Quick question for M*W and Trilairian

Actually Moses is mentioned in the history by Artapanus - it is only Jesus , that has never been mentioned outside the bible .........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: The Eighteenth Dynasty was dated as follows:

Ahmosis 1575-1550
Amenhotep I 1550-1528
Tuthmosis I 1528-1510
Tuthmosis II (Khaneferre)* 1510-1490
Hatsheput 1490-1468
Tuthmosis III 1490-1436
Amenhotep II 1436-1413
Tuthmosis IV 1413-1405
Amenhotep III 1405-1367
Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten/Moses) 1367-1350
Semenkhkare (Aaron-partial title of 'pharaoh') 1350-1347
Tutankhamun (Moses' son) 1347-1339
Aye 1339-1335
Horemheb 1335-1308

*Is this the Moses you refer to?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MW, Tril, understand this-- for herein lies the truth.

You guys trying to undermine the Mosaic law, is like saying it doesn't know it's creator. Moses' works are known throughout the world, and have been known throughout history.

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
Isa. 29:16

So shall the Mosaic law say to Moses---You made me not?

These rituals and principles were followed by people for 1,000's of years. But they're not that ancient. It's clear who created the law, who made the tabernalce in the desert...

Moses' works testify of who he was. And he will always be remembered as a man of God.

But to them that deceive themselves, creating false ideas to govern their lives.

Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*************
M*W: Please don't be deluded to think that I would quote the Bible as a reliable historical resource! I am an atheist.

As much as I have read, I have never come upon the historian Artapanus. Who was he and what kind of history did he record?

 

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1826&letter=A

Historian; lived in Alexandria in the second century B.C. He wrote a history of the Jews, parts of which have been preserved in the writings of the church-fathers Eusebius ("Præparatio Evangelica," ix. 18, 23) and Clement of Alexandria ("Stromata," i. 23, 154), as well as in those of some later authors. Freudenthal shows that both Alexander Polyhistor and Josephus made use of Artapanus' work. The fragments that have survived enable one to form an opinion—not a very flattering one—as to the merits of their author. Artapanus evidently belonged to that narrowminded circle of Hellenizing Jews that were unable to grasp what was truly great in Judaism, and, therefore, in their mistaken apologetic zeal—for even in those early days Judaism had its opponents among the Hellenes—set about glorifying Judaism to the outer world by inventing all manner of fables concerning the Jews. As an illustration of this method, the following account of Moses will serve. According to Artapanus (Eusebius, ibid. ix. 27), Moses is he whom the Greeks called Musæus; he was, however, not (as in the Greek legend) the pupil, but the teacher, of Orpheus. Wherefore Moses is not only the inventor of many useful appliances and arts, such as navigation, architecture, military strategy, and of philosophy, but is also—this is peculiar to Artapanus—the real founder of the Greek-Egyptian worship. By the Egyptians, whose political system he organized, Moses was called Hermes διἁ τῶν τῶν ἱερῶν γραμμάτων ἑρμηνείαν ("because he expounded the writings of the priests").

The departure from Egypt is then recounted, with many haggadic additions and embellishments. The astounding assertion, that Moses and the Patriarchs were the founders of the Egyptian religion, led Freudenthal to the assumption that "Artapanus" must be a pseudonym assumed by some Jewish writer who desired to be taken for an Egyptian priest, in order to give greater weight to his words. This supposition, however, as Schürer points out, is highly improbable, and fails to explain the remarkable phenomenon of a Jew ascribing a Jewish origin to the Egyptian pantheon. It is much more probable that Artapanus belonged to a syncretistic circle of philosophers that saw no such grave objection to a moderate idolatry as to prevent its being accepted as of Jewish origin. Having adopted the Greek fables that derived the Egyptian cult from Grecian heroes, and having identified these heroes with Biblical personages, he had no alternative but to trace the idolatry of Egypt to a Jewish source.

[Or, Artapanus' position may have been somewhat as follows: Thinking it necessary for the honor of the Jewish people that they should be regarded as the source of all religion, he chose to attribute to them the origin of the Egyptian religion in spite of difficulties that he may have felt in connection with its idolatry.—T.)

