The Exodus Myth

[pakeha]

There is no need for me to have searched, when I know that the Exodus did take place—it is interesting to see why people reject this>

How do you know that the Exodus took place?

 

[HansMustermann]

Perhaps then you should address that statement to the poster I was responding to. if you think highlighting the words "Cyrus the great" Is enough information for me to know what exactly it is about Cyrus the great he disagrees with, then you are clearly a better person at mind reading than I am.

Since this time the question, which he even repeated in the meantime was essentially "how do you know those magi or Jesus even existed", I'm still at a loss about how Cyrus is even relevant there. The fact that you answered a previous question is commendable, I suppose, but rather irrelevant for this one.

I mean, even for the court institutions like the magi, Cyrus founded the Achaemenid empire, while at the time we're talking about it's the Parthian a.k.a. Arsacid empire there, with the Seleucids taking a big chunk of time in between those two. Any court customs from the time of Cyrus would be about as relevant for the time discussed as assuming modern France still burns witches.

And it's a very relevant question, especially about the magi episode that we were discussing. And lest it turns again into handwaving that the institution existed, like for Jesus, no, I don't mean the institution of Zoroastrian priesthood or court astrologers or such. How do you know the specific three derps in Matt or their surrealistic nonsensical trip even existed or ever happened. You keep just assuming that such a mission happened, and inventing what it could have been about, but it's not very clear why.

The whole story is nonsensical, and there is no historical support even for the basic framework. E.g., even if there were a diplomatic mission, there is no real reason to assume they'd send priests or astrologers to do it, since Parthia was not a theocracy and even more importantly, even though Arsacid kings were Zoroastrians, they did NOT impose it as an official religion of the empire until much later. And negotiations with Rome are never mentioned to have been done by priests. So why would they send three priests to do any diplomacy with someone of a different exclusivist religion? Why would they pick the three most spectacularly incompetent at diplomacy at that?

How more explicit about Exodus do I need to get. It was written 700 years later to justify an event that was going on at the time. How many other ways can I say that?

Again, it's not very clear how that relates to the question he was asking.

It seems to me like, if anything, if a book has a tradition to just make up whatever crap is needed for the situation at hand, kinda like the Star Trek writers, that would be a point against trusting other stuff in it, not for trusting it.

 

[Paul Bethke]

How do you know that the Exodus took place?

I have read it in the Bible, and tend to believe most of what is written, but now it appears that some doubt exists, to which I am unable to give any evidence at this exact time. The account does seem feasible, if we take what was written there could be no re-enactment.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have read it in the Bible, and tend to believe most of what is written, but now it appears that some doubt exists, to which I am unable to give any evidence at this exact time. The account does seem feasible, if we take what was written there could be no re-enactment.

...because it's in the bible. Not because there is any evidence.

 

[pakeha]

How do you know that the Exodus took place?

I have read it in the Bible, and tend to believe most of what is written, but now it appears that some doubt exists, to which I am unable to give any evidence at this exact time. The account does seem feasible, if we take what was written there could be no re-enactment.

I remember when I first understood that what was written in the bible was not the word of any given deity.
I can sympathise with your situation, PB, but still must ask: what is feasible about the Exodus account?

 

[Craig B]

I remember when I first understood that what was written in the bible was not the word of any given deity.
I can sympathise with your situation, PB, but still must ask: what is feasible about the Exodus account?

I suppose it could be argued (here I'm making the best of the "evidence", not stating my own beliefs) that at some time a caste of Semitic-speaking slaves took advantage of some sort of crisis in Egypt (Thera eruption, expulsion of the Hyksos, who knows?) and fled into the desert. Stories about this might have circulated and been adopted by the early Israelites as part of their origin myth, regardless of the true origin of these twelve tribes. The Romans incorporated elements of the story of Troy into their origin myths, in much the same manner. The fact that the Romans did this tells us nothing about whether the Trojan War is historical or not, and even if it is historical, the stuff about the gods is baloney. We can look at the Exodus in the same light, I think.

 

[pakeha]

I suppose it could be argued (here I'm making the best of the "evidence", not stating my own beliefs) that at some time a caste of Semitic-speaking slaves took advantage of some sort of crisis in Egypt (Thera eruption, expulsion of the Hyksos, who knows?) and fled into the desert. Stories about this might have circulated and been adopted by the early Israelites as part of their origin myth, regardless of the true origin of these twelve tribes. The Romans incorporated elements of the story of Troy into their origin myths, in much the same manner. The fact that the Romans did this tells us nothing about whether the Trojan War is historical or not, and even if it is historical, the stuff about the gods is baloney. We can look at the Exodus in the same light, I think.

Euhemerism at its finest hour, then?

 

[Rincewind]

I suppose it could be argued (here I'm making the best of the "evidence", not stating my own beliefs) that at some time a caste of Semitic-speaking slaves took advantage of some sort of crisis in Egypt (Thera eruption, expulsion of the Hyksos, who knows?) and fled into the desert. Stories about this might have circulated and been adopted by the early Israelites as part of their origin myth, regardless of the true origin of these twelve tribes. The Romans incorporated elements of the story of Troy into their origin myths, in much the same manner. The fact that the Romans did this tells us nothing about whether the Trojan War is historical or not, and even if it is historical, the stuff about the gods is baloney. We can look at the Exodus in the same light, I think.

