• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

history and myth of Exodus

Tim, Piggy, Hans,

just wanna say thanks, this is fascinating reading, well-written, and just on the right level for me to comprehend the issues and argument. For me, it doesn't matter much if an agreement is reached, but to see the limits of what is and isn't possible, and, well, just to educate myself on some current and reasonable views.


I'm glad you're enjoying the thread.

It occurs to me that you and others might get more out of it, though, if an overview of the Biblical source documents were provided.

Most folks tend to think of the Bible in terms of its various books, which is fine for the New Testament of the Christian Bible, but doesn't work well for the early books of the Hebrew Bible, such as the ones we're discussing here.

That's because the current books are woven together from a variety of sources. (So are the New Testament books, but not in quite the same way.)

This was discovered when scholars noticed that in some passages of the Pentateuch (the first five books) it was asserted that God was known by the name YHWH (Yahweh) from very early times, while in other passages it was asserted that God did not reveal his name to anyone before Moses.

Long story short, decades of investigation has found that there are several early sources which are identifiable by a number of elements which divide them into clear sets. These include:

• The language used, including vocabulary and time period (e.g. it isn't hard to distinguish between a passage from Dickens and a passage from Hemingway)

• References to things which existed at that time or earlier but not later, or at that time and later but not earlier, such as cities, structures, practices, etc.

• Theology, political stances, and cultural norms

• Literary devices, such as whether puns are prevalent or absent, whether placenames are given origin stories or not, which stock phrases are repeated, and so forth

These differences are not randomly distributed, but are clustered, not just within categories but across categories so that, for example, the sections with the oldest forms of Hebrew also include the earliest references and theology, while the sections with the latest forms of Hebrew include the latest references and theology.

The various doublets -- or to use the phrase more common to this forum, "Bible contradictions" -- are also distributed in this manner, and the forms they take are consistent with the theology, politics, and other norms found within the distinct sets of passages.

It is impossible to "cherry pick" that kind of convergence.

Examining these source documents, as well as we can reconstruct them, reveals a great deal about who wrote these documents, when, where, and why.

The following is an overview of the major documents which comprise the Biblical books we are discussing. There are also other minor sources such as the Book of Records and the military account of the defeat of the Cities of the Plain (including Sodom and Gomorrah) but these are the most important to understand.


The Context

Before I compare the contents of the sources, I'll briefly set the scene.

The ancient Hebrews were a collection of semitic tribes who lived on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean and were culturally, linguistically, and religiously similar to other semitic groups living in that area. These were literate peoples (or at least certain classes of them were) who wrote an alphabetic language on papyrus, leather, and clay, made inscriptions in stone, and used broken pottery in the way we might use scrap paper.

These groups had rather loosely defined territories, so that more than one group might hold cities in the same general area. The Hebrew tribes were culturally subdivided into two clusters, one centered around the Dead Sea in the south, and the other centered around the Jordan river and Sea of Galilee in the north.

The dominant god in the area was El, who was viewed as the head of a heavenly council which included various nature gods and so forth. The Hebrew equivalent was Yahweh, and Yahwistic Hebrews used the term "El" in the way we use the term "God". Over time, the official Hebrew religion came to view Yahweh as the dominant god of all gods of all tribes (not just theirs) and eventually as the only real god in existence, but that process took several centuries and the popular culture always lagged behind the official (or priestly) religion which often railed against popular practices.

Our first clear archaeological evidence of the Hebrews dates from the 12th century BCE.

Early Hebrew society was ruled by a theocratic co-regency of tribal warrior-judges and priests, existing in tandem (often uneasily) with a prophetic tradition. Prophets were men recognized to have been chosen by Yahweh to voice his word, and they could be judges or priests or in some cases laymen with a popular following.

In the latter part of this era, theocratic power centered on Shiloh, in the tribal region of Ephraim to the north of present-day Jerusalem in the southern sector of the Northern cluster, where there was a tabernacle which was claimed to be the dwelling place of Yahweh on earth, as well as Hebron in the tribal region of Judah just south of present-day Jerusalem.

In response to the rise of the power of the Philistines on the southern coast in the 11th century BCE, the Hebrews eventually united under a single warrior chief, Saul, but when Saul fell in battle against the Philistines, the Northern tribes rallied around his son Ishbaal while the Southern tribes rallied around his chief general and son-in-law David.

