nazz
Doubting Thomas
No, myth =/= fiction.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did the Exodus occur?
- Thread starter Agnostic75
- Start date
No, myth =/= fiction.
technomage
Finding my own way
Exactly. Let's take a myth on a neutral topic: one variation on the Wiccan creation myth.
Now, does that myth have any bearing or resemblance on historical or scientific issues? Of course not. Is it "fiction"? No. It's a myth--in this case, a theological account of an extant phenomenon. Yes, I could probably make a rough analogy to the Big Bang (pun NOT intended, but whatever works), but that is not, and has never been, the point.
Similarly, there is no necessary connection between the Exodus myth and history--not even a the need for a "core of truth." Even Dever's quote (as quote-mined previously) does NOT say "well, there was a historical core"--it says there _may_ have been a sub-group that did come from Egypt, and states the issue as a possibility with no evidence behind it.
outhouse
Atheistically
Thanks for providing us with your unlimited wisdom and evidence backing your position. :slap:
roger1440
I do stuff
It is possible the ten plagues did occur. My personal opinion is that it's a long shot. I saw this movie a few years ago when it first came out. You might find it interesting.
The Exodus Decoded
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxKQDYVEyPk
outhouse
Atheistically
He is sort of a nut job.
The Exodus Decoded - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jacobovici's assertions have been criticized by archaeologists and religious scholars
Watching it is reminiscent of an expensive infomercial, in which the actor-salesman makes increasingly exaggerated claims for his productit makes you lose weight, adds muscle, and makes you rich to boot. In this case, the actor-director is selling a highly dubious bundle of theories about the historical and scientific veracity of the Biblical Exodus."[3]
Levite
Higher and Higher
These are all theories. They may be very persuasive theories based on current ideas in scholarship or currently available archaeological evidence. But theories are subject to change, based either on discovery of new data or new interpretation of evidence.
I hear that you both feel very strongly persuaded by the theories you are espousing. But while I certainly agree that given what we currently no, there is very little probability of the Exodus occurring precisely as described in the Bible, there remain any number of potential scenarios that might be the "grain of truth" at the heart of the stories, for which there is not enough evidence to say with absolute certainty that none could have occurred.
Technomage, you yourself admit that this cannot be absolutely proven-- ""Absolute proof" belongs solely to the realm of the alcohol content of distilled beverages."-- yet you said sweepingly, without reserve, that the Israelites were "NEVER" in Egypt, and so forth.
It looks to me like what you actually meant was "According to the way the scholars I find persuasive interpret the evidence we currently have, I do not believe that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, etc."
technomage
Finding my own way
Levite, it seems very much to me like "absolute proof" is nothing more than code words for "My mind is made up, and evidence will not dissuade me from my beliefs." Don't get me wrong--if that's where a person wants to be, that's their choice. But at this point, the amount of evidence is as solid as anything in archaeology can be.
I also cannot offer "absolute proof" that the Pyramids were not built by aliens ... but I'm not going to bother with "According to the way the scholars I find persuasive interpret the evidence we currently have, I do not believe that aliens were ever in Egypt, etc."
nazz
Doubting Thomas
but technomage, that is EXACTLY how you come off when you make those absolute statements. Can you see that?
technomage
Finding my own way
I probably also sound like that when I say "The sun NEVER comes up in the west." Should I qualify that statement as well?
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Do you really think those two things are comparable? Like I said before scientists are ALWAYS open to changing their minds and theories based on new evidence. That's how science works.
Levite
Higher and Higher
Frankly, I haven't even stated a specific belief. I have only noted that it might not be a black and white issue of exactly like in the Bible versus not at all, and suggested that there might be room for other scenarios given that there is not absolute evidence.
To me, it seems a bit extreme to compare a theory about movement of populace and cultural development 4000-odd years ago to the sun coming up in the east, which has never been seen otherwise anywhere in human history. Whereas this is something open to debate, and which many scholars believed different things about not too long ago. Or to aliens building the pyramids, which is unlikely simply based on the facts that the Egyptians consistently claimed to have built them themselves, and there is no compelling reason to doubt them. If aliens show up with a counter-claim I will be interested to hear their narrative.
I won't say anything further, but I do think being accused of inflexibility here is more than somewhat ironic.
Last edited:
technomage
Finding my own way
Considering the amount of evidence that supports it, yeah, I'd say the statement of a local Canaan origin for the Hebrews is at least as certain as the assertion "The Romans destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE."
At this point, Nazz, you would need an incredible amount of new evidence to contradict the current findings. _Details_ may change, but the overall theory is so well established that one would either need to posit a deliberate program of malfeasance, or introduce fundamental new findings that would overturn the science as a whole.
For those interested, another book I found interesting is Understanding the History of Ancient Israel - a collection of articles from an array of diverse yet highly regarded contributors. While it's focus is on the ninth century BCE, there is much here that should serve to caution people about making far-reaching claims about 'consensus'.
There is little doubt that Israel evolved in the highlands of Canaan. To deduce from this "a local Canaan origin for the Hebrews" is simply thoughtless. To go beyond this and claim:
Israel evolved in Canaan,
is patently absurd.therefore "The Hebrews were NEVER in Egypt!"
CMike
Well-Known Member
No problema
outhouse
Atheistically
I have always left open the possibility for a historical core.
And the possibility of what people made up the displaced Canaanites that slowly settled the highlands.
But that doesnt change the facts we do know.
Here are the gurdles you have to jump to claim a Israelite was ever enslaved in Egypt.
Israelites formed after 1200 BC. even up until 1000 BC they were still just proto Israelites.
#1 So I have to ask, when were Israelites in Egypt?
Israelites used ONLY Canaanite deities, and the Canaanite alphabet. Could you explain why Egyptians would do this?
#2 Were these people who escaped Egypt displaced Canaanites still at this point or some other tribe? or were they already Israelites beofre the culture even formed?
The mental hurdles are obviously to high to answer and it boxes the conclusion down what made up the displaced Canaanites, as Israelites were never enslaved in Egypt.
#3 So why does the book of Exodus reflect later traditions and politics far removed from the Ethnogenesis od Israelites?
My point being, they did not even know thei rown ethnogenesis as by the time the book was written they had already been beaten down and displaced themselves so many times, they had no clue of their real origins. That is why they were never in Egypt, because exodus doe not reflect the cultural heritage in any way shape or form as it was not history, but theology told through mythology and allegory.
outhouse
Atheistically
technomage
Finding my own way
Now, wait just a minute.
Let's propose, just for a moment, that my stated historical position is correct. No Exodus, no Conquest, no United Monarchy ... none of that. What difference does that make? Even as a Pagan who does not believe in a literal existence of Elohim, I propose to you it makes not one slightest iota of difference.
Culturally speaking, these are still powerful stories that transmit morals, a raison d'etre, and a sense of community--but they're not just pretty little "Just-So Stories" with a religious twist. They are a powerful narrative into the art of being human.
That is one thing that some versions of atheism ... not so much _lack_, but don't necessarily have, as confusing as that sounds. Humanism has a powerful motive, and has _some_ narratives to transmit that motive, but they use other methods to transmit those cultural values. Apathy-based atheism has no narrative ... and while I won't say it's lacking because it has no narrative, it also has no cohesiveness as a group (and doesn't necessarily need cohesiveness). Anti-Theism has some narratives ... and while I don't oppose their right to their beliefs, I do oppose their attempt to impose those beliefs upon others. Fundamentalist religions, such as some variations of Christianity and Islam, also attempt to impose their narratives, and this I also oppose.
But despite whose narrative we're discussing, the power of that narrative cannot be discounted.
That's one thing we've lost appreciation for in our modern, rationalist world: we no longer understand the power of narrative. We no longer see the truth that goes beyond mere historical details.
I still posit that the Hebrews were never in Egypt. I also posit that, even of the Hebrew God existed, that matters not one bit.