 

Minds much greater than yours MW, pondered these same issues millenia before you were even born.

 

*************
M*W: What is truth to you may not be truth to everyone else. You need to understand this. Arguing for the sake of argument is a waste of time. "The twain shall never meet." So, give it up. You must not be aware of all the biblical archeological research that has been done by scholars of the subject. Do you consider them to be "undermining Mosaic law?" You are judging others without having any credible knowledge yourself. That's ignorant.

Moses' works that are known throughout the world and throughout history, yes, I guess you could positively aver that statement. But the same goes for Zeus, Heracles, Mars/Ares/Aries, Mithras, Abramham, David, Solomon, Jesus, Tom Sawyer, Hester Prynne, Cinderella and The Little Mermaid. They are known throughout the world, too.

*************
M*W: Riddles and poetry do not history make.

*************
M*W: It is very clear that, because rituals and principles have been followed for thousands of years by peoples of many religions, doesn't make any of it truthful or authentic.

*************
M*W: Moses' works testify of who he was SUPPOSED TO BE in the literature. He was created as a "man of God." A "man of God" means an astrological sign in the skies (heaven) orbiting the sun (god). In the Moses allegory, he was represented by the Sign of Taurus.

 

I can read documents of people 2k+ years ago that talk about Moses. Both Historical and Biblical ya doof.

you're looking back 3k+ years

Josephus only had to look back 1k+ He also had texts and documents available to him that we don't today.

Hecataeus, Berossus, Hesiod, Manetho

Ancient Historians; observed the movements of the Jews... some only 500-800 years after the death of Moses.

You need to get off the Altar of worshiping Ahmed Osman's ideas...

Like I said, Minds much greater than yours MW, pondered these same issues millenia before you were even born. And under greater evidence. You're in denial. Another with an oppressed religious comlex.

 

*************
M*W: Where are these documents? Today's biblical scholars and archeologists have concluded that the only ancient document that even mentions Moses is the bible.

*************
M*W: When I research the allegorical Moses, I go back 3,500 years to the beginning of the 18th dynasty. That includes the 225 years of Moses' ancestors before Moses/Akhenaten of Exodus fame.

*************
M*W: Josephus' writings were "devoid of historical value." (Gardiner, Alan H., Egypt of the Pharaohs, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1961).

*************
M*W: Manetho's historical writings were considered corrupt as they were based on Egyptian folklore. Each version one of the scribes wrote down was full of human error and were found to be objectionable. Josephus (70 AD) preserved Manetho's writings, but they have not been available for biblical scholars and archeologists to study.

*************
M*W: And how does this prove/disprove anything? The ancient Hebrews were the Egyptian nomadic tribe of Abiru. Mosaic Law was not independent, and Moses didn't originate those laws. The Ten Commandments were made up of the Hammurabic Code, centuries before Moses. Like it or lump it, Mosaic law was a false doctrine and an ancient misnomer.

*************
M*W: I don't worship anyone. Before Ahmed Osman, there was Sigmund Freud who researched Mosaic history. Freud, a Jew, concluded that Moses was wholly Egyptian. Believe what you will, but Ahmed Osman, an Egyptian by birth, was one of the few researchers who was able to persuade the curators of the ancient documents to let allow him to view them. He also confirms that the Ten Commandments were revealed in Spell 125 in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. So, the Ten Commandments had been floating around the Mediterranean area for thousands of years and, therefore, was not original. I agree with Osman's research that the ancient Abiru to the present-day Jews are of Egyptian origin.

*************
M*W: I have never said my mind was greater than anybody else's. I would be a fool to think such a thought. However, being in denial is not one of my weaknesses, and since I don't believe in a god, a dying demigod savior, or some false eternal life, I certainly not "oppressed with a religious complex." That would be you!

 

I don't know where you got that idea from, Josephus mentions Moses plenty. and his writings are 1900 years old.

