In the Beginning...

[Lexicus]

The whole "out of Egypt" thing is a complete myth. The Hewbrews are indigenous to the region that is now Israel.

 

[onejayhawk]

That is not inconsistent with the out of Egypt "thing". They moved away for several generations then came back.

J

 

[Agent327]

That's not the Exodus story though, but mere assumption.

We do not know that Moses did not write, or cause to be written, the Books of Moses. It is plausible that he did.

No, it's not. For one, we already know that the so-called Books of Moses were actually written by different authors.

It does not strain credibility that there are records from the time of Abraham and not from the time of the conquest. The Mosaic records were extant but the means to produce more was lost. This is consistent with a generation spent in transit.

What 'Mosaic records'? Until about the 6th century BC there was only oral history (applying a very wide definition here).

No. The Israelites were not Canaanites. They were coming from Egypt. That is one of the more absurd claims being made. The were blood kin to some Canaanite groups, but they were from outside.

How can they be akin to Canaanites, not be Canaanites, and come from Egypt? as already explained, they did not come from Egypt, so we can strike that for clarity's sake. Which leaves Canaanites who weren't Canaanites.

The Pharoh who made Joseph his right-hand man was likely Sudanese, ie from one of the Blue-Nile dynasties. The Pharoh of Exodus was from a White-Nile dynasty.

Interesting. Also utter nonsense, but interesting. There never was a Sudanese dynasty (Nubian, yes), and the Blue Nile has no connection with Egypt proper whatsoever. There weren't Blue or White Nile dynasties period. Unfortunately, the Nubian dynasty postdates any relevant events. Not that we find any relevant events in Exodus. The sole city named is Pi-Ramesses, which misguidedly has some scholars led to believe that the unnamed pharaoh should be Ramesses II. (Some people still believe that, but this is far too early, and doesn't conform with actual Egyptian records.)

 

[El_Machinae]

The Israelites were not Canaanites. They were coming from Egypt.

What reason do you have to believe this?

 

[Lexicus]

That is not inconsistent with the out of Egypt "thing". They moved away for several generations then came back.

J

Well there's just the matter of there being exactly zero evidence of that from any source.

 

[Nick Carpathia]

none of you losers were actually there

but my dad was, he says you're all full of crap

 

[timtofly]

No, it's not. For one, we already know that the so-called Books of Moses were actually written by different authors.



What 'Mosaic records'? Until about the 6th century BC there was only oral history (applying a very wide definition here).



How can they be akin to Canaanites, not be Canaanites, and come from Egypt? as already explained, they did not come from Egypt, so we can strike that for clarity's sake. Which leaves Canaanites who weren't Canaanites.

There were not several authors. There were several groups within the Hebrew peoples, who maintained a copy of the Scriptures.

There is no proof that it was maintained via oral tradition. That was the Talmud. There is plenty of proof that trained scribes wrote it out. They were the generations of those you call "authors".

Even you pointed out they were not a nation, therefore not Canaanites. The Canaanites had established kingdoms. The whole point of the Hebrew people were that they were not to have an earthly kingdom. They clamored for one, and God allowed them their request.

Well there's just the matter of there being exactly zero evidence of that from any source.

Outside the Bible, but all sources are under scrutiny, and it seems only the dated cuneiform tablets are to be trusted. And finding anything in stone from that period will likely never sway the minds of those, who refuse to accept a being outside of the universe. They do not even take those records as proof that the ancients accepted the reality of gods. While I do not agree that Marduk created the earth as we see it today, it seems most likely that gods at one point walked among humans, and then they were banned from doing so. There was still a strong connection to them, in a secular sense, until the Greeks and Romans no longer remembered that connection, but turned that memory into mythology.

 

[Lexicus]

The Bible is not evidence of that, the Bible is just evidence of what the Hebrews thought of themselves.

 

[Agent327]

That's not quite correct: scholars do recognize the importance of the historical books in the Bible.

There were not several authors. There were several groups within the Hebrew peoples, who maintained a copy of the Scriptures.

I'm not trying to reiterate Jewish tradition or interested in anyone's personal opinion on this, I'm relying on consensus between scholars on the topic:

The consensus of scholarship is that the stories are taken from four different written sources and that these were brought together over the course of time to form the first five books of the Bible as a composite work.

There is no proof that it was maintained via oral tradition. That was the Talmud. There is plenty of proof that trained scribes wrote it out. They were the generations of those you call "authors".

Not really:

The sources are known as J, the Jahwist source (from the German transliteration of the Hebrew YHWH), E, the Elohist source, P, the priestly source, and D, the Deuteronomist source. ... Thus the Pentateuch (or Torah, as it is known by Jews) comprises material taken from six centuries of human history, which has been put together to give a comprehensive picture of the creation of the world and of God's dealings with his peoples, specifically with the people of Israel

Even you pointed out they were not a nation, therefore not Canaanites. The Canaanites had established kingdoms.

Not being a nation does not imply not being Canaanite. And seeing as around the time of Solomon the Hebrews definitely had a kingdom, following your logic that would make them Canaanite.

Outside the Bible, but all sources are under scrutiny, and it seems only the dated cuneiform tablets are to be trusted. And finding anything in stone from that period will likely never sway the minds of those, who refuse to accept a being outside of the universe. They do not even take those records as proof that the ancients accepted the reality of gods. While I do not agree that Marduk created the earth as we see it today, it seems most likely that gods at one point walked among humans, and then they were banned from doing so. There was still a strong connection to them, in a secular sense, until the Greeks and Romans no longer remembered that connection, but turned that memory into mythology.

I think you are confusing monotheism with Greeks and Romans, who had nothing to do with turning "memory into mythology". Cuneiform tablets are not typically dated; they may or may not be. I'm not sure upon what you base the idea that "it seems most likely that gods at one point walked among humans, and then they were banned from doing so". By whom, one wonders. Given the total lack of evidence of any god walking among humans, the conclusion would rather have to be the opposite. At least when applying logic to the matter.

 

[onejayhawk]

Why do yo keep saying that it was all oral tradition until the 6th century BC? Solomon had it and he is reliably placed 400 earlier. It is plausible the Moses had the books of Moses written. Later editing is certainly possible, but that requires something to edit.

J

 

[Agent327]

First. that's not what I have been saying at all. Second, Solomon had "it"? Had what? Third, it's not plausible that "Moses had the Mosaic books written". That's just something you make up, and isn't supported by any scholar. It is, in fact, the least plausible thing you could possibly have come up with. Last, later editing wasn't just possible, it was necessary for the Mosaic books to become written as such in the first place.

In short, none of what you just said adds anything to what is known on this subject.

 

[abradley]

A bit off the present discussion but an interesting article on man and his history:

Nature
EVOLUTION
How China Is Rewriting the Book on Human Origins

Fossil finds in China are challenging ideas about the evolution of modern humans and our closest relatives
By Jane Qiu, Nature magazine on July 13, 2016

On the outskirts of Beijing, a small limestone mountain named Dragon Bone Hill rises above the surrounding sprawl. Along the northern side, a path leads up to some fenced-off caves that draw 150,000 visitors each year, from schoolchildren to grey-haired pensioners. It was here, in 1929, that researchers discovered a nearly complete ancient skull that they determined was roughly half a million years old. Dubbed Peking Man, it was among the earliest human remains ever uncovered, and it helped to convince many researchers that humanity first evolved in Asia.
Since then, the central importance of Peking Man has faded. Although modern dating methods put the fossil even earlier — at up to 780,000 years old — the specimen has been eclipsed by discoveries in Africa that have yielded much older remains of ancient human relatives. Such finds have cemented Africa's status as the cradle of humanity — the place from which modern humans and their predecessors spread around the globe — and relegated Asia to a kind of evolutionary cul-de-sac.
But the tale of Peking Man has haunted generations of Chinese researchers, who have struggled to understand its relationship to modern humans. “It's a story without an ending,” says Wu Xinzhi, a palaeontologist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences' Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology (IVPP) in Beijing. They wonder whether the descendants of Peking Man and fellow members of the species Homo erectus died out or evolved into a more modern species, and whether they contributed to the gene pool of China today

(Continued)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-china-is-rewriting-the-book-on-human-origins/

Interesting bits, like:T

he tale is further muddled by Chinese fossils analysed over the past four decades, which cast doubt over the linear progression from African H. erectus to modern humans. They show that, between roughly 900,000 and 125,000 years ago, east Asia was teeming with hominins endowed with features that would place them somewhere between H. erectus and H. sapiens, says Wu (see‘Ancient human sites’).
“Those fossils are a big mystery,” says Ciochon. “They clearly represent more advanced species than H. erectus, but nobody knows what they are because they don't seem to fit into any categories we know.”

And another interesting bit:

In 2003, a dig on Flores island in Indonesia turned up a diminutive hominin, which researchers named Homo floresiensis and dubbed the hobbit. With its odd assortment of features, the creature still provokes debate about whether it is a dwarfed form of H. erectus or some more primitive lineage that made it all the way from Africa to southeast Asia and lived until as recently as 60,000 years ago. Last month, more surprises emerged from Flores, where researchers found the remains of a hobbit-like hominin in rocks about 700,000 years old.

Knew about the Homo Floresinenians (sp), but the 700,000 year find is new to me.

Nothing that proves or disproves any theories ... just interesting.

 

[Arakhor]

Why do yo keep saying that it was all oral tradition until the 6th century BC? Solomon had it and he is reliably placed 400 earlier. It is plausible the Moses had the books of Moses written. Later editing is certainly possible, but that requires something to edit.

What language/script would this have been written down in? If Moses lived in the 14th Century BCE, that was some 300 years before the first appearances of the Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not quite correct: scholars do recognize the importance of the historical books in the Bible.

No scholar (well, except Christian "scholars") considers the Bible to be a factual account of historical events. To say that the Bible is an historically important source is not to say that it is evidence that any of the stories in it actually happened.

What language/script would this have been written down in? If Moses lived in the 14th Century BCE, that was some 300 years before the first appearances of the Palaeo-Hebrew alphabet.

It is wildly implausible that Moses is anything other than a fictional character.

 

[Arakhor]

I'm well aware of that, particularly with the 120-year lifespan, the Ten Plagues and all, but in the interests of conversation...

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, I'm sure you are, I'm just saying these things for the fun of watching jay try to claim the Bible is a history textbook.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm well aware of that, particularly with the 120-year lifespan, the Ten Plagues and all, but in the interests of conversation...

It's not just the implausibility.

The nation of Israel was not conquered by invaders who took the land from Canaanites. The nations of Israel are descendants of the Canaanites. We don't know where the story of Abraham comes from, but by 500 BCE, the Hebrews clearly though he was 'pre-history'

There is a no evidence of an Exodus from Egypt, either. Certainly not in any levels we see in the Bible. Of course, escaped slaves are totally possible, and it's quite likely the myth of Moses comes from such a tale. There's a reason why we don't know which Pharaoh it was, because the coordination of the Moses myth and the Joshua myth weren't capable of being reconciled. Both of them needed to become 'pre-history' before they could be believed, just like the Abraham story was.

We don't know which order the three heroes appear in, in actual history. We don't know when their stories became mainstream myths.

 

[warpus]

Almost every culture in existence has made up stories about their past that are passed down via oral history. In Poland we have a story that Poland originated when 3 brothers decided to go in different directions. Lech settled in Poland, Czech settled in Bohemia, and Rus settled in Russia. Of course none of this is true. It's just a story, much like the "out of Egypt" thing.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course, escaped slaves are totally possible, and it's quite likely the myth of Moses comes from such a tale.

Yep. You look at the Bronze Age collapse, and it's almost certain that there was a lot of movement of people around the region, although we're not really sure to what extent.
What we do know is that the civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Anatolia were seriously destabilized by debt bondage, to the point that there were wide tracks of land that were going unworked because the peasants had either been enslaved or fled to the semi-nomadic margins.

I think it's pretty likely that a lot of these debt refugees ended up in what would become the ancient kingdoms of Israel, and it's clear from a lot of the Old Testament that bondage, and freedom from bondage, loomed large in the collective psyche of the culture that produced it.

It's worth pointing out that the enslavement of Hebrews as depicted in the Bible was not really a major feature of Egyptian society, slavery was present but the main source of labor was "free" peasants, not chattel slaves.

 

[Arakhor]

The British Isles were visited by Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea and Aeneas' grandson Brutus (allegedly). Brutus was even alleged to have fathered more than twenty generations of Trojan kings in Britain in the 2nd millennium BCE.