The oldest biblical character who probably existed

[lionking]

I am reading "Jerusalem, the Biography" by Simon Sebag Montefiore, and a cracking and well researched book it is.

In the early chapters he writes about David, who I thought was probably fictional, but references the Tel Dan stele which seems to be good evidence that an Israelite king called David existed around 1000BC. So is there any evidence (apart from the bible itself) for any earlier biblical character? Moses perhaps?

 

[blutoski]

I am reading "Jerusalem, the Biography" by Simon Sebag Montefiore, and a cracking and well researched book it is.

In the early chapters he writes about David, who I thought was probably fictional, but references the Tel Dan stele which seems to be good evidence that an Israelite king called David existed around 1000BC. So is there any evidence (apart from the bible itself) for any earlier biblical character? Moses perhaps?

Moses notwithstanding, Ramses II would have been "Pharaoh" from Exodus, born a little before 1279 BCE.

 

[TimCallahan]

Here's the portions of the Tel Dan inscription referring to Jehoram, son of Ahab and Ahaziah, king of the House ofDavid (lines 7 - 9):

7. . . .[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g
9. of the House of David. . . .

So, David could be a real guy or a legendary eponymous ancestor. I would opt for him being a real guy, but not likely king over Judah and Israel. Aside from the Merneptah Victory Stele erected ca. 1200 BCE, we don't have any mention of Israel or its leaders until the Tel Dan inscription and Assyrian records referring to Omri and Ahab. Since either the (briefly) united kingdom of Israel and Judah, or the two independent kingdoms probably didn't come into existence any earlier than 1000 BCE, we're not likely going to find any preserved document from much earlier than the Tel Dan inscription.

David might well have been a real guy. Saul may be historical. That Moses has an Egyptian name (Moseh, meaning "child") points to some level of historicity, though most of his story is the stuff of legend. Earlier than that, it's all story-telling, and there's no reason to believe any of the characters were real.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I somewhat doubt that Moses had an actual Egyptian name. The MSSW particle means "born of" (as the Bible does hint), but therefore was always a part of a longer name that indicated who he was a son of. It could be a god, or whatever. E.g., if the Pharaoh's daughter would actually name him after the water, he'd be called something like NWY-MSSW, i.e., probably pronounced "Nooweemeses", i.e., "born of the water." Naming someone just "born of" would be as big a nonsense as it sounds in English too.

I mean, really, it's not very unlike the "ben" in ancient Hebrew or the "bar" in Aramaic. An Egyptian guy named just MSSW would be about as big a nonsense as an Aramaic guy called Bar

ETA: i.e., my take is that the connection between Moses and MSSW is a retrofit too.

 

[TimCallahan]

Actually, I somewhat doubt that Moses had an actual Egyptian name. The MSSW particle means "born of" (as the Bible does hint), but therefore was always a part of a longer name that indicated who he was a son of. It could be a god, or whatever. E.g., if the Pharaoh's daughter would actually name him after the water, he'd be called something like NWY-MSSW, i.e., probably pronounced "Nooweemeses", i.e., "born of the water." Naming someone just "born of" would be as big a nonsense as it sounds in English too.

I mean, really, it's not very unlike the "ben" in ancient Hebrew or the "bar" in Aramaic. An Egyptian guy named just MSSW would be about as big a nonsense as an Aramaic guy called Bar

ETA: i.e., my take is that the connection between Moses and MSSW is a retrofit too.

One possibility is that Moses originally had a longer name, possibly incorporating that of one of the Egyptian gods. This might have been shorn away in the process of adopting it into Hebrew and into the worship of Yahweh. I doubt his original name meant "born of the water," because the story of pharaoh's daughter finding Moses floating on the water was one version of a typological tale, originally told of Sargon the Great of Akkad. It's also been noted that the image of an Egyptian solar deity as a child floating in a boat was a common visual motif.

I have also heard the two other names common among the Levites, Hophni ("tadpole") and Phinehas ("dark one") are Egyptian. This might imply that the core of the Levites came up from Egypt, possibly picking up the worship of Yahweh in the region of Edom. Of course, even if this is true, any historical kernel upon which the person of Moses and the story of Exodus might have been based would have been very small.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, I'm not saying I know his historical name, nor that I'm taking that story as actually true. "Born of water" was just an example of a "born of" that would actually make sense for a literal reading of the Exodus story. (Well, that or "born of" one of the many Nile deities.) But it's just an example of how the MSSW particle was actually used, really.

I suppose it could have half the name shorn off later, but even then I still find the connection dubious. In the end we run into the same problem I dislike about the gospels: it involves knowing that the author of a text lied his ass off (e.g., the whole copying Sargon, the supernatural feats, the perfect 120 year life, etc) but presuming to know that exactly one specific bit (the etymology of Moshe) wasn't also invented. It's the kind of omniscience that I'm wary of granting myself, or anyone else for that matter.

 

[TimCallahan]

Well, I'm not saying I know his historical name, nor that I'm taking that story as actually true. "Born of water" was just an example of a "born of" that would actually make sense for a literal reading of the Exodus story. (Well, that or "born of" one of the many Nile deities.) But it's just an example of how the MSSW particle was actually used, really.

I suppose it could have half the name shorn off later, but even then I still find the connection dubious. In the end we run into the same problem I dislike about the gospels: it involves knowing that the author of a text lied his ass off (e.g., the whole copying Sargon, the supernatural feats, the perfect 120 year life, etc) but presuming to know that exactly one specific bit (the etymology of Moshe) wasn't also invented. It's the kind of omniscience that I'm wary of granting myself, or anyone else for that matter.

Well, that's a good point. About all I could say for the support of anything bordering on any historical Exodus is that some of the Levites and posibly te Joseph tribes could have escaped as small bands of slaves. I also suspect that some elements of the Israelites did come west from Paddam Aram, bringing with them the covenant traditions and patriarchal tales. There's also the chance that the tribe of Dan may have formed around a core of disaffected Philistines or philistine allies. However, the major source of the tribes of Israel seems to have been native Canaanites.

In any case, with the exception of the Merneptah victory stele mentioning a people called Israel, ca. 1200 BCE, I think the earliest mention in a preserved document of any specific person from the Old Testament is going to remain the Tel Dan inscription, along with those Assyrian records referring to Omri and Ahab.

 

[HansMustermann]

Well, it's indeed possible that some small band of slave fugitives would get embellished out of proportion. However there's another problem there for specifically Moses as Something-MSSW. The "born of" some god or another construct was AFAIK pretty much royalty-only. Being born of a god was kinda reserved for pharaohs and children of pharaohs. You know, divine right of pharaohs and all that, and such a divine pedigree was hyped majorly as just that kind of divine right. You didn't want every slave to be running around with a claim to a pedigree fit to make him a king.

So I kind of have trouble imagining that an escaped slave would have such a name.

IMHO if anyone came running out of Egypt with such a name, it would be with the Hyskos, and probably an actual descendant of the last Hyskos pharaoh. It's a bit of a toss if such a person actually existed or survived, though, seein' as the Hyskos just disappear from history after the Egyptians raze the city they had retreated to.

 

[dropzone]

I do not know enough about Egyptian history and will enjoy this thread.

 

[TimCallahan]

. . . (snip) IMHO if anyone came running out of Egypt with such a name, it would be with the Hyskos, and probably an actual descendant of the last Hyskos pharaoh. It's a bit of a toss if such a person actually existed or survived, though, seein' as the Hyskos just disappear from history after the Egyptians raze the city they had retreated to.

One possibility is that the history of the Hyksos was conflated with the myths of the origins of the people called Israel. Josephus certainly did this, saying that the Egyptians drove the Israelites out of Egypt because they were, in fact, the Hyksos, but that because of God's favor and the their great leader Moses, the Israelites were able to humble and despoil the Egyptians on their way out.

All of this may be moot, however, since I think you and I agree that the earliest biblical personality to be mentioned outside the Bible in ancient preserved documents is likely to remain (by allusion) David.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh, we can agree about that one. The earliest name that is attested by an independent source is indeed David's. But with the caveats that you already mentioned.

 

[JJM 777]

any earlier biblical character? Moses perhaps?

The Serpent?

 

[I Ratant]

None of the extant versions have the ability to speak.
Hiss, yes, but words... not too good at that!

 

[Matt Giwer]

I am reading "Jerusalem, the Biography" by Simon Sebag Montefiore, and a cracking and well researched book it is.

In the early chapters he writes about David, who I thought was probably fictional, but references the Tel Dan stele which seems to be good evidence that an Israelite king called David existed around 1000BC. So is there any evidence (apart from the bible itself) for any earlier biblical character? Moses perhaps?

Anyone can look at the Tel Dan inscription and see, because of the dot separators between words, that BYTDWD, is single word as is BYTLHM as in Bethlehem.

It takes only a passing familiarity with the language to know that BYT is always a reference to a place where people live from a town like Bethlehem to a temple such as BYT YHWH, translated as House or Temple of Yahweh although Yahweh is falsely translated as Lord because of later theology. http://www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/tel-dan-trans.phtml

BYT is never used to mean dynasty. It is only a quirk of English from Medieval Italian usage of house to mean dynasty that anyone would make up the nonsense idea that one word, BYTDWD, is really two words, and that in this one and only case house means dynasty.

Should one actually look at the above link one can see other problems with the translation such as the translator inserting king names which are not part of the inscription. There is no basis for using the Septuagint to guide the translation and them claim the translation confirms the validity of the Septuagint. That is called circular reasoning.

If one could reason with believers there wouldn't be any. -- Dr. House

 

[Matt Giwer]

Moses notwithstanding, Ramses II would have been "Pharaoh" from Exodus, born a little before 1279 BCE.

