Historical evidence for Moses.

[Michael]

The Moses Myth, Beyond Biblical History

Research on the myth of Moses may not resolve anxieties about whether Moses existed, but it does suggest that across centuries and continents, Moses has retained strong links to written tradition and polemics about group identity.

Current discussion of the historical Moses reflects the division between maximalists, who accept much of the Bible as historically valid, and minimalists, who accept very little. The modern father of the minimalists is Martin Noth, who argued in the 1940s that the only reliable traditions about Moses were his marriage to a Midianite and his burial place. The minimalist position can now be found in Giovanni Garbini’s Myth and History in the Bible (JSOT Supp 362, Sheffield, 2003), which places the biblical Moses no earlier than 700 BCE and the idea of Moses as a lawgiver closer to 150 BCE. Modern maximalists tend to follow in the footsteps of William Albright, with some dating him as early as the Amarna period (14th century BCE) and the earliest stages of the Yahweh cult. Contrary to the impression given by television documentaries, maximalists have little evidence in their favor, though James K. Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford, 1999) makes as good a case as any. Barring dramatic new discoveries of evidence or interpretation, the division between minimalists and maximalists is not likely to be resolved. In fact, both camps increasingly place the Bible at the center of polemics over theology and ideology (evangelical Christianity and nationalism, e.g.).

Interesting isn't it?

 

[one_raven]

What I find most interesting is that just like the Jesus question, most poeple claiming to do research on it already have a belief and are out to bolster that belief.
Just as whatever is offered as evidence by "researchers" on either side will be accepted blindly as proof by adherents on either side, and few, if any, will be convinced of anything - except the truth of their own beliefs.

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure if I get your post?

Researchers may have differing beliefs, which are each expressed as hypothesizes. These which are then tested and either accepted or rejected - based on the evidence that is obtained.

You don't find religous history interesting?

 

[Michael]

What's perhaps different between researchers and say a religous fundamentalist is the research is able to stop and say, oh, so it looks like earth is a lot older than 6000 years - a hell of a lot older. Good researchers change their opinion as new evidence is brought to light, or, as new theories better explain the evidence that is present. While an individual may never change their idea, the field as a whole will and does. In this way we get a clearer picture over time of the real history behind the myths.

 

[one_raven]

You don't find religous history interesting?

I find it extraordinarily interesting.
There is little I find more interesting, in fact.
Once my wife gets through school, I plan on retiring and going to school majoring in Comparative Religion with a focus on Antropology.

In my experience, however, most of what is touted as religious history research is little more than justification of pre-concieved notions.

People set out to prove that Moses existed and look for evidence that he did.
Other people set out to prove that he did not and look for evidence to prove their point of view.

The same thing goes for people who use this "research" to bolster arguments in debate.
They discard what disagrees with what they believe, and tout what supports it.

Few people actually set out looking for truth.

 

[Michael]

Firstly, good luck on your ambitions.

Secondly, it may be true for some researchers that they have a story to tell and they want the peaces to fit so that they can tell that story. That's not good science. And, I think it's unfair to suggest that's how all research is done. I'm sure that many diligent researchers truely are trying to uncover the truth.

Case in point. Really, much of the first good Biblical research was done by German Protestant Christians who were fed up with the Catholic Church and decided to go around them and to the source - so they set off to do their own research. What they were looking for was the oldest a best text for the Bible, what they found was exactly the opposite. There was no evidence for Jesus. Many became non-Religious after that. I think we can safely say that this was not the story they had set out to tell! But, Nonetheless, those were the facts. They accepted this and continued to do good research.

So, did they set out to find the truth they found? No. But they modified their hypothesis, made new theories and tried to get as close to the truth as possible.

And that's what this post is about. People's search for the truth.

Michael

 

[one_raven]

Firstly, good luck on your ambitions.

Thanks.

That's not good science. And, I think it's unfair to suggest that's how all research is done.

I agree, and I did not say that all research is done, i am just expressing frustration that the majority of biblical research I have come across fits this.

Case in point. Really, much of the first research good Biblical research was done by German Protestant Christians who were fed up with the Catholic Church and decided to go around them and to the source - so they set off to do their own research. What they were looking for was the oldest a best text for the Bible, what they found was exactly the opposite. There was no evidence for Jesus. Many became non-Religious after that. I think we can safely say that this was not the story they had set out to tell. But, those were the facts. They accepted this and continued to do good research.

I'd love a link with the details of this story.

So, did they set out to find the truth they found? No. But they modified their hypothesis made new theories and tried to get as close to the truth as possible.

How did the ones who remained Protestants try to gest as close to truth as possible?
I don't understand that assessment.

 

[Michael]

It's been such a long time I'm not sure exactly where I originally read that or maybe it was a BBC documentary? If you want to look into it, in essence, after Germans split with the Roman Catholics there was a belief that the Roman Catholics had corrupted the true word of God and so they set out to find the most ancient Biblical texts for themselves.

 

[rockguitarist89]

People that rely on the Bible as their "evidence" to support their beliefs make me sad. An old saying goes "Whoever wins the war, writes history." Knowing this, my point is to say that there is always a spin on whatever you say, write, or do. Everyone is biased in their own way. It is a process that begins from the time you are born until the time you die. Minimalists and Maximalists are going to disagree because they are biased towards opposite views.