had nothing to do with Persians and their monotheism, as Persians just weren't there yet.

It's basically just a bunch of displaced people inventing an "we've been through this before, and God delivered us, so he'll do it again" comforting story. Plus, he's promised them that land before, so surely he'll bring them back there again.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this.

This was a good way to let them consider themselves as special, and despise the locals as inferior. then it's a small step to introducing genocide (even if that didn't actually happen).

Now where else have we seen that happen?
 
Leumas said:
I think that the Bible is the equivalent of the cylinder.... propaganda written by Cyrus appointed priests of another god just like those of Marduk's in praise of Cyrus.
Click to expand...
With respect; the bible is a collection of disparate material with the appearance of having been composed at different times and in different places. It does not look like the composition of a single royal chancellery on a single occasion for a single purpose. And although it contains material in several genres, little of it resembles the text inscribed on the Cyrus Cylinder, for which see here. http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/c/cyrus_cylinder_-_translation.aspx
 
Leumas said:
I am having a lot of things going on these days that require a lot of moving around and thus no time to sit down and concentrate.

But I have answered most of the question already many times over all over the place. All I really need is to reformat them and add a few new materials so as to make it worthwhile and not just rehashing of the old stuff.

And this subject requires research and checking of facts so as to not make a fool of myself like when I said that Germany is named after Germanicus :( .

So if you want good stuff, you'll have to excuse my tardiness. I do have to attend to matters that pay for the electricity before I use it to create the posts. :(

I am really dedicating much of my free time to this subject now and my wife is already too angry. I also am missing out on contributing to other threads in which I would have actually liked to put my one (not even two) cent's worth.
Click to expand...

No pressure...

The last thing I want is an angry gorilla chasing after me...

:)
 
Leumas said:
[ . . . ]I am really dedicating much of my free time to this subject now and my wife is already too angry. I also am missing out on contributing to other threads in which I would have actually liked to put my one (not even two) cent's worth.
Click to expand...

Hold steady, Leumas. No god or theory is served by angering She Who Must Be Obeyed unless you can provide her with a steady stream of shiny offerings in light blue packaging.



Rincewind said:
I tend to agree with this.

This was a good way to let them consider themselves as special, and despise the locals as inferior. then it's a small step to introducing genocide (even if that didn't actually happen).

Now where else have we seen that happen?
Click to expand...

Liberia?
 
Rincewind said:
I tend to agree with this.

This was a good way to let them consider themselves as special, and despise the locals as inferior. then it's a small step to introducing genocide (even if that didn't actually happen).

Now where else have we seen that happen?
Click to expand...

Well, even without the genocide, drawing "us vs them" lines in the sand happened everywhere. The Normans drew a distinction between themselves and the Saxons in England, although they both were Norse (albeit, Norse who had learned French, in the Normans case.) The Orthodox Slavs in Yugoslavia pretended they're a totally ethnic group than the Muslim Slavs in the same area, to the ridiculous extent that we saw idiotic ethnic cleansing attempts (by both sides) against what is essentially the same ethnic group. In America the paper-white Irish were grouped with the blacks under "coloured", or even occasionally argued as the missing link between monkeys and blacks, because, you know, you can't start treating Catholics like they're whites too. Etc.

I'd say it's just human nature, but it's just 'divide et impera' by those who stood to benefit from such artificial lines in the sand.
 
HansMustermann said:
Well, even without the genocide, drawing "us vs them" lines in the sand happened everywhere. The Normans drew a distinction between themselves and the Saxons in England, although they both were Norse (albeit, Norse who had learned French, in the Normans case.) The Orthodox Slavs in Yugoslavia pretended they're a totally ethnic group than the Muslim Slavs in the same area, to the ridiculous extent that we saw idiotic ethnic cleansing attempts (by both sides) against what is essentially the same ethnic group. In America the paper-white Irish were grouped with the blacks under "coloured", or even occasionally argued as the missing link between monkeys and blacks, because, you know, you can't start treating Catholics like they're whites too. Etc.

I'd say it's just human nature, but it's just 'divide et impera' by those who stood to benefit from such artificial lines in the sand.
Click to expand...

Of course, it was John Major who drew a line under the sand...
 
Leumas said:
Whether the cylinder is just pure propaganda written by a despotic imperial conqueror trying to whitewash his image for the people he conquered or whether there are any facts to it that this conqueror of conquerors is in fact a real nice guy is up to you to decide.

We do know that kings tended to use propaganda (i.e. lies) all over the region before and after Cyrus.... so I wonder why Cyrus would be any NOBLER? Could it be wishful thinking influenced by circular reasoning?
Click to expand...
Two points to this (and yes, I also follow the other thread you've posted in).

1) Were really all monarchs of the time despotic oppressive conquerors? For instance, did the Egyptians when they conquered Canaan impose their own gods etc. on the Canaanites? I have the impression not, but that the Egyptians just appointed local vassals who had to keep their fealty to the pharaoh and bring in enough taxes.

2) I can totally see how a conqueror, especially one who conquers such a large empire as Cyrus did, sees the wisdom of giving his provinces some local autonomy. It keeps them quiet, costs less military to control them, and keeps the economy going and thus brings in more taxes. Win-win. Why do you think Philip II of Spain lost the Netherlands with his bloody inquisition? (even the local Catholics were against it).
 
ddt said:
2) I can totally see how a conqueror, especially one who conquers such a large empire as Cyrus did, sees the wisdom of giving his provinces some local autonomy. It keeps them quiet, costs less military to control them, and keeps the economy going and thus brings in more taxes. Win-win. Why do you think Philip II of Spain lost the Netherlands with his bloody inquisition? (even the local Catholics were against it).
Click to expand...

The problem is, your answer does not fit the narrative trying to be spun by the poster. Even if we are so bold to assume Cyrus invented the idea, we are still left with a 1000 year legacy of successive empires in the region adopting the same blue print for empire building.
 
ddt said:
Two points to this (and yes, I also follow the other thread you've posted in).

1) Were really all monarchs of the time despotic oppressive conquerors? For instance, did the Egyptians when they conquered Canaan impose their own gods etc. on the Canaanites? I have the impression not, but that the Egyptians just appointed local vassals who had to keep their fealty to the pharaoh and bring in enough taxes.
Click to expand...


Exactly they appointed "local vassals", not “freed slaves” claiming to be returning to resume their place as "local vassal" over the locals who are already local vassals.

But can you see an advantage in the second approach?


ddt said:
2) I can totally see how a conqueror, especially one who conquers such a large empire as Cyrus did, sees the wisdom of giving his provinces some local autonomy. It keeps them quiet, costs less military to control them, and keeps the economy going and thus brings in more taxes. Win-win. Why do you think Philip II of Spain lost the Netherlands with his bloody inquisition? (even the local Catholics were against it).
Click to expand...


Yes "local autonomy", not freed slaves returning with ideas that the "local autonomy" rejects and fights with them to the extent of bringing the fight all the way to the Persian courts and the Persians have to send orders and letters to squash the "local autonomy" in preference to "slaves" claiming to be "local" but yet rejecting the locals outright and not even accepting their offers to help them.

But can you see an advantage in the second approach?



Have a look at this post in the other thread.


Leumas said:
[snip]

Do you think the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are historical? Do you think they are telling the truth even if they were “historical”? Do you think they were accurate even if they were being honest?

I suggest you spend a couple of hours reading Ezra carefully and then Nehemiah. That is all it would take just a few hours.

If you still believe that the narrative in these books is feasible then I suggest you start a new thread and let’s discuss these two books starting with how and why you think they are feasible.

[snip]

So let us establish a timeline for this tale… 597 to 539 to 445 to 425 to 405
  • 597 BCE
    Nebuchadnezzar destroys Jerusalem and takes 10,000 people captives to Babylon as slaves but yet they are allowed to keep their religious scroll and genealogical lists despite the fact that all their holy Tupperware and cutlery has been confiscated and shut up in Babylonian coffers never to be touched for nearly 60 years. He also installed the previous King’s Uncle as a puppet king despite the fact that Jerusalem was emptied according to common perception which is not borne by archaeology in any case.
  • 539 BCE
    Cyrus II conquers Babylon and immediately frees 42360 Judean slaves (Ezra 2:64) who have been slaves for 58 years breading and learning and reading religious scrolls in between their slave duties all the while keeping track of their genealogical lists of who is who.

    This Zoroastrian Theocratic Emperor has no more pressing matters after his conquest of Babylon than to also design a temple (Ezra 6:3-5) layout and manner of building for a foreign god called YHWH he has never heard of and orders the emptying of all the looted gold and silver and precious cutlery from the coffers of Babylon where this treasure has been sitting for the last 58 years untouched and unspoiled and never tempting anyone. He gives all that to those slaves along with thousands of pack animals and of course thousands of slaves for the freed slaves to own. I wonder why Cyrus did not free those poor slaves who are destined to remain slaves for freed slaves.

  • ca 445 BCE
    The Zoroastrian Theocratic Emperor is concerned about the mood of his wine pourer Nehemiah and asks him while he is pouring his wine “what’s the matter old man?” (Nehemiah 2:1-4). Nehemiah explains to this Ahura Mazda worshiper that he is concerned about the state of Jerusalem which somehow this wine pourer seems to know all about from his vantage point as a servant in the court. Why did he not leave with Zerubbabel’s expedition? He asks the Emperor to let him go on a vacation. Surprisingly this nice emperor seems to love his servant and asks him how long a vacation he will need and when will he return from his return to resume his servile duties after he has had his respite resolving the problems of Jerusalem.

    Moreover this unbelievably empathetic Emperor does not just let his servant leave on a holiday for as long as he needs, he also sends a garrison of Captains and Cavalry (Nehemiah 2:7) to guard him and force other kings along the way to Jerusalem to obey the letters he is also giving him so as to be able to collect wood and gold and more holy Tupperware in order to resume building the city of YHWH who Artaxerxes as a worshiper of Ahura Mazda would have been totally concerned about of course. Never mind the little detail that this is the same King who a few chapters earlier ordered the stopping of the rebuilding of Jerusalem and its temple (Ezra 4:19-22) on the grounds of having a history of being a bellicose city.

  • 425 BCE (or maybe 437 BCE)
    Darius II a Zoroastrian Emperor receives a letter from the leaders of those slaves to resolve a quarrel between these returned slaves and the “people of the land” whom they despise and deny that they worship the same god as them despite being supposedly their relatives who ought to have recognized them. We are also to believe that this quarrel has been now going on for around 114 years.

    If you are not already filled to the rim with T5, here is another one. Darius II the theocrat of Ahura Mazda orders that the temple for YHWH should be constructed and he sends further gold from the coffers of Babylon and ordains that the tributes and taxes of the “other side of the river” be given to the Judeans so as to complete the Temple for YHWH from whom he hopes to get blessings for himself and for his Zoroastrian children. (Ezra 6:7-12)

  • 405 BCE
    Ezra is sent with yet more gold and silver and more “returnees” (Ezra 7:1-27) along with their own slaves to go and inspect the status of YHWH’s temple and city and “beautify” it (Ezra 7:27). This other freed slave returnee somehow or another has MAJOR COMMAND over the people who are already there from supposedly 134 years earlier.

    Moreover he has this lost scriptures which the earlier two stages of returnees already there for a century and a half have not known about until Ezra comes over and reads it to them and they all are as if they never heard it before (Nehemiah 8:1-8).

[snip]

Also consider that the “people of the land” objected violently to all this. If those theocratic Emperors wanted to control the land with puppet regimes wouldn’t it have been more prudent to actually assign puppets from among the “people of the land” rather than from among almost dead freed slaves from Babylon?

[snip]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
The Persians and Egyptians were.
Click to expand...
I like your pix. Who could argue with that? Wait a minute, God can!
Isaiah 45: 1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3 and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Click to expand...
 
Craig B said:
I like your pix. Who could argue with that? Wait a minute, God can!
Isaiah 45: 1 Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3 and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the Lord, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that the same god who also says

Jeremiah 19 said:
19:7 And I will make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth.
19:8 And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof.
19:9 And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.
Click to expand...
Amos 3:6 said:
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Click to expand...



I would not take highly any character reference from this god. Maybe the saying "birds of a feather" might pop in one’s mind. If I were Cyrus wanting to whitewash my image, the god of Jacob would be the last thing I might cite as a credible voucher for my goodness.
 
Leumas said:
Yes "local autonomy", not freed slaves returning with ideas that the "local autonomy" rejects and fights with them to the extent of bringing the fight all the way to the Persian courts and the Persians have to send orders and letters to squash the "local autonomy" in preference to "slaves" claiming to be "local" but yet rejecting the locals outright and not even accepting their offers to help them.

But can you see an advantage in the second approach?
Click to expand...

The Achaemenid kings, far as we know, only used paid workers and freed the slaves in the conquered regions. This is usually credited to Zoroastrianism forbidding slavery, but I haven't actually studied that religion enough to know if that's actually true (especially since there are AFAIK no actual Zoroastrian religious scrolls from that era), or it just happened to be a personal dislike of Cyrus and his successors.

(So yeah, the two 300 movies present an image that is polar opposite to historical reality. In reality, the Persians were more into freedom and into the idea that all humans are created equal than the Greeks.)

So, yes, it's pretty much common knowledge that Cyrus freed a lot of slaves, as would his successors.

And I don't see what's unbelievable in the idea that a lot of those would want to come back to their ancestral home. Especially since in Babylon they had just gone from slave to unemployed, so I don't see much to keep them there.

Leumas said:
Cyrus II conquers Babylon and immediately frees 42360 Judean slaves (Ezra 2:64) who have been slaves for 58 years breading and learning and reading religious scrolls in between their slave duties all the while keeping track of their genealogical lists of who is who.
Click to expand...

You do know that there were slave scribes, right? Not everyone, of course, but the institution is attested all over the ancient world, but especially is attested in Mesopotamia LONG before that. E.g., we have a tablet from Mari, late 3rd millennium BCE, which actually identifies 10 female scribes, and 9 of them were slaves. And occasionally taken to extremes like the Romans using literate slaves to educate their children. A slave who could read and write was also extremely expensive, and for that reason they generally tended to be better treated than the guys in the mines.

So essentially we're not talking some galley slave also finding the time to study and copy scrolls, but people whose job description was copying scrolls in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Leumas said:
I would not take highly any character reference from this god. Maybe the saying "birds of a feather" might pop in one’s mind. If I were Cyrus wanting to whitewash my image, the god of Jacob would be the last thing I might cite as a credible voucher for my goodness.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course. It's just that these kings get quite a good write up in the Bible. In Esther too.

Because they released the captives from Babylon, and allowed them to restore the Temple, of course. Not because the kings were really nice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom