K
KevinK
Guest
You remembering seeing something on a TV show is not evidence. Post a link.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"Scholarly consensus" sees Moses as a mythical figure?
- Thread starter Tis_Bearself
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
K
KevinK
Guest
Are you equating that with the sun stopping?
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Moses could well be his Egyptian name as well. In Egyptian, ‘Moses’ means essentially “water born” - curiously, the fact he was found among the reeds/bull rushes in the water, I believe also references back to some of the Egyptian stories of Horus; there’s a definite similarity.
But to your point, Moses if anything, would have been more of a ‘nickname’ - if he were indeed an adopted ‘son of pharaoh’, he would have had a more ‘official’ name. It may have indeed been recorded, but there does not seem to be a definite consensus on who his adopted father was.
For example: Isis took Horus and hid him in the marshes. Moses mother hid him in the reeds of the river.
Though the people of the Exodus were Jews, they were likely very “Egyptianized” and surely would have been familiar with the Egyptian religion (though they did not practice it). Many Egyptian concepts found their way into their daily lives.
When one reads the description of the Ark of the Covenant for example, what’s being described is a textbook example of a typical Egyptian chest - take a look at photos of the many virtually identical chests that were found in Tut’s tomb. Instead of a pair of winged sphinxes on top, you have cherubim (not the little ‘putti’ one associates with them today, but the more proper rendition).
I see Moses as an historical figure, but one whom around many legends were created over time.
But to your point, Moses if anything, would have been more of a ‘nickname’ - if he were indeed an adopted ‘son of pharaoh’, he would have had a more ‘official’ name. It may have indeed been recorded, but there does not seem to be a definite consensus on who his adopted father was.
For example: Isis took Horus and hid him in the marshes. Moses mother hid him in the reeds of the river.
Though the people of the Exodus were Jews, they were likely very “Egyptianized” and surely would have been familiar with the Egyptian religion (though they did not practice it). Many Egyptian concepts found their way into their daily lives.
When one reads the description of the Ark of the Covenant for example, what’s being described is a textbook example of a typical Egyptian chest - take a look at photos of the many virtually identical chests that were found in Tut’s tomb. Instead of a pair of winged sphinxes on top, you have cherubim (not the little ‘putti’ one associates with them today, but the more proper rendition).
I see Moses as an historical figure, but one whom around many legends were created over time.
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
I would like to add that a name, in those days, was a title, and not only some kind of “civil brand”.
In adittion, I think you’re right by saying Moses/Moshe is Egyptian in nature, because some possible pharaohs and important persons had “Mose” in their name/title. And this word, by itself, means something like “Born of” (not necessarily of water).
In adittion, I think you’re right by saying Moses/Moshe is Egyptian in nature, because some possible pharaohs and important persons had “Mose” in their name/title. And this word, by itself, means something like “Born of” (not necessarily of water).
Last edited:
M
Moses613
Guest
You can reinterpret these verses however you want. The plain meaning is that Moses wrote it “by his hand.” The English translation “Teaching” below is “Torah” in the Hebrew.The Torah is the inspired word of God, that doesn’t mean it was literally written by Moses. The Torah no where claims this
And yes, one opinion is the last handful of verses were written by Joshua. There needs to be some answer to harmonize the open teaching that Moses wrote down the Torah with the difficulty of his death being recorded eight verses from the end.
Update: I accidentally included Deut. 31:24-26 twice. My mistake.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The conclusions of academic scholars about the historicity of Moses cannot be taken too seriously by a Jewish person of faith, because they make a fundamental assumption that the record of the Bible is less reliable than any other ancient record or evidence. To the contrary, we view the written Torah as co-existing with a living tradition of the eyewitness testimony of our ancestors to those events. In fact, the entire point of writing down the Torah was so that it would stand as עדות, a testimony. That is why Moses instructed them to “take the scroll of the Torah and place it at the side of the ark… and it shall be there for witness in you.” The physical presence of the Torah scroll next to the holy ark was to serve as a testimony of the events therein.
Last edited:
M
Medawlinno
Guest
Yes - typically, there was some god’s name before the -moses part (e.g. Tutmoses - Thoth is born). It may beg the question of whether or not Moses had such a name as well but the first element (naming the specific Egyptian god) was dropped.
T
thephilosopher6
Guest
Doesn’t mean the Torah we have now is the same Moses wrote.Though for the sake of argument even if that is being claimed here, it again still doesn’t mean he wrote it as many books in the Bible were written under the names of famous Biblical characters that most likely were not written by them. We still accept these books as scripture because the Holy Spirit has guided us to accept them as inspired. The wind blows, and we don’t know where it goes, but we go with it anyhow (John 3:8).You can reinterpret these verses however you want. The plain meaning is that Moses wrote it “by his hand.” The English translation “Teaching” below is “Torah” in the Hebrew.
But aren’t you making fundamental assumptions here in regards to who wrote the Torah? You’re not even considering the scholarly position. Why should I accept your assumption as more reliable over scholars who are trained in this field who use a methodology which has been shown to work? In fact, why should I trust your assumption as more reliable at all? It sounds like a genetic fallacy to me. You can’t just dismiss something because you do not like its conclusions. The fact of the matter is that the Torah as we have it could not have been written down by Moses himself who lived hundreds of years before its composition. Historians and scholars have thoroughly demonstrated this. It’s not good to just ignore them. Maybe you should take a look at the other side of the argument yourself instead of desperately clinging to your side. There are a wealth of Jewish scholars among these scholars. There are a wealth of regular faithful Jews who accept this without any problem as well.The conclusions of academic scholars about the historicity of Moses cannot be taken too seriously by a Jewish person of faith, because they make a fundamental assumption that the record of the Bible is less reliable than any other ancient record or evidence.
Last edited:
K
KevinK
Guest
Hahaha. Talk about a biased website with an agenda. Post something scholarly and peer reviewed.
M
Moses613
Guest
Yes, I am assuming that the Torah is what it says it is, based on my acceptance of the testimony of every generation of the Israelite-Jewish people from the time of the Forefathers until our day, that these events happened as written.But aren’t you making fundamental assumptions here in regards to who wrote the Torah?
There are dozens of scholarly hypotheses about the way the Torah originated. The simple, easy-to-understand J,P,E,D Wellhausen Hypothesis of the 19th century is still taught to simplify things for the masses, even though much of modern academia has moved far beyond that model. Across the pages of academic Bible study journals, various scholars argue with each others’ models for dating, methodology of composition, etc. and attempt to disprove them. One model they all reject a priori is that the Torah was written by one, Divine author. It’s practically the only thing that unites various schools of theory in this discipline. What my tradition tells me happened, they reject as impossible or unworthy of discussion from the outset. You can pick one way of looking at the world or the other. To pick the model of Biblical higher criticism is to reject the tenets of Jewish faith outlined by the Talmudic sages.You’re not even considering the scholarly position.
I’m not asking you to trust my assumption. I’m explaining that traditional Judaism, to which I adhere, rests upon these assumptions. Therefore, I reject the consensus of secular academia. I trust the assumptions for reasons that I couldn’t ask you to accept: because I am a member of the Jewish people, I am witness to how carefully our tradition is preserved now and I am a student of how and why it has been transmitted over the centuries. There are reasons non-Jews, like Evangelical scholars, also feel it is rational to believe in the position of singular Divine authorship, but I’m just explaining what I believe, not attempting to write a book-length argument.Why should I accept your assumption as more reliable over scholars who are trained in this field who use a methodology which has been shown to work? In fact, why should I trust your assumption as more reliable at all?
Bible studies, like linguistics (which I studied in university), like to pose as a science when they are no such thing. Bible criticism is linguistic and literary analysis and no more. I believe that we are in possession of a Divine document that represents Divine wisdom. The Bible critics say, well, no person would write a book this way. They are correct. A human would never write a book that way. But I’m still waiting for their ironclad proofs about what God would or would not write.It sounds like a genetic fallacy to me. You can’t just dismiss something because you do not like its conclusions.
M
Moses613
Guest
According to the dating of Bible critics. I disagree with the late dating of its composition. Again, their arguments rest on linguistic analysis. For example: We found a shard of cuneiform that shows this particular form of this verb was used in Babylon in 550 BCE, therefore the same form used in the Torah must have been written at that time. It’s an interesting argument. Proof? Hardly. The most interesting thing is that despite the dozens of “strands” they have found that supposedly make up the Torah, they have never found a single record of one of these strands, in any archaeological context, written down independently of the rest.The fact of the matter is that the Torah as we have it could not have been written down by Moses himself who lived hundreds of years before its composition.
I have read some of these works and disagree with the characterization, “thoroughly demonstrated”.Historians and scholars have thoroughly demonstrated this. It’s not good to just ignore them.
I have devoted a considerable amount of thought to these matters and have concluded that my position is reasonable and rational. If you want to call me “desperately clinging” because my position is the one of the traditional teachings of my faith, so be it.Maybe you should take a look at the other side of the argument yourself instead of desperately clinging to your side.
Unfortunately, there are Jewish people that believe in all kinds of nonsensical things.There are a wealth of Jewish scholars among these scholars.
The views you have outlined, including the late dating of the Torah and the non-historicity of Moses, are incompatible with the beliefs of rabbinic (orthodox) Judaism.There are a wealth of regular faithful Jews who accept this without any problem as well.
In conclusion, I would point you to this video, which I last watched some years ago but remember as being an excellent summary of the weaknesses of academic theories about the Torah’s origins (without purporting to “disprove” Higher Criticism): Documentary or Divine? Debunking Myths about the Torah's Origin
The lecturer is a respected professor of Bible studies in Israel. Despite that, he is an orthodox Jew.
Last edited:
F
feed_me
Guest
Is it possible when everything that comes out of secular institutions is biased to a certain agenda?
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Speaking as one who spent way too many years in and around “academia”, I find this perspective much more compelling and trustworthy than anything a “trained” scholar could come up with.I’m not asking you to trust my assumption. I’m explaining that traditional Judaism, to which I adhere, rests upon these assumptions. Therefore, I reject the consensus of secular academia. I trust the assumptions for reasons that I couldn’t ask you to accept: because I am a member of the Jewish people, I am witness to how carefully our tradition is preserved now and I am a student of how and why it has been transmitted over the centuries. There are reasons non-Jews, like Evangelical scholars, also feel it is rational to believe in the position of singular Divine authorship, but I’m just explaining what I believe, not attempting to write a book-length argument.
D
drac16
Guest
The Abrahamic faiths would fall to pieces if Moses never existed. Muhammad claimed to have met Moses on the Night Journey.
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
My former priest told me that Moses did exist and that only lazy, uninformed and biased scholars relying on very old and debunked theories say Moses never existed, yet almost everything I’ve found says that archaeologists and scholars say Moses wasn’t real and that the exodus probably didn’t occur. This isn’t coming from one source but almost all.
I did read some articles that address the plagues, as if they really happened, but those “experts” blame them on climate change.
Some articles also say Moses didn’t write those books in the Bible.
How can we maintain our faith when all these experts say that Moses didn’t exist and that the exodus didn’t happen?
I did read some articles that address the plagues, as if they really happened, but those “experts” blame them on climate change.
Some articles also say Moses didn’t write those books in the Bible.
How can we maintain our faith when all these experts say that Moses didn’t exist and that the exodus didn’t happen?
J
joeybaggz
Guest
Have not read all the posts in answer to the OP thread. I just wonder if Moses was a mythical figure, why did Jesus refer to him in his teaching? I hope someone has already posed this question.
And if Moses was mythical, was Jesus using symbolism by alluding to the mythical in his teaching, and if so, doesn’t that open the door to saying Jesus may well have been mythical himself.
There is a systematic deconstructing of scripture constantly going on, under the umbrella of scholarly investigation. When does it stop?
And if Moses was mythical, was Jesus using symbolism by alluding to the mythical in his teaching, and if so, doesn’t that open the door to saying Jesus may well have been mythical himself.
There is a systematic deconstructing of scripture constantly going on, under the umbrella of scholarly investigation. When does it stop?
A
adgloriam
Guest
There is always some “authority” claiming something - and sometimes that claim is completely wild and unfounded…!! The other day some “rabi” claimed Saint John Paul II didn’t do his “due share” during the nazi occupation of Poland. But then (knowing Karol from his writings and deeds) I read some independent articles about how his life really was during that period. And I really think the saint did enough, all he could given the circumstances - and with his incomparable personal touch, that would latter echo in his works, and is actually an important part to understanding the man and writer, of peace.Some of the stuff I have read claims that the Jewish people are the ones claiming he’s just a myth. I have no idea if that’s correct or not though.
Personally I believe Moises is factual in the Pentateuch, the internal consistency of the five books overwhelmingly points towards the fact. If he were symbolic or mythical the story would have been written differently - it parallels the latter prophets and the apostles in its extraordinary structure intervened with divine intervention - throughout the history of salvation, and the coming of Our Lord Jesus as Messiah confirms it. The coherence of the history of salvation is too overwhelmingly coherent, spanning epochs and literary styles.
Yes, on the night of “Transfiguration” on mount Tabor Moses, and Elias were there “in the flesh”…
[Nothing “symbolic” about that simple fact…!!!]
Last edited:
A
Aulef
Guest
I didn’t check this link in particular but northwest Saudi Arabia is the most likely place where Mt. Sinai is. Many important landmarks we read in the Exodus event can be seen there.
Having said this, I am worried with the fact that many protestants seem to be obsessed with it. This is not understandable at all, specially if they consider themselves christians, because there are relics related to Christ Himself and the Apostles and I have never seen them talking about these relics with enthusiasm.
Having said this, I am worried with the fact that many protestants seem to be obsessed with it. This is not understandable at all, specially if they consider themselves christians, because there are relics related to Christ Himself and the Apostles and I have never seen them talking about these relics with enthusiasm.
Last edited:
G
Golightlyholly
Guest
So called experts and archeaologists rely on what they have dug out and know currently. So many things in history have very little evidence and yet we know they have occured, look up actual evidence for the existence of Hannibal or when they found Troy? Most people before Schliemann believed it was something Homer probably made up and that the Illiad was mostly an epic drama. It was by the way also passed down verbally for 1000+ years.
While some parts of it are obviously supernatural, the core of it is historical. We are talking about 4000+ years ago and the oral tradition of passover.
Even if not all parts may be true, the core of it must be. Besides who knows if the evidence was lost or destroyed? People didn’t write everything down as we do today.
It’s too big of an event to just claim it never happend.
While some parts of it are obviously supernatural, the core of it is historical. We are talking about 4000+ years ago and the oral tradition of passover.
Even if not all parts may be true, the core of it must be. Besides who knows if the evidence was lost or destroyed? People didn’t write everything down as we do today.
It’s too big of an event to just claim it never happend.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
God is perfectly capable of using natural phenomena, like climate change, for His purposes, such as to cause a plague.I did read some articles that address the plagues, as if they really happened, but those “experts” blame them on climate change.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.