In the same way as such fables as Genesis and ye Fludde were both copied from earlier stories it seems possible that Exodus was also plagiarised...

 

[Paul Bethke]

I remember when I first understood that what was written in the bible was not the word of any given deity.
I can sympathise with your situation, PB, but still must ask: what is feasible about the Exodus account?

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.
The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique.
Providence played a major role until the actual exodus began to take place in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the people that the Egyptians had enslaved go.

What I see here is how Yahweh is dependent on people to carry out his prophesies---but let us not go there now>

 

[pakeha]

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.
The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique.
Providence played a major role until the actual exodus began to take place in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the people that the Egyptians had enslaved go.

What I see here is how Yahweh is dependent on people to carry out his prophesies---but let us not go there now>

Let's not.
Why not start by telling us the name of the Pharaoh involved in the Exodus account?

 

[Craig B]

Euhemerism at its finest hour, then?

My note that

the stuff about the gods is baloney

excludes Euhemerism in its most literal sense, I think.

 

[pakeha]

Euhemerism at its finest hour, then?

My note that

the stuff about the gods is baloney

excludes Euhemerism in its most literal sense, I think.

My understanding of Euhemerism must be faulty- I thought it was a rationalisation of how people came to believe baloney.
Wrong, not for the first time.

 

[shuttlt]

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.
The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique.
Providence played a major role until the actual exodus began to take place in order to persuade the Pharaoh to let the people that the Egyptians had enslaved go.

What I see here is how Yahweh is dependent on people to carry out his prophesies---but let us not go there now>

I'm far too ignorant to contribute much to this thread... but is it necessarily such a problem that the stories would have been obvious made up nonsense to anybody with a remotely critical eye? Look at the central texts of Mormonism and Scientology. Look at the people who wrote them. You'd think one would have to have been a slobbering idiot to believe in the whole convicted fraudster Joseph Smith (let alone L. Ron) and all that sticking a hat over his face to read secret implausible texts that nobody else was allowed to see. And the story of the first few chapters getting pinched is hilarious. Yet somehow people will buy this kind of implausible nonsense.

 

[pakeha]

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity. [ . . . ]

What details did you have in mind, PB?

 

[Correa Neto]

The Middle Earth and Westeros must be real then... Lots of details that can be verified! Same is valid for the caves described by Jules Verne in Journey to the Center of the Earth, but its a bit hard (but not impossible at all) to reconcile with Edgard Rice Burroughs' Pellucidar, which must also be true by such criteria.

That's why no traces can be found of that Jewish tribe... They were eaten by the dinosaurs. See? Evidence.

 

[MG1962]

So were the people in Exodus in the right time and place;

No

there just isn't any evidence that they were captured by Egypt and enslaved.

We have direct evidence they were not enslaved after Egypt conquered the region for the third time in a matter of years. We have direct evidence of conditions in the area after the Egyptian and Hittite peace treaty was concluded. We have direct evidence Ramesses II never launched another military operation in the area till his death.

I just dont know what other information you need to be satisfied that the Jews were not enslaved.

 

[Craig B]

My understanding of Euhemerism must be faulty- I thought it was a rationalisation of how people came to believe baloney.
Wrong, not for the first time.

Not at all. The word is correct here in a broad sense. See wiki.

Euhemerus' views were rooted in the deification of men, usually kings, into gods through apotheosis ... Euhemerus argued that Zeus was a mortal king who died on Crete, and that his tomb could still be found there with the inscription bearing his name.

This isn't part of my note on Exodus. But this most certainly is.

Euhemerism is a rationalizing method of interpretation, which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

 

[MG1962]

According to Josephus, Varus quelled an uprising after Herod the Great's death and crucified 2,000 rebels. After Spartacus' uprising was quelled, the Via Appia was lined with the remnants of his army. Did anyone at the time think crucifixion was "unique"?

I was referring to the claim of Jesus being nailed to the cross rather than tied. From recent discoveries of three victims of crucification, all three showed that at the very least their feet had been nailed. So rather than Christs crucification being something particularly nasty, it might have been pretty much by the book

 

[ddt]

I have read it in the Bible, and tend to believe most of what is written, but now it appears that some doubt exists, to which I am unable to give any evidence at this exact time. The account does seem feasible, if we take what was written there could be no re-enactment.

May I suggest you check out one of the Noah's Ark threads on this forum? There's lots of technical details in those threads which show that that story is impossible too.

I cannot see how any one or group of people can fabricate such an event—there is so much detail that is still verified by the Hebrew people—the Torah goes back many centuries—writing in those days was very difficult so no one would be able to fabricate such an event and maintain its authenticity.

You must be using the word "verify" in a very unconventional way. Nobody has ever verified any aspect of the Exodus story. Look at the total absence of any evidence provided in this thread.

The account of how from some seventy people descended from one man Abraham, became such a large nation, is providentially quite unique

There is nothing spectacular about that, even if it were true. Virtually everybody in Europe is descended from Charlemagne, for instance. It's just a bit more difficult to see because they don't wear a kippah as sign of that, or have their foreskin snipped.

 

[Craig B]

You must be using the word "verify" in a very unconventional way. Nobody has ever verified any aspect of the Exodus story. Look at the total absence of any evidence provided in this thread.

It means, they all say it's true. Isn't that good enough for you?