But David garnered the support of the Shilohan priests and seized the opportunity to re-unify the tribal confederacy shortly before the year 1000 BCE.

To achieve this unification, David sacked the city of the Jebusites, Jerusalem, which lay on the border between the Northern and Southern clusters, and moved the capital there. This was a shrewd move, because it avoided the dilemma of having to choose between a capital in either Shiloh or Hebron.

He moved the tabernacle from Shiloh to Jerusalem, and placed inside it the Ark of the Covenant, the most holy Southern relic which was reputed to hold the original stone tablets upon which Moses had inscribed the first code of Law, as dictated by Yahweh.

David set up a co-priesthood of two High Priests, a Mushite from the North and an Aaronite from the South. (The Mushites traced their lineage back to Moses, and the Aaronites traced their lineage back to Aaron.) He also took wives from all of the various tribes.

In the 900s BCE, David's heir Solomon built a temple around the tabernacle, a two-room structure about the size of a 3-story house in the modern United States. One room was an antechamber, and other held the tabernacle, flanked by statues of two standing cherubim -- creatures that resembled sphinxes -- the tips of whose outstretched wings touched each other above the tabernacle and touched the walls of the temple on either side.

He also embarked on many other building projects, primarily in the South, which were partly funded by effectively selling off some of the far Northern territories to other kings, and removed the Northern Mushite High Priest (who had supported one of his brothers in the power-struggle for his father's throne) favoring the Southern Aaronite line.

Solomon managed to keep the kingdom unified, but his heir Rehoboam was not able to hold the coalition together, and around 930 BCE the North broke off into the kingdom of Israel, ruled by Jeroboam in the city of Sechem (in the tribal region of Manasseh to the north of Ephraim) while Rehoboam held onto Judea.

David and Solomon had centralized certain important annual sacrifices -- but not all sacrifices -- at the Tabernacle and later the Temple which was built around it. This was clearly untenable for Jeroboam, so he established twin capitals for Israel at Dan in the extreme north and Bethel in the extreme south just north of Jerusalem.

This arrangement effectively disenfranchised the Shilohan priesthood, who had been previously been supportive of the Davidic line.

In contrast to the gold-painted wooden cherubim of the Southern Temple, Jeroboam set up a golden bull as the throne of Yahweh at each of his capitals, thereby identifying Yahweh with El, whose symbol was the bull and who was still worshipped in many areas, in an effort to secure popular support.

It is during this period of divided monarchy that the earliest Biblical texts were written, one in the North and one in the South, each drawing on older traditions.

These texts were, in all likelihood, each based in part upon some sort of Davidic Torah (or law) which is now lost, because David's consolidation of power must have included a central law code of some sort.

The Davidic Torah, in turn, would have been based upon -- or would have been an expanded version of -- the very earliest law code, the one attributed to Moses, also now lost, the original version of which was reputed to be held within the Ark of the Covenant, brought by David to Jerusalem (most likely from Hebron) and held by Solomon in the Temple.


The Old Judean Torah (or the Yahwist Torah, or "J")

The first source we will look at was produced somewhere in the South, probably Hebron or Jerusalem, and is written from a decidedly pro-Aaronite, pro-Judah, anti-Sechem point of view.

It is commonly known as "J" or the Yahwist Torah, because in this document God is known by his name Yahweh from very early times long before the birth of Moses.

Important features to note:

• Earliest stage of Biblical Hebrew
• Noah brings 7 of all clean animals onto the ark (not 2) so that some may be sacrificed
• Law is given on Mount Sinai
• God is known as Yahweh from the outset
• No mention of the Tabernacle, but the Ark features prominently
• Cherubs stand at the gates of Eden
• No mention of the divination tools Urim and Tummim
• No mention of the prophetic tradition
• God sometimes shows mercy by changing his mind
• God walks the earth and interacts with humans
• God speaks to people in dreams
• Angels interact with humans
• Numerous parallels with the Court History of David in 2nd Samuel
• Numerous parallels with the book of Hosea
• Abraham dwells in Hebron in Judah
• The scouts of Moses describe no land beyond Judea
• Includes stories of the life of Judah, including Judah saving Joseph from his other brothers, and Judah being promised the birthright ahead of his 3 older brothers
• Gives birth and naming stories only for the ancestors of the Southern tribes
• Includes the story of the massacre at Sechem
• Extensive discussion of Edom, which borders Judah
• God forbids the construction of molten idols specifically (the Southern cherubim were wooden figures covered with gold paint, the Northern bulls were made of molten gold)
• Makes no mention of Joshua (an Ephraimite hero)
• Sacrifice occurs at various locations during the era of the patriarchs


The Old Ephraimaic Torah (or the Elohisitc Torah, or "E")

This source tells many of the same stories as the Old Judean Torah (J) -- and shares its inclusion of angels and talking animals -- but consistently puts Moses in a more favorable light, and Aaron in a less favorable light.

It it also hostile to many of the policies of Jeroboam. The obvious candidate for authorship is therefore the marginalized Mushite priesthood from Shiloh.

Important features to note:

• Earliest stage of Biblical Hebrew, like J
• Law is given on Mount Horeb rather than Sinai
• God first makes his name Yahweh known to Moses; before that, he is called El
• The Ark of the Covenant is never mentioned, but the Tabernacle is important
• Cherubim do not appear, nor do Urim and Tummim
• Miracles are performed with the staff of Moses
• God walks the earth and interacts with humans
• God speaks to people in dreams
• Angels interact with humans
• A prophetic tradition is recorded (validating the legitimacy of the practice of speaking for God outside of the officially established power structure)
• Numerous parallels with the book of Hosea, like J, but not with the Court History of David
• The root-word of the name Rehoboam never appears (it appears 6 times in J)
• No encounter with Edom in the exodus story, Esau not named as father of the Edomites
• Gives birth and naming stories only for the ancestors of the Northern tribes
• There is no massacre at Sechem; territory is purchased at Sechem instead
• Birthright is given to Joseph (not Judah) who receives a double portion which is passed down to Ephraim and Manasseh
• Reuben, not Judah, saves Joseph from his other brothers
• Joseph's remains are taken to Ephraim for burial
• Solomon denounced for introducing forced labor, using the same terms that describe the forced labor in Egypt
• Joshua treated extensively, portrayed as the successor to Moses
• Includes the Covenant Code (indicating authorship by priests)
• Ahijah, a prophet from Shiloh, prophecies against the dynasty of Jeroboam after the installation of the golden bulls
• Contains the story of Aaron making the golden calf (a sin against God) while Moses and Joshua are with Yahweh on the mountain (note that Aaron proclaims "these are your gods" even though only one calf is made)
• All gods of silver and gold are forbidden, not just molten gods
• Moses shatters the tablets of the Law, they are not preserved
• Aaron speaks against Moses for taking a Cushite wife, but God declares Moses to be justified above all prophets
• Aaron recognizes Moses' superiority and calls him "my lord"
• Sacrifice occurs at various locations during the era of the patriarchs
• Moses crafts a bronze snake that is used to heal snakebites

It is important to note here that Aaron is not punished for his sin of making the golden calf to worship, despite having broken a law for which punishment is required. Nor is he punished with a blemish when he criticizes Moses, although his sister Miriam is.

This is because it is accepted by everyone, even his enemies, that Aaron was a High Priest of Yahweh, and it would not have been possible for him to hold that role had he been smitten by God for his transgressions. There are limits to how far propaganda can go. (Liberals may vilify Bush for invading Iraq, for example, but they cannot claim that he was impeached and removed from office for doing so, because everyone knows he completed two terms as president.)


The Combined Old Religion Torah ("JE")

The Northern kingdom of Israel fell in 722 BCE, and many Hebrews fled from Israel to Judea in the South, bringing with them their version of the Hebrew religion as well as its texts. At some point after 722, the Old Judean and Ephraimaic Torahs were combined into a single document, JE.


The Hezekian Torah (or the Priestly Torah, or "P")

In the early years of the 7th century BCE, king Hezekiah of Judah instituted radical religious reforms, with the goal of increasing his kingdom's political fortunes by instituting a stricter religious code centered on the Aaronid priesthood of the Temple. Aaronites become the only Temple priests, not just the High Priest -- all other Levites are removed from Temple service.

All of the locations of popular worship, the local altars and the "high places", are destroyed (but not the shrines built by Solomon, who removed the Mushite High Priest in favor of the Aaronid priest) as well as the bronze snakes of the Mushites. A new Torah was written, purged of the more primitive elements of the old religion, such as anthropomorphic images of God and angels, as well as all references to sacrifice prior to the consecration of Aaron as High Priest or by anyone other than Aaron and his descendants. All insults to Aaron are removed.

In this version of the Torah, which follows the narrative structure of JE, Hezekiah is praised as the greatest of all kings since David.

Important features to note:

• Later stage of Biblical Hebrew than J and E
• Noah brings only 2 of each animal onto the ark, and no sacrifices are made by Cain or Noah or Abraham or Joshua
• The Law is given on Sinai, as in J (but not E)
• God does not communicate with people through dreams, only through the priesthood
• God does not appear in anthropomorphic form
• All stories involving talking animals are removed
• Abraham is never commanded to sacrifice his son Isaac
• Aaron is Moses' elder brother rather than just his tribe-mate
• God never changes his mind to show mercy -- the terms for "mercy", "grace", and "kindness" appear nowhere in the text
• People fall on their faces before God (this does not happen in J or E)
• There is no story of the golden calf, or the punishment of Miriam (Joshua is therefore added to the story of Caleb in order to justify his special position, but most of the stories about Joshua from E are removed)
• When non Aaronid Levites claim that all Levites are fit to make offerings to God, God burns them to death
• Moses is punished by God for striking a rock with his staff in order to produce water, rather than waiting for God to produce the miracle -- in E, this is related as a miracle of Moses rather than a sin
• Moses is disfigured by his encounter with God on the mountain and must wear a veil over his face afterward (neither he nor his descendants can then be priests)
• When a man desecrates the Tent of Meeting by taking a Midianite woman into it to have sex, Moses witnesses it and does nothing, but Phineas (Aaron's grandson) kills them with his spear and is granted an eternal covenant of priesthood by God for his descendants
• Lengthy codes of law are propounded, occupying about half of Exodus and Numbers and nearly the entire book of Leviticus
• Moses purchases a tomb in Hebron, thus acquiring the rights to the land
• Gilded cherubim stand over the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple
• Miracles are performed by the staff of Aaron (not Moses as in E)
• Urim and Tummim are used for divination in the Tabernacle within the Temple
• A prophetic tradition is not recorded (the word "prophet" appears only once, in reference to Aaron)
• Numerous parallels with Ezekiel, but not Hosea

Many years later, this Torah will be combined with the merged Old Religion Torah to form the first 4 books of the modern Bible.


The Josian Torah and History (The Deuteronomic History, or "D")

Hezekiah's strategy of returning to God failed, and Judah became a vassal state of the Assyrian Empire. Under his son Manasseh and the regency for his grandson Josiah, his strict reforms were reversed, and the plan of absolutely centralized worship was abandoned. Altars and high places were rebuilt by local populations, some of whom had never really given up their Hebrew-flavored form of native Canaanite El worship in spite of the dictates from the Jerusalem Temple.

Meanwhile, the Babylonian Empire was strengthening, and Egypt formed an alliance with Assyria against it.

When Josiah came of age and took power, he re-instituted his grandfather's reform with a vengeance. Centralized sacrifice was brought back, and the other altars again demolished, this time including the shrines of Solomon.

And he, too, produced his own version of the Law, or an addendum to it (the book of Deuteronomy) as well as an extensive history (in the modern Bible, Joshua, Judges, and the books of Samuel and Kings). This book was compiled from various earlier source materials with new writings added.

In this book (which Josiah claimed to have "discovered") all kings are judged according to their adherence to the Deuteronomic version of the Law, portrayed as the final speech to the Hebrews by Moses.

Josiah is of course the most righteous -- even more righteous than David who sinned with Bathsheba -- and is even (uniquely) portended by name in a story set 3 centuries before his birth, when it is revealed to Jeroboam that his priests will one day be put to the sword upon the altar of Bethel by Josiah.

Josiah, in fact, is nothing short of the modern counterpart to Moses, fulfilling every one of his promises, and in several places the two leaders and their actions are described in identical language which applies to no one else in the Bible (e.g. "none arose like him", smashing idols "thin as dust").

The theology of the Deuteronomic History (DH) is covenant theology, judging everything on the basis of how well the legal covenant between God and the Hebrews is kept. And this covenant includes a promise to the line of king David that they will remain in power forever.

Of course, in 587 the Babylonians take Jerusalem, destroy the Temple, and take the king's court and his top generals and priests into exile in Babylon to thwart potential insurrection. So the DH had to be rewritten to account for this fact, which is blamed on idolatry in violation of the Josian reforms.

These two versions of the DH are known as D1 and D2.

One of the interesting features about D, however, is that although it approves of Josiah and his reforms and is certainly written from a priestly perspective, it includes laws placing limits on the king's wealth and power, its earliest source materials do not reflect any detailed intimate knowledge of Temple practices, and it identifies Josiah as the new Moses, not the new Aaron.

In other words, it comes from the perspective of Mushite priests who approve of the Josian reforms, most likely the priest-prophet Jeremiah of the Shilohan line and his scribe Baruch, then living in Anathoth just outside of Jerusalem, who favored Josiah and had a cooperative relationship with him.

Important features to note:

• Latest stage of Biblical Hebrew
• Law given on Mount Horeb
• Unlike the earlier books, states that Moses had a "book of torah" placed alongside the Ark -- Josiah's priest Hilkah finds "the book of Torah" in the Temple
• The Deuteronomic Law Code (a subsection) makes no mention of Aaron, the office of High Priest, cherubim, the Ark of the Covenant, Urim and Tummim, or a distinction between Aaronites and other Levites -- all Levites are considered equal
• Strongly opposes the establishment of the altar at Bethel by Jeroboam
• Opposes standing armies in favor of musters
• Portrays Solomon as an idolator
• Prohibits all graven images
• Numerous parallels with the book of Jeremiah
• The repeated phrases "go after other gods", "turn to other gods", and "worship other gods" appear only in D
• Includes stories of angels and talking animals
• Includes stories of God communicating through dreams
• Includes a prophetic tradition
• Includes instructions to consult the priests and the judges regarding matters of law (P omits the judges, and in fact never mentions them anywhere)


What does it all mean for this discussion?

When we talk about these stories, their "meaning", and who wrote them and when and why, we can't simply point to the stories in our modern Bibles and ask "What does Exodus say, and is it history or made up?"

Instead, we have to ask what the authors of J, E, P, and D have to say and what does that mean.

Most of what we read is simply blatant political propaganda intended to solidify or assert claims to power by one group over other groups. You often hear the Hebrew Bible described as something like "a record of the relationship between a people and their God", but that's just a bunch of warm fuzziness. These are political documents written by and for a ruling elite.

But it's important to note that they are definitey NOT "fairy tales". Very little of the Hebrew Bible is "old myth" -- Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, the Tower of Babel, the Nephilim, etc. Those who say it's all "just a bunch of fairy tales" are embarrassing themselves, because they are simply wrong about that, and eggregiously so.

The "contradictions" that are so often used around here to claim that "the Bible is wrong" are, in fact, simply evidence of ancient political "spin" used to interpret Hebrew history, as they saw it, for various ends. To say that they prove that the Bible is wrong, or none of it ever happened, is a bit like saying that the "contradictions" between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann prove that television is wrong and that the Bush and Obama presidencies never happened.

But there are some traditions which are clearly so solid that they are affirmed by everyone, even when it works against their political goals, or at least does them no favors. These include:

• The Levites entered the tribal confederacy at some point after it had been formed, but not as landholders, yet they were able to establish themselves as a priestly class supported by all the other tribes.
• The Levites trace their origins back to Egypt and have Egyptian names, but they are ethnically and culturally Hebrew.
• Moses was an early, and very powerful, Levitical leader who wrote the first code of law for the Hebrews (now lost) which was promulgated to the tribes, and introduced the practice of circumcision as confirmation of a covenant which bound the tribes together under Yahwism and differentiated them in an unmistakable way from the surrounding tribes (so that a male member of a Hebrew tribe could not attempt to pass as a non-Hebrew to escape capture or death)
• Aaron was the first national High Priest of Yahweh

And the thing about these claims is that they are entirely plausible within the context of the Ancient Near East. In fact, there's nothing at all remarkable about them, from a historical perspective.

Does that prove that they're accurate? No. But it does mean that we have no firm basis for doubting their general accuracy, and that if we're going to claim that they're just "made up", we have to provide a comprehensive theory of who made them up and why they made them up and why everyone accepted them and no faction attempted to dispute them even when it would have served their purposes to do so.

That's a rather tall order, and I haven't seen it done yet in any satisfactory way, so until new evidence crops up to the contrary, it's perfectly reasonable to accept that Moses and Aaron most likely were actual political and religious leaders of the Levites, a group who had come from the south and seized power from the Benjaminites sometime around 1200 in an alliance with the tribes of Judah and Ephraim.

On the other hand, there are stories which we can classify as obvious political spin and propaganda, and which in some cases are contradicted by archaeological evidence. These include:

• The enslavement of all the Hebrews in Egypt
• The birth story of Moses
• Moses leading the Hebrew tribes out of Egypt
• The sibling relationship between Moses and Aaron
• The revelation of God to Moses on the mountain
• Moses dying before reaching Canaan
• Joshua as an all-conquering hero

I hope that outline has been worth the reading, and that it helps in establishing a more effective framework for looking at and discussing the Biblical stories of the alleged exodus.
 
I don't see Joshua as the least bit historical. The lack of any historical or archaeological support for an invasion, plus the likelihood of an internal movement from the plains to the hills, along with the narrative of the Book of Judges, which is far more realistic than Joshua; all point to Joshua as a grand myth and nothing more.

I disagree. It points to a grand myth about Joshua. There's a difference.
 
I'd be interested in hearing chapter and verse on particularly the third story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is new to me. The language of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is formulaic. It's phrases are also found in the story of the rape of Deborah by Shechem, the outrage at Gibeah in Judges and the rape of Tamar by Amnon in 2 Samuel.

The military history is given in Genesis 14, which comes from a source that is now lost to us. It describes the destruction of the Cities of the Plain by the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, Elam, and Goiim. No mention is made of any destruction by God.
 
I'm still trying to figure out what laws Moses himself could have given the Israelites.

You and everybody else. ;)

Short of discovering the Ark of the Covenant somewhere in Mesopotamia or Persia, I don't know that it will ever be possible to reconstruct it.
 
What evidence do you have, other than the Levites and others killing worshippers of the golden calf, that the Levites were originally warriors?

Do you think they just asked for tribute from the tribes nicely and got it?

They are Egyptian Hebrews who, with Judah and Ephraim, overthrow Benjamin and establish a thousand-year rule.

Aaron is recognized as High Priest and Moses as Lawgiver, positions of the highest power within a ruthlessly warlike culture.

Most likely, their leaders were aware of Egyptian military strategies, established their own territory in Sinai which they held by force -- what other means was there? -- then returned to Canaan and made themselves top dogs by being the baddest of the bad-asses.

There was no ping-pong diplomacy or "leading from behind" in those days.

And by the way, I don't believe the events described in the story of the golden calf ever occurred.
 
The bottom line here about Moses though, is that almost nothing of the OT stories concerning him and the overall Exodus story are correct. It is possible that one thing that is correct in the Exodus story is that there was an ancient Hebrew leader whose name was Moses (or the ancient equivalent of our modern approximation) that lived in at time we are uncertain of and for whom we don't know what he did except that he didn't do almost anything recorded in the bible and who probably had some kind of Egyptian connection.

I think I might have been the person that introduced the term historical Moses into this discussion. It now seems like given what is known not to be true about the biblical stories it is possible to conclude that there was no historical Moses since whatever a hypothetical real human Moses did he did almost nothing of what is recorded in the bible about him. However the possibility exists and perhaps the evidence even suggests that it is likely that a real human Moses existed for which reasonable estimates about his nature can be made. The current discussion is about how likely those estimates are to be true and what the basis for them is.

Is the above accurate?
 
You mean the lurid story in Judges 19 and 20 doesn't convince you?

The lurid tale of the outrage at Gibeah is one of a series of rape stories found in J, the Court History and what may be bridging material in Judges. Their similarity of theme and wording is one reason Richard Elliott Friedman thinks that J and the Court History, along with some bridging material found in Joshua and Judges, are two wings of a great prose epic he has named In the Day after the opening words of the J material in Genesis. He believes this epic was chopped up and redistributed in the process of merging its material with that of P,E, D and, eventually, the Deuteronomist History. Friedman wrote about this theory in a book titled The Hidden Book in the Bible.

Here are some of the commonly worded passages particularly compared to Judges 19:

Gen. 19:4, 5: But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them."
Jud. 19:22: As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, "Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him."
Gen. 19:6 - 8: Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door behind him, and said, "I beg you my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, or they have come under my roof."
Jud. 19:23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, "No my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do to them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do so vile a thing.

2 Sam. 13:12 She answered him, "No, my brother, do not force me; for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this wonton folly. . . ."

Gen. 34:7 The sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard of it; and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had wrought folly in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing ought not to be done.
Jud. 20:6b
: . . . for they have committed an abomination and wontonness in Israel. . . . "

The repetition of the theme of rape, including such key phrases as those I've hilited indicates that what we are dealing with is literature more than history, particularly in the cases of Sodom and Gibeah.
 
The bottom line here about Moses though, is that almost nothing of the OT stories concerning him and the overall Exodus story are correct. It is possible that one thing that is correct in the Exodus story is that there was an ancient Hebrew leader whose name was Moses (or the ancient equivalent of our modern approximation) that lived in at time we are uncertain of and for whom we don't know what he did except that he didn't do almost anything recorded in the bible and who probably had some kind of Egyptian connection.

I think I might have been the person that introduced the term historical Moses into this discussion. It now seems like given what is known not to be true about the biblical stories it is possible to conclude that there was no historical Moses since whatever a hypothetical real human Moses did he did almost nothing of what is recorded in the bible about him. However the possibility exists and perhaps the evidence even suggests that it is likely that a real human Moses existed for which reasonable estimates about his nature can be made. The current discussion is about how likely those estimates are to be true and what the basis for them is.

Is the above accurate?

From my POV, pretty much, except that I would observe that promulgating the first law code, if Moses did indeed do that and whatever may have been in that code, is pretty significant.

But the actual story of the exodus from Egypt? Pure fiction, start to finish, no doubt in my mind.
 
A very good presentation.

Well Tim and all others how can I compete against such superlative knowledge?
Had I not known what I know—I would be persuaded—but I fully understand that my persuasion has no tangible proof—so I will have to just sit and admire what is so positively presented for now.
 
Well Tim and all others how can I compete against such superlative knowledge?
Had I not known what I know—I would be persuaded—but I fully understand that my persuasion has no tangible proof—so I will have to just sit and admire what is so positively presented for now.

That sounds good, Paul. Go ahead and admire us.
 
Oops: Huge glaring error

It just occurred to me that I inserted an enormous error in my outilne of the documentary theory above.

The Levites did not trace the practice of circumcision to Moses but to Abraham.

I guess I let my mind wander by the end there.

It is my personal hunch that circumcision does not go back that far -- if indeed it would mean anything to trace something "back to Abraham" -- but when I said that Moses is known for introducing it, that's just flat out wrong.

My apologies.
 
I just admire the amount of research you and others have done on what you call mythology—or is it to prove that it is mythology?

There are those who are out to prove it's mythology from the get-go.

But there's no doubt that objectively following the evidence leads inevitably to a great deal of mythology in the old stories.

On one end of the spectrum, there are figures like Hezekiah. He's definitely an actual king of Judah. His rebellion against Assyria is recorded in the Assyrian records as well as the Jewish records.

At the other end, there are figures like Adam and Eve and the serpent, or Noah, who are clearly pure myth.

Then there are figures like Balaam. The name Balaam might have been taken from a real person, or might have been invented for the purpose, but the story of Balaam is obviously invented for a purpose.

The talking donkey, and Balaam's nonchalant response, are giveaways, if nothing else is. In fact, that bit of the story may not have originally been intended to have been taken literally, just as many stories a preacher tells from the pulpit are understood by the congretation not to be true but to be instructive and humorous tales.

The tale of Job was likely never intended to be taken literally, even if some folks do so today.

But what abou the Patriarchs? What about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?

It's not impossible that men with those names existed who held important roles in Jewish history. Nevertheless, their Biblical stories are clearly mythic.

When it comes to Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon, there are those who will say that no such men existed. But when you strip away the epic stories that accrue to them -- just as such stories accrue to icons and celebrities among us today -- what you're left with is a fairly straighforward history. And if you propose they didn't exist, then we must come up with a comprehensive account for why they were invented and by whom, and I've never seen a satisfactory account for that.

When it comes to Moses and Aaron and Phineas and Joshua, well, it's kind of like trying to piece together an accurate account of the Viet Nam war only by looking at action and drama films and made-for-TV movies.

If all you had to go on were sources like Platoon, Apocalypse Now, The Deer Hunter, the Rambo films, and Born on the Fourth of July, it would be quite difficult to ascertain what really happened, if anything.

In the end, you'd probably come to the conclusion that some of these characters and events are real, and some aren't, but that even the real ones are not portrayed as they were.

That's the way I view Moses and Aaron -- probably real men, even if none of the specific tales told about them are accurate and many are pure invention.

So calling the stories of the Hebrew Bible "all made up" or "all a fairy tale" is certainly inaccurate. But to call it all "true" and "historical" is also inaccurate, and would not have been the way that it would have even been understood in its time.
 
...They even used one of these passes [of planet Mars] to explain the "plague" that supposedly wiped out Sennacherib's army of 185,000 men in a single night; that plague being Mars sweeping a swarm of meteorites into the orbit of the earth. These apparently fell on the Assyrian army, while completely missing Jerusalem. ...


That's because God guided those missiles. Which begs the question, why the need for Mars, when you've got one of those God thingies on the case?
 
Originally Posted by TimCallahan
That sounds good, Paul. Go ahead and admire us.

That does not mean I am persuaded—I just admire the amount of research you and others have done on what you call mythology—or is it to prove that it is mythology?

Actually, Paul, I thought you were being a bit sarcastic and I was responding in kind. Sorry for the error.
 
Do you think they just asked for tribute from the tribes nicely and got it?

Bear in mind that, with no territory of their own, the Levites were in a position of dependency on the host tribes. In amphictyonic leagues, each tribe or city had the responsibility of supporting the central shrine for one month a year, hence the 12 tribe or 12 city divisions. This support in no way indicated the that any priestly tribe was in charge.

QUOTE=Piggy;8584689]They are Egyptian Hebrews who, with Judah and Ephraim, overthrow Benjamin and establish a thousand-year rule.[/QUOTE]

Well, actually, this is speculation on your part. To prove it you would first have to demonstrate Benjamin's initial primacy. Then you would have to demonstrate a conspiracy on the part of the Levites, Judah and Ephraim.

QUOTE=Piggy;8584689]Aaron is recognized as High Priest and Moses as Lawgiver, positions of the highest power within a ruthlessly warlike culture.

Most likely, their leaders were aware of Egyptian military strategies, established their own territory in Sinai which they held by force -- what other means was there? -- then returned to Canaan and made themselves top dogs by being the baddest of the bad-asses.

There was no ping-pong diplomacy or "leading from behind" in those days.

And by the way, I don't believe the events described in the story of the golden calf ever occurred.[/QUOTE]

Again, your assetions are not backed up by much evidence, particularly if you reject any factual basis for the golden calf story.
 
The military history is given in Genesis 14, which comes from a source that is now lost to us. It describes the destruction of the Cities of the Plain by the kings of Shinar, Ellasar, Elam, and Goiim. No mention is made of any destruction by God.

Actually, Genesis 14 only says the victors despoiled the cities of the their riches. After Abraham rescues Lot and the other captives, the king of Sodom offers him some of the captured goods.
 
Originally Posted by TimCallahan
I don't see Joshua as the least bit historical. The lack of any historical or archaeological support for an invasion, plus the likelihood of an internal movement from the plains to the hills, along with the narrative of the Book of Judges, which is far more realistic than Joshua; all point to Joshua as a grand myth and nothing more.

I disagree. It points to a grand myth about Joshua. There's a difference.

I'm missing something here. Nothing in the Book of Joshua is true. What is your point?
 
Ah, yes, the Thera TheoryTM.
It came up in an after dinner conversation last week. Amazing what a pull it has even today, isn't it?
As you say, it is 'all very neat'.
Shame the dates are wrong.

"I'd have gotten away with it if it weren't for those darn pesky dates!!!" he screamed as the Scoobymobile drove truthfully away.....
 
To me, some of the miracles are given credence by their uncanny resemblance to cheap parlor tricks. Like Moses making his hand turn leprous.

Really, Moses? This is the all-powerful ruler of the universe, and the best he can do to demonstrate his power is indistinguishable from a lame magic trick?
Yeah, but at least he got it in the 5 shekel grab bag, not the 1 shekel one.

Moses was no piker!! Nor a shiksa!

Nor, not to put too fine a point on it, a seder. Wherein e is pronounced a. Where the pronounced version would have a line over the a, not a sideways, curve down parenthesis.........
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom