Archeologists have gradually concluded that the early history of the Bible is purely mythical. The Patriarchs were mythical, the Exodus was mythical, the Conquest was mythical, and archeologists are reduced to arguing over how historical Kings David and Solomon were. They do agree that the Dual Monarchy was historical, however. The Bible Unearthed, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, appears to be a good statement of the present-day archeological consensus.

From Man versus myth: does it matter if the Moses story is based on fact? | Film | The Guardian,

But the problem with historical evidence goes much deeper. “Moses himself has about as much historic reality as King Arthur,” British archaeologist Philip Davies famously concluded. A more moderate conclusion comes from the historian Tom Holland: “The likelihood that the biblical story records an actual event is fairly small.”

Cyprian Broodbank, the Disney professor of archaeology at Cambridge University, wrote in his recent history of the Mediterranean that the exodus was “at best a refracted folk memory of earlier expulsions of Levantine people” following the reconquest of the Nile delta by the Egyptian king Ahmose around 1530BC.

Those expelled people included the Hyksos, some people likely from Canaan who had overrun the Nile Delta some centuries earlier. This can also explain some of the Ten Plagues of Egypt as accounts of Cretan refugees describing what the big caldera eruption of Thera had done to their homeland. Crossing the Red Sea would likely have been crossing a big marsh that seemed like a sea of reeds. I think that the Egyptian armies likely went home after that, but later storytellers turned it into something much more dramatic. "We crossed a sea of reeds and the Egyptians stopped chasing us" is much less dramatic than "Moses parted the Red Sea, letting us cross. When the Egyptians followed us, Moses let the water return, drowning them."

Subjection to Egypt may have been a memory of Egypt's New-Kingdom Levantine empire, moved back in time to make a more coherent narrative.

Ahmose's name sounds like "Brother of Moses" in Hebrew, so some later storytellers likely asked who "Moses" was. Later storytellers likely elaborated on him, adding a lot of detail, until he became the character that we find in the Bible. Moses was thus much like King Arthur, whose history grew in the telling from Nennius to Geoffrey of Monmouth and beyond.

The notion of mass slavery, let alone mass Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, has already been debunked.

Other interesting facets of this line of thinking are the questions:

when and why did large groups of people cease being satisfied with purely magical explanations of their spiritual heritage, and instead begin to call for believable physical histories instead?

when in each religions case, did it's leadership decide to go for a more scientific grounding for it, and what did politics of that time have to do with the quest?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The notion of mass slavery, let alone mass Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, has already been debunked.

There is also the problem of how a few hundred thousand Israelites could have wandered around in the Sinai desert without leaving much evidence of their presence.

Not to mention that it took them 40 years to hike 250 miles (420+ km)

Remember it only took Frodo and company a year to hike from the Shire to Mordor and back again about the same distance as from Paris to Ankara; and this is with taking a three month rest in Rivendell and a month long rest in Lothlorien, defeating the Darklord Sauron, and another few months recovering in Minas Tirith

You mean a guy that lived 160 years, spoke to God, and managed to write about his own death in the Bible a myth??? Are you joking?

lpetrich wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The notion of mass slavery, let alone mass Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, has already been debunked.

There is also the problem of how a few hundred thousand Israelites could have wandered around in the Sinai desert without leaving much evidence of their presence.

There is not one scrap of evidence that "JEWS" were in Egypt.
The bible is ignorant on a range of details concerning Egypt, including the name of the Pharaoh at the time of the so-called "exodus".
There is not one scrap of evidence that there was even a religion of the "Jews" until c. 800 bc. This is most probably the reason there is no evidence of the them in Egypt.

scott1328 wrote:Not to mention that it took them 40 years to hike 250 miles

Oh it's easy, you said. Just bear left at Tyre, you said. Oi vey, so ask directions already, Mr. God Is Guiding Me. My feet are killing me.

Why is this still news? Of course none of the "history" before David actually happened, and even David himself was just a minor ruler in a minor city-state. Why do people still think that debunking the Jews in Egypt is important?

Agrippina wrote:Why is this still news? Of course none of the "history" before David actually happened, and even David himself was just a minor ruler in a minor city-state. Why do people still think that debunking the Jews in Egypt is important?

Because so many people don't realise that the Abrahamic religions are based on fabrications?

Briton wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Why is this still news? Of course none of the "history" before David actually happened, and even David himself was just a minor ruler in a minor city-state. Why do people still think that debunking the Jews in Egypt is important?

Because so many people don't realise that the Abrahamic religions are based on fabrications?

Mythology. It's like trying to debunk the trials of Hercules, or the siege of Troy.

Agrippina wrote:

Briton wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Why is this still news? Of course none of the "history" before David actually happened, and even David himself was just a minor ruler in a minor city-state. Why do people still think that debunking the Jews in Egypt is important?

Because so many people don't realise that the Abrahamic religions are based on fabrications?

Mythology. It's like trying to debunk the trials of Hercules, or the siege of Troy.

There aren't billions of people who are taught that trials of Hercules, or the siege of Troy are fact...unlike the fabrications that are the basis of the obnoxious Abrahamic religions.

Hobbes Choice wrote:You mean a guy that lived 160 years, spoke to God, and managed to write about his own death in the Bible a myth??? Are you joking?

As described in the Bible, yes, though the Bible only says that he lived to 120, but with him being in good health over all that time. He died very quickly.

But I'm thinking about a possible historical prototype that he might have had.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:The notion of mass slavery, let alone mass Jewish slavery in ancient Egypt, has already been debunked.

Yes that happened nearly a decade ago, even national geography team found graves for these so called Jewish slaves.

lpetrich wrote:

Hobbes Choice wrote:You mean a guy that lived 160 years, spoke to God, and managed to write about his own death in the Bible a myth??? Are you joking?

As described in the Bible, yes, though the Bible only says that he lived to 120, but with him being in good health over all that time. He died very quickly.

But I'm thinking about a possible historical prototype that he might have had.

No. If there had been such a person, the Egyptians would've recorded it. Here are a few examples of why it's not true:

1) The Egyptians didn't promote slaves into positions of authority even if they were able to interpret the same dreams Daniel interpreted in babylon, a thousand years later.
2) The Egyptians didn't promote foreigners into positions of authority even if they were able to provide food during a famine.
3) There was more than one king of Egypt in the period that Joseph was supposedly living in Egypt, during the years he was imprisoned, and afterwards.
4) The Egyptians circumcised. If any of the Jewish people lived in Egypt, they would have been familiar with circumcision, Moses' supposed circumcision as an adult is nonsense. As a jew he would've been circumcised before his mother put him in a basket as in the story of how Sargon the Great was floated in a basket. A story the Jews got from their exile in Babylon.
5) The 10 plagues are improbable. How did the animals reanimate after they were killed in every plague. Also read the plagues critically: Moses supposedly struck every drinking vessel with his stick to cause the water to turn into blood. So how did he do this? Did he walk from house to house, and stream to stream, and well to well, to strike them, has anyone with believes this actually looked at the size of Egypt? If the river did indeed turn to blood, then everything in it would be dead, including the frogs, and tadpoles, so where did they come from in the plague? Lice isn't a problem, people who don't wash on a regular basis have lice, why should it bother them any more than usual? Then the final plague, why did God need to know which were the Jews he's omniscient, he wouldn't have to follow a blood trail.
6) There is no archaeological evidence for the exodus. None, nada, nothing. It's a myth.
And on and on. Read Exodus very carefully, to see it's just a mythology. Joseph's story is an attempt to provide the Jews with a hero, like Hercules, Daniel is another hero manufactured from other mythological heroes. Moses never lived, Joseph never lived, and the longevity is simply to give credence to the idea that they were an ancient people.

Agrippina wrote:
4) The Egyptians circumcised. If any of the Jewish people lived in Egypt, they would have been familiar with circumcision, Moses' supposed circumcision as an adult is nonsense.

I've never seen references to Egyptian circumcision being practiced throughout all classes. Granted, I have not read all that much on Egypt, but every reference I've seen has dealt with it being exclusively the practice of the priestly classes. OTOH, and here's an important caveat, I don't keep mental track of different Egyptian eras either, so my recollection may pertain to the wrong era. Care to provide sources?

Agrippina wrote:As a jew he would've been circumcised before his mother put him in a basket as in the story of how Sargon the Great was floated in a basket. A story the Jews got from their exile in Babylon.

This is a great detail, that really should make us suspicious of the whole Moses narrative.

Agrippina wrote:5) The 10 plagues are improbable. How did the animals reanimate after they were killed in every plague. Also read the plagues critically: Moses supposedly struck every drinking vessel with his stick to cause the water to turn into blood. So how did he do this? Did he walk from house to house, and stream to stream, and well to well, to strike them, has anyone with believes this actually looked at the size of Egypt?

With regards to Moses striking 'every drinking vessel', you're really coming up with stuff out of thin air. Sure, this miracle didn't occur, but the text doesn't really say what you want it to say, unless you rely on some idea that Hebrew "al-" signifies physical touch. I am inclined to think that "-עַֽל" signifies some ritualistic/magic sense there - simply put, it means Moses was meant to perform a thing that has its effect on all of them, not that he was supposed to touch all of them.

Other than that minor detail, you've got some very solid arguments there - you don't need to inflate your good arguments with ones that rely on a flawed understanding of what the text says.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:
4) The Egyptians circumcised. If any of the Jewish people lived in Egypt, they would have been familiar with circumcision, Moses' supposed circumcision as an adult is nonsense.

I've never seen references to Egyptian circumcision being practiced throughout all classes. Granted, I have not read all that much on Egypt, but every reference I've seen has dealt with it being exclusively the practice of the priestly classes. OTOH, and here's an important caveat, I don't keep mental track of different Egyptian eras either, so my recollection may pertain to the wrong era. Care to provide sources?

Herodotus.

Agrippina wrote:As a jew he would've been circumcised before his mother put him in a basket as in the story of how Sargon the Great was floated in a basket. A story the Jews got from their exile in Babylon.

This is a great detail, that really should make us suspicious of the whole Moses narrative.

Yes.

Agrippina wrote:5) The 10 plagues are improbable. How did the animals reanimate after they were killed in every plague. Also read the plagues critically: Moses supposedly struck every drinking vessel with his stick to cause the water to turn into blood. So how did he do this? Did he walk from house to house, and stream to stream, and well to well, to strike them, has anyone with believes this actually looked at the size of Egypt?

With regards to Moses striking 'every drinking vessel', you're really coming up with stuff out of thin air. Sure, this miracle didn't occur, but the text doesn't really say what you want it to say, unless you rely on some idea that Hebrew "al-" signifies physical touch. I am inclined to think that "-עַֽל" signifies some ritualistic/magic sense there - simply put, it means Moses was meant to perform a thing that has its effect on all of them, not that he was supposed to touch all of them.

Exodus 7:19 19Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"
Sounds to me like, take your stick and beat every vessel in Egypt.

Other than that minor detail, you've got some very solid arguments there - you don't need to inflate your good arguments with ones that rely on a flawed understanding of what the text says.

Not flawed. If the text says "put your stick over every container of water" then it means "take a hike through Egypt and touch every vessel of water". Of course I'm being a little ridiculous, but then the claim is ridiculous. How did Moses know if someone had a cup of water on a table in an obscure house on the fringes of society. The whole thing is ridiculous, and anyone who believes that Moses just struck the water of the Nile, and every single cup and teaspoon of water in Egypt turned to blood is being ridiculous.

Agrippina wrote:

Agrippina wrote:5) The 10 plagues are improbable. How did the animals reanimate after they were killed in every plague. Also read the plagues critically: Moses supposedly struck every drinking vessel with his stick to cause the water to turn into blood. So how did he do this? Did he walk from house to house, and stream to stream, and well to well, to strike them, has anyone with believes this actually looked at the size of Egypt?

With regards to Moses striking 'every drinking vessel', you're really coming up with stuff out of thin air. Sure, this miracle didn't occur, but the text doesn't really say what you want it to say, unless you rely on some idea that Hebrew "al-" signifies physical touch. I am inclined to think that "-עַֽל" signifies some ritualistic/magic sense there - simply put, it means Moses was meant to perform a thing that has its effect on all of them, not that he was supposed to touch all of them.

Exodus 7:19 19Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"
Sounds to me like, take your stick and beat every vessel in Egypt.

Other than that minor detail, you've got some very solid arguments there - you don't need to inflate your good arguments with ones that rely on a flawed understanding of what the text says.

Not flawed. If the text says "put your stick over every container of water" then it means "take a hike through Egypt and touch every vessel of water". Of course I'm being a little ridiculous, but then the claim is ridiculous. How did Moses know if someone had a cup of water on a table in an obscure house on the fringes of society. The whole thing is ridiculous, and anyone who believes that Moses just struck the water of the Nile, and every single cup and teaspoon of water in Egypt turned to blood is being ridiculous.

Care to notice how you're relying on the meaning of English prepositions here? Hebrew had way fewer prepositions than English has, and for this reason they're all way more vague. You'll find that that preposition is translated as a multitude of different English prepositions throughout the Bible if you looked. Nor does it say 'every container' in the Hebrew - Hebrew of that time did not have ways of distinguishing "every" from "all". As I mentioned, this rather seems to be a ritualistic formulation - essentially a spell; in the narrative he is supposed to reach out his hands for all the waters to turn into blood, and the translator's just done a hack job.

Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous - but only because magic doesn't exist. The scenario you describe, however, makes your ability to grasp the fact that this was written in a different language where prepositions were vaguer than in English seem ridiculously weak and ridiculous.

Well. This KIND of discussion about a subject like this, is problematic to me.

Not because anyone is necessarily making seriously false statements one way or another, but because the actual CAUSE of trying to make a declaration about whether or not someone like Moses is "real" or "myth," is coming from a very flawed motivation, and a very flawed point of view.

Ultimately, it really doesn't MATTER whether or not every detail of the story of Moses is accurate or not, or even if there was really ever a single person with that name who existed.

The stories which were collected together eventually into the Torah, and into what is now called the Old Testament of the Bible, were BOTH supposed to be accepted as HAVING TRUTH to them, and were supposed to be teaching tools at the same time.

There is a very long and complicated habit, so to speak, that humans have always indulged in, to purposely mythologize their own reality , sometimes even as it is happening.

This is NOT primarily done for the purpose of promoting lies. Quite the contrary, it is done to try to enhance the best qualities of the people involved, and encourage them to work to be even better.

In a very real way, the heroes of the ancient myths both did, and did not ever exist in reality. Moses may or may not have been a single real man, who did exactly all the listed things in the stories about him. But declaring that he never existed as a single person, ALSO doesn't have anything at all to do with defeating the PURPOSE of the mythology about him.

The reason why many religious people nod and smile as those hostile to the stories they tell indulge in this sort of discussion, is precisely because it DOESN'T matter. The lessons of their religion are not dependent upon factual proof that ANY of the described things ever actually happened in exactly the way that is described, and it's NOT because they are fans of self-delusion, either.

Essentially,and very ironically, this sort of anxious debate, really only takes place between the critics of a religion who don't actually grasp the point of it, arguing with the subgroup of FOLLOWERS of that religion who ALSO don't understand the point either.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Agrippina wrote:5) The 10 plagues are improbable. How did the animals reanimate after they were killed in every plague. Also read the plagues critically: Moses supposedly struck every drinking vessel with his stick to cause the water to turn into blood. So how did he do this? Did he walk from house to house, and stream to stream, and well to well, to strike them, has anyone with believes this actually looked at the size of Egypt?

With regards to Moses striking 'every drinking vessel', you're really coming up with stuff out of thin air. Sure, this miracle didn't occur, but the text doesn't really say what you want it to say, unless you rely on some idea that Hebrew "al-" signifies physical touch. I am inclined to think that "-עַֽל" signifies some ritualistic/magic sense there - simply put, it means Moses was meant to perform a thing that has its effect on all of them, not that he was supposed to touch all of them.

Exodus 7:19 19Then the LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their reservoirs of water, that they may become blood; and there will be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'"
Sounds to me like, take your stick and beat every vessel in Egypt.

Other than that minor detail, you've got some very solid arguments there - you don't need to inflate your good arguments with ones that rely on a flawed understanding of what the text says.

Not flawed. If the text says "put your stick over every container of water" then it means "take a hike through Egypt and touch every vessel of water". Of course I'm being a little ridiculous, but then the claim is ridiculous. How did Moses know if someone had a cup of water on a table in an obscure house on the fringes of society. The whole thing is ridiculous, and anyone who believes that Moses just struck the water of the Nile, and every single cup and teaspoon of water in Egypt turned to blood is being ridiculous.

Care to notice how you're relying on the meaning of English prepositions here? Hebrew had way fewer prepositions than English has, and for this reason they're all way more vague. You'll find that that preposition is translated as a multitude of different English prepositions throughout the Bible if you looked. Nor does it say 'every container' in the Hebrew - Hebrew of that time did not have ways of distinguishing "every" from "all". As I mentioned, this rather seems to be a ritualistic formulation - essentially a spell; in the narrative he is supposed to reach out his hands for all the waters to turn into blood, and the translator's just done a hack job.

The people I talk to do not speak Hebrew, nor do they read the text in the original Hebrew. They tell me Moses waved his Harry Potter wand over the Nile, and voila, every glass of water in the entire Egypt turned to blood.

I rely on translations found online because I haven't learnt Hebrew and Greek, for which I don't have enough lifetime, or brain power left, and the translation on "mechon-mamre" says the same thing:

19 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Say unto Aaron: Take thy rod, and stretch out thy hand over the waters of Egypt, over their rivers, over their streams, and over their pools, and over all their ponds of water, that they may become blood; and there shall be blood throughout all the land of Egypt, both in vessels of wood and in vessels of stone.'

If that doesn't mean that every single container in Egypt turned to blood, then I don't know what you're talking about. It says "stretch out your hand over pools, ponds, so they become blood. Does this mean he stood in Memphis next to the river, waved his wand, and then walked off, or does it mean what it says. If it means what it says, then he took a long walk around Egypt.

Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous - but only because magic doesn't exist. The scenario you describe, however, makes your ability to grasp the fact that this was written in a different language where prepositions were vaguer than in English seem ridiculously weak and ridiculous.

Yeah, you go tell that to the translators on mechon-mamre. There's a good chap!