But Exodus is a long exposed myth and Ramses II is not named in the myth.

Ramses II is the KING who decided its middle eastern satrapies were getting a bit to independent because of some kingdoms in what is now Syria. He lead an army into the region and extend Egypt's rule into Syria all the way to the Euphrates thus ruling the land from "the river in Egypt to the Euphrates." This kingdom was obviously the model for the "promise" to the mythical Abraham and the kingdom of the mythical Solomon.

Pharaoh was the name of any administrative city that did not come to be a reference to the king until around the 7th c. BC. It was the equivalent of the modern references such as "The White House (or 10 Downing) issued a statement ..." Any use of the word to refer to the king directly prior to the 7th c. BC is an anachronism. In every case but those involving religious beliefs anachronisms are evidence of the earliest possible creation date.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Here's the portions of the Tel Dan inscription referring to Jehoram, son of Ahab and Ahaziah, king of the House ofDavid (lines 7 - 9):

7. . . .[I killed Jeho]ram son of [Ahab]
8. king of Israel, and I killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin]g
9. of the House of David. . . .

So, David could be a real guy or a legendary eponymous ancestor. I would opt for him being a real guy, but not likely king over Judah and Israel. Aside from the Merneptah Victory Stele erected ca. 1200 BCE, we don't have any mention of Israel or its leaders until the Tel Dan inscription and Assyrian records referring to Omri and Ahab. Since either the (briefly) united kingdom of Israel and Judah, or the two independent kingdoms probably didn't come into existence any earlier than 1000 BCE, we're not likely going to find any preserved document from much earlier than the Tel Dan inscription.

David might well have been a real guy. Saul may be historical. That Moses has an Egyptian name (Moseh, meaning "child") points to some level of historicity, though most of his story is the stuff of legend. Earlier than that, it's all story-telling, and there's no reason to believe any of the characters were real.

If should be clear any any critical person such how faked the translation.

Line 7, there are NO NAMES on it. Ahab is a total invention. Adding something ahead of RAM implies English transliterates with Aramaic but it does not. It is incredibly absurd to think anyone seriously takes [I killed] which is wholly invented as having been the original inscription.

Line 8 is even worse as both names are wholly invented and there is no G in Aramaic king.

Line 9 translates a place name BYTDWD, a single word on the inscription into two words house and david. Further BYT can only mean mean house when it is a place to live. It never means dynasty or, as believers would have it, this is the only usage of BYT to mean dynasty. Believers insist not only on this one time meaning for the word but also that the single word BYTDWD should be taken as two words for the purpose of making the Septuagint guided translation appear less silly.

Fact is there is ZERO archaeological evidence for the existence of biblical Israel or biblical Judah. When these imaginary people were supposed to have ruled those mythical kingdoms the region was part of the New Kingdom of Egypt.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Well, it's indeed possible that some small band of slave fugitives would get embellished out of proportion.

Except that the "embellishment" is so great that any connection is immaterial and indistinguishable from total fabrication.

Besides that, Egypt ruled the "promised land" all the while the mythical Hebrews were escaping and all the while the mythical Israelites were invading it and all the while the mythical David and Solomon were ruling it.

This has been known for nearly a century but believers are still not willing to deal with the obvious.

 

[Matt Giwer]

One possibility is that the history of the Hyksos was conflated with the myths of the origins of the people called Israel. Josephus certainly did this, saying that the Egyptians drove the Israelites out of Egypt because they were, in fact, the Hyksos, but that because of God's favor and the their great leader Moses, the Israelites were able to humble and despoil the Egyptians on their way out.

All of this may be moot, however, since I think you and I agree that the earliest biblical personality to be mentioned outside the Bible in ancient preserved documents is likely to remain (by allusion) David.

In fact the Hyksos connection to the Jews was invented by Josephus in the first book of Against Apion. To him anyone who refused to believe the Jews were the Hyksos who ruled Egypt for a century hated Jews and the refusal to believe his nonsense claim was proof of their hatred.

His book is the oldest claim people hate Jews. He gives several other examples of people refusing to believe total nonsense as proof people hate Jews.

In any event there has never been any archaeological or historical connection between the Hyksos and the Jews. He is the sole source of the nonsense connection.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Oh, we can agree about that one. The earliest name that is attested by an independent source is indeed David's. But with the caveats that you already mentioned.

In fact the oldest John (Judah) Maccabe as the DWD thing is nonsense. The actual connection is through his son John Hyrcanus who used military conquest to impose the worship of Yahweh on the people of Iodumaea, Samaria and Galilee. This is found in Wars of the Jews by Josephus the turncoat priest of Yahweh.

The name John is interesting in that it is Greek. Hyrcanus comes from Hyrcania a kingdom bordering the Caspian Sea conquered by Alexander.

 

[Matt Giwer]

The Serpent?

The serpent is Apophis from Egypt.

So is the tree.