3 ms·

The story of Moses is probably an allegory of the plucky Israelites beating the local great power who held them in captivity, and fleeing to found their own sta

The story of Moses is probably an allegory of the plucky Israelites beating the local great power who held them in captivity, and fleeing to found their own state... written by people who were presently held in captivity by the local great power, Babylon. Unlike the story of Exodus, the Babylonian captivity is a well-attested historical event, which agrees with archeological evidence and is found in multiple sources.

bjourne 3y ago
Yeah, also possible. The Exodus story might have been propaganda meant to prevent Israelite captives in Babylon from losing hope of an eventual return. It might also have served as a threat to the Babylonians/Persians; "See what our god did to the Egyptians, perhaps it's best for you to let us go..." While the Babylonian captivity probably did happen, the Bible doesn't mention that the same fate befell many other people the Babylonians conquered and whose intelligentsia they transferred. The destruction of many Philistine cities appear to have been even more complete than the destruction of Jerusalem.
Amezarak 3y ago
I wouldn't bet on it. Historiographical claims contradicting ancient history usually turn out to be incorrect and are generally only produced because the absence of other evidence is the only room you have to generate academic papers. It isn't surprising that an event that occurred > 3000 years ago is better attested that an event that occurred ~2500 years ago. 2500 years ago is classic Greece and Thucydides, 3000 years ago is Homer. It is fairly typical for these minimalist positions to be totally overturned by later archeological discoveries...because people don't generally just make things totally up. This doesn't require every word to be literally true, but there's usually truth in them. Establishing a pious fraud ex nihilo as late as the Babylonian Exile is also a little too pat. You really think that a) the Babylonian Exiles convinced themselves of this with no surviving refutation or debate and b) they managed to impress it on the entire non-Exile population when they returned? This Smithsonian article on the discovery of mining operations by a semi-nomadic people is a great read and ends on this note, with which I wholeheartedly agree: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-re... > What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility.
- bjourne 3y ago
  Making shit up out of thin air isn't as difficult as you suggest. For centuries English kings thought they were the descendants of King Arthur because of what a cleric wrote in the early 12th century. The Swedish 16th century king Erik XIV proclaimed himself the 14:th (hence the suffix XIV) king of Sweden due to the largely fictitious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_Sueonumque_regibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_S... Over 2000 years earlier it must of course have been even easier making facts out of fiction.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    > For centuries English kings thought they were the descendants of King Arthur because of what a cleric wrote in the early 12th century. Stories of Arthur uncontroversially predate the 12th century, and it is an open debate as to whether Arthur was based on a historical figure or not. (I vote yes.) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > he Swedish 16th century king Erik XIV proclaimed himself the 14:th (hence the suffix XIV) king of Sweden Some kings assuming a different regnal number on the basis of a semimythical history is not the same as convincing an entire population to change their origin myths.

bjourne 3y ago

Yeah, also possible. The Exodus story might have been propaganda meant to prevent Israelite captives in Babylon from losing hope of an eventual return. It might also have served as a threat to the Babylonians/Persians; "See what our god did to the Egyptians, perhaps it's best for you to let us go..." While the Babylonian captivity probably did happen, the Bible doesn't mention that the same fate befell many other people the Babylonians conquered and whose intelligentsia they transferred. The destruction of many Philistine cities appear to have been even more complete than the destruction of Jerusalem.

Amezarak 3y ago

I wouldn't bet on it. Historiographical claims contradicting ancient history usually turn out to be incorrect and are generally only produced because the absence of other evidence is the only room you have to generate academic papers. It isn't surprising that an event that occurred > 3000 years ago is better attested that an event that occurred ~2500 years ago. 2500 years ago is classic Greece and Thucydides, 3000 years ago is Homer. It is fairly typical for these minimalist positions to be totally overturned by later archeological discoveries...because people don't generally just make things totally up. This doesn't require every word to be literally true, but there's usually truth in them. Establishing a pious fraud ex nihilo as late as the Babylonian Exile is also a little too pat. You really think that a) the Babylonian Exiles convinced themselves of this with no surviving refutation or debate and b) they managed to impress it on the entire non-Exile population when they returned? This Smithsonian article on the discovery of mining operations by a semi-nomadic people is a great read and ends on this note, with which I wholeheartedly agree: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-reignites-debate-old-testament-historical-accuracy-180979011/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/archaeological-dig-re... > What Ben-Yosef has produced isn’t an argument for or against the historical accuracy of the Bible but a critique of his own profession. Archaeology, he argues, has overstated its authority. Entire kingdoms could exist under our noses, and archaeologists would never find a trace. Timna is an anomaly that throws into relief the limits of what we can know. The treasure of the ancient mines, it turns out, is humility.

bjourne 3y ago
Making shit up out of thin air isn't as difficult as you suggest. For centuries English kings thought they were the descendants of King Arthur because of what a cleric wrote in the early 12th century. The Swedish 16th century king Erik XIV proclaimed himself the 14:th (hence the suffix XIV) king of Sweden due to the largely fictitious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_Sueonumque_regibus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_omnibus_Gothorum_S... Over 2000 years earlier it must of course have been even easier making facts out of fiction.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  > For centuries English kings thought they were the descendants of King Arthur because of what a cleric wrote in the early 12th century. Stories of Arthur uncontroversially predate the 12th century, and it is an open debate as to whether Arthur was based on a historical figure or not. (I vote yes.) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. > he Swedish 16th century king Erik XIV proclaimed himself the 14:th (hence the suffix XIV) king of Sweden Some kings assuming a different regnal number on the basis of a semimythical history is not the same as convincing an entire population to change their origin myths.