And many ancient historians commented on Hebrew civilization. Firmly it would be told to you that their law was given of Moses--by anyone who knew of the Hebrews around 700 B.C. They interacted heavily with Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians...They would also tell you of King David, who lived around 1,000 B.C who lived even closer to the time of Moses, and they still kept his laws and teachings.

Well the information of the Dynasties come's from a Historian named Manethon of Sebennytos--who lived only 300 BC, only 2,300 years ago.

That where you get your data from, not any text that is 3,500 years old.

"His work is of great interest to Egyptologists, and is often used as evidence for the chronology of the reigns of Pharoahs."

"The problems with a close study of Manetho, despite the reliance of Egyptologists on him for their reconstructions of the Egyptian dynasties, is that not only was Aegyptiaca not preserved as a whole, but that it became involved in a bitter battle between Jewish and anti-Jewish polemicists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manetho

...

Funny how you say that when Josephus is one of the only ancient writers that ever mention Manethon of Sebennytos' works; from whom your information about the Dynasties is generated.

That's a fine quote, but reading someones reviews isn't like reading an ancient book for yourself, something you clearly havn't done. Josephus' writing is entirely historical to anyone that knows history.

He presents Judaism as a philosophy, not a religion. He comments on all the available documents he had available to him.

LOL Then why does Wikipedia say

"The problems with a close study of Manetho, despite the reliance of Egyptologists on him for their reconstructions of the Egyptian dynasties"

So you Rely on Manetho to construct the dateline and chronology of the Dynasties... but you won't use Manetho for any other source of information?

"Hammurabi (1728 BC–1686 BC) felt he had to write the code to please his gods." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

He wrote it to please his gods...

how can you make that comparison when the first of the Ten Commandments is against Polytheism?

Moses taught Monotheism...he wrote the commandments of God, Jehovah...

Your reading sounds like it's limited to cereal boxes.

That's great, you've no source. And even if you had a source, it still wouldn't matter. Because there are 1,000's of other commentaries wrote about Moses hundreds, and thousands of years before your Freud teacher.

Well it's clear you pick and choose what you want to believe and it is no way related to fact.

 

Just for some clarification about the meaning of the name 'Moses.'

"Moses Look up Moses at Dictionary.com
masc. proper name, name of Hebrew prophet and lawgiver, from L., from Gk. Mouses, from Heb. Mosheh, of unknown origin.

"Most scholars see in it the Hebraization of Egyptian mes, mesu 'child, son,' which is often used in theophorous names. According to this derivation the words of Pharaoh's daughter in Ex. 2:10, 'For out of the water I drew him' are not the explanation of the Hebrew name Mosheh, but express the idea that the Egyptian name given by Pharaoh's daughter resembles in sound, and therefore, reminds us of, the Hebrew verb mashah 'he drew out,' which is suggestive of the words spoken by Pharaoh's daughter." [Dr. Ernest Klein, "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language"]"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=moses&searchmode=none

Ok, so basically what we're told here is that we first have an egyptian word "mes" or "mesu" which means child, son, which the Pharaoh's daughter calls him when she finds him. By saying "because she drew him out of the water," we're meant to recall that this name is similar to the Hebrew word "mashah," which sounds like it.

The link first gives the Hebrew word "Mosheh" as the origin of Moses, but says that "mosheh" has an unknown origin. It seems to be suggesting that the origin of "mosheh" is a habraization of "mes, mesu" AND "mashah," meaning that "moses" neither has "child, son" as its literal meaning, NOR "drawn from the water" as its literal meaning. Rather, the name "Moses" should recall to the reader both the story of this person's salvation from death by being floated down the river and found by the Pharaoh's daughter, and the name given to him by the Pharaoh's daughter, which would merely have been "child, son," which is also the same root of many Pharaonic names (such as the tutmosis line).

The important thing to note is that "mes, mesu" was commonly used in theophorous, which basically means it was used when a Pharaoh was named after a god. Of course, Egyptians believed their Pharaohs to be gods, which is why 'mes, mesu' is the root word for many Pharaonic names. What this also means is that by calling Moses, "mes, mesu' the Pharaoh's daughter was proclaiming Moses' heirship to the throne.

Furthermore, and perhaps most interