4 ms·

Respectfully, this is a stronger claim than I think anyone can make. A more reasonable claim would be: "we cannot verify much of what's in Exodus using sources

Respectfully, this is a stronger claim than I think anyone can make. A more reasonable claim would be: "we cannot verify much of what's in Exodus using sources external to the Torah/Pentateuch." It's fair to also say something like "if X happened, it's surprising that we would not see physical evidence of it." If you're interested in the topic of the Old Testament in general, I highly recommend [Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament](https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/products/9781540960214_ancient-near-eastern-thought-and-the-old-testament https://bakerpublishinggroup.com/products/9781540960214_anci...). It starts with a survey of the academic field, an overview of relevant primary documents from surrounding cultures, and in-depth discussions of historical records and archaeological finds. There's meta-discussion about the role of comparative literature that I also found useful. I benefited from the author's perspective that there's a lot to learn from the Old Testament regardless of whether or not existing physical evidence satisfies our personal standard for determining whether something happened verbatim. I like that it does so in a way that does not try to push an agenda. I interpret the author as trying to provide an entrypoint for anyone interested in the related academic fields, regardless of their background. I've recommended the book to both religious and non-religious friends who enjoyed it. Take this recommendation as one made in good faith, and an opportunity to look at something from a new perspective. You're free to disregard it as you see fit.

cogman10 3mo ago
> Respectfully, this is a stronger claim than I think anyone can make. The only reason to treat this with kid gloves is because a large portion of the population believes in it. Nobody has a problem saying that "Romulus and Remus is an entirely fictional account it's not based on any real historical events." The stronger claim is a valid one to make because the primary source doesn't have any corroboration.
- Amezarak 3mo ago
  Denying the possible, even likely, historicity of Romulus and Remus is silly, yes.
  - cogman10 3mo ago
    Likely? That's wild. What's the corroborating evidence from ~750BC documenting their existence? Heck, where's that evidence from 650BC?
    - Amezarak 3mo ago
      > What's the corroborating evidence from ~750BC documenting their existence? Heck, where's that evidence from 650BC? This is a totally unfruitful line of inquiry, unless you are an academic historian doomed to publish-or-perish; in that case, it's perfectly understandable that you have to make these arguments as part of your career. Better questions, when it comes to ancient history are: 1. Is there any negative evidence? 2. Is there any reason to expect more evidence than what we have? 3. Did ancient historians with better sources believe it? 4. Is there anything inherently unlikely about the idea? In this case there isn't any negative evidence, there's no reason to expect more evidence than what we have, ancient historians believed various versions of the same basic story, and there's absolutely nothing crazy about it - someone had to found the polity, and to declare them fictional results in there still existing a first king of Rome, just a guy with a different name for whom there is no evidence at all. You can certainly apply (4) to specific details of the different stories - for example, it seems much more likely Romulus was murdered by Senators than raptured by Jupiter, though perhaps something altogether different happened. There's even very weak archeological evidence - a chamber was found in an area where Romulus' (empty) tomb was supposed to be, although archeologists are debating over whether it really is that.
      - cogman10 3mo ago
        > This is a totally unfruitful line of inquiry It's really not. This is the line of inquiry that leads you to understand the founding myth of Rome and what the motivations might have been to create such a myth. It also helps to place in time when the myth was concocted. > Is there any negative evidence? Is there any negative evidence against unicorns? Things that don't exist don't leave evidence. But yes, there is evidence. The lack of corroboration and the fact that the earliest mention of Romulus was ~300BCE is a pretty strong indicator that he didn't actually exist. Further, the fact that his story is a mishmash of common tropes and that his very name is a derivative of Rome is a pretty strong indicator that he was simply a product of myth making. There are written records from surrounding nations and people from 750BCE. But further, we also have evidence that Rome itself is a lot older than Romulus is supposed to be. There's evidence that the first founders of Rome showed up around 1600BCE. The fact that the first records of Romulus trace the lineage of the rule of the city directly back to him is a very good indicator that the author was myth making. > Is there any reason to expect more evidence than what we have? Yes. People write about their leaders. It's quite common. And very influential leaders tend to leave pretty extensive records. That's why, for example, we are so certain Ramesses II existed. > Did ancient historians with better sources believe it? You'd expect passing references to Romulus if they did. That doesn't exist. > Is there anything inherently unlikely about the idea? Yes, we have evidence Rome is a lot older than the Romulus myth. Seems pretty unlikely that Romulus founded Rome in 753BCE unless he was some sort of time traveler. > ancient historians believed various versions of the same basic story, and there's absolutely nothing crazy about it Ancient historians who wrote over 1000 years after the actual founding of Rome. Imagine if I dubbed myself a historian and started writing about how China was founded by Jackie Chinamus in 1000AD, who also just so happen to have an army of pandas and consumed only bamboo. That is the problem with the Romulus founding myth. The historian placed the foundation WAY later than it actually was and wrote a fantasy story about Romulus where the only thing that could possibly be true is his name (Unless you want to claim it's possible Mars was his father).
- zoobaloo 3mo ago
  I'd encourage you to re-read my comment and consider that you may have jumped to conclusions about what I'm trying to say. > Nobody has a problem saying that "Romulus and Remus is an entirely fictional account it's not based on any real historical events." I wouldn't go so far as to say this. We have artifacts and historical texts talking about them, so we at least know that Romulus and Remus are figures that ancient humans talked about. If we had a time machine, could we go back in time and meet them? If there were two guys named that who generally did the things the Romans thought, were they actually raised by wolves? No idea with the former. The latter sounds unusual. My point is that there are more interesting questions to ask than these. The book I recommended does a good job of this. It's a good read if you're interested in the cultural backdrop of the ancient near east.
  - tshaddox 3mo ago
    > We have artifacts and historical texts talking about them, so we at least know that Romulus and Remus are figures that ancient humans talked about. Well, yeah, but you seem to be confusing the authenticity of the writings as ancient artifacts with the historical accuracy of the contents of the writings. I don’t think anyone disputes that the Torah contains stories that had been widely spread and believed among the writers, compilers, and intended audience at the time.
    - ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
      Growing up, in popular media and my school textbooks, we learned certain foundational myths about the United States, the Founding Fathers, and other key figures around Colonial times and the American Revolution. Come to find out that so many of these myths were not actually true: that they were legends built through the centuries to fluff up the importance and gravity of the United States in the eyes of naïve schoolchildren. It was with some sadness that these myths were dispelled for me, but no less a sense of wonder to learn what had actually happened in this relatively recent history. There is still plenty of room for myth and legend in the popular imagination.
      - 3mo ago

cogman10 3mo ago

> Respectfully, this is a stronger claim than I think anyone can make. The only reason to treat this with kid gloves is because a large portion of the population believes in it. Nobody has a problem saying that "Romulus and Remus is an entirely fictional account it's not based on any real historical events." The stronger claim is a valid one to make because the primary source doesn't have any corroboration.

Amezarak 3mo ago
Denying the possible, even likely, historicity of Romulus and Remus is silly, yes.
- cogman10 3mo ago
  Likely? That's wild. What's the corroborating evidence from ~750BC documenting their existence? Heck, where's that evidence from 650BC?
  - Amezarak 3mo ago
    > What's the corroborating evidence from ~750BC documenting their existence? Heck, where's that evidence from 650BC? This is a totally unfruitful line of inquiry, unless you are an academic historian doomed to publish-or-perish; in that case, it's perfectly understandable that you have to make these arguments as part of your career. Better questions, when it comes to ancient history are: 1. Is there any negative evidence? 2. Is there any reason to expect more evidence than what we have? 3. Did ancient historians with better sources believe it? 4. Is there anything inherently unlikely about the idea? In this case there isn't any negative evidence, there's no reason to expect more evidence than what we have, ancient historians believed various versions of the same basic story, and there's absolutely nothing crazy about it - someone had to found the polity, and to declare them fictional results in there still existing a first king of Rome, just a guy with a different name for whom there is no evidence at all. You can certainly apply (4) to specific details of the different stories - for example, it seems much more likely Romulus was murdered by Senators than raptured by Jupiter, though perhaps something altogether different happened. There's even very weak archeological evidence - a chamber was found in an area where Romulus' (empty) tomb was supposed to be, although archeologists are debating over whether it really is that.
    - cogman10 3mo ago
      > This is a totally unfruitful line of inquiry It's really not. This is the line of inquiry that leads you to understand the founding myth of Rome and what the motivations might have been to create such a myth. It also helps to place in time when the myth was concocted. > Is there any negative evidence? Is there any negative evidence against unicorns? Things that don't exist don't leave evidence. But yes, there is evidence. The lack of corroboration and the fact that the earliest mention of Romulus was ~300BCE is a pretty strong indicator that he didn't actually exist. Further, the fact that his story is a mishmash of common tropes and that his very name is a derivative of Rome is a pretty strong indicator that he was simply a product of myth making. There are written records from surrounding nations and people from 750BCE. But further, we also have evidence that Rome itself is a lot older than Romulus is supposed to be. There's evidence that the first founders of Rome showed up around 1600BCE. The fact that the first records of Romulus trace the lineage of the rule of the city directly back to him is a very good indicator that the author was myth making. > Is there any reason to expect more evidence than what we have? Yes. People write about their leaders. It's quite common. And very influential leaders tend to leave pretty extensive records. That's why, for example, we are so certain Ramesses II existed. > Did ancient historians with better sources believe it? You'd expect passing references to Romulus if they did. That doesn't exist. > Is there anything inherently unlikely about the idea? Yes, we have evidence Rome is a lot older than the Romulus myth. Seems pretty unlikely that Romulus founded Rome in 753BCE unless he was some sort of time traveler. > ancient historians believed various versions of the same basic story, and there's absolutely nothing crazy about it Ancient historians who wrote over 1000 years after the actual founding of Rome. Imagine if I dubbed myself a historian and started writing about how China was founded by Jackie Chinamus in 1000AD, who also just so happen to have an army of pandas and consumed only bamboo. That is the problem with the Romulus founding myth. The historian placed the foundation WAY later than it actually was and wrote a fantasy story about Romulus where the only thing that could possibly be true is his name (Unless you want to claim it's possible Mars was his father).
zoobaloo 3mo ago
I'd encourage you to re-read my comment and consider that you may have jumped to conclusions about what I'm trying to say. > Nobody has a problem saying that "Romulus and Remus is an entirely fictional account it's not based on any real historical events." I wouldn't go so far as to say this. We have artifacts and historical texts talking about them, so we at least know that Romulus and Remus are figures that ancient humans talked about. If we had a time machine, could we go back in time and meet them? If there were two guys named that who generally did the things the Romans thought, were they actually raised by wolves? No idea with the former. The latter sounds unusual. My point is that there are more interesting questions to ask than these. The book I recommended does a good job of this. It's a good read if you're interested in the cultural backdrop of the ancient near east.
- tshaddox 3mo ago
  > We have artifacts and historical texts talking about them, so we at least know that Romulus and Remus are figures that ancient humans talked about. Well, yeah, but you seem to be confusing the authenticity of the writings as ancient artifacts with the historical accuracy of the contents of the writings. I don’t think anyone disputes that the Torah contains stories that had been widely spread and believed among the writers, compilers, and intended audience at the time.
  - ButlerianJihad 3mo ago
    Growing up, in popular media and my school textbooks, we learned certain foundational myths about the United States, the Founding Fathers, and other key figures around Colonial times and the American Revolution. Come to find out that so many of these myths were not actually true: that they were legends built through the centuries to fluff up the importance and gravity of the United States in the eyes of naïve schoolchildren. It was with some sadness that these myths were dispelled for me, but no less a sense of wonder to learn what had actually happened in this relatively recent history. There is still plenty of room for myth and legend in the popular imagination.
    - 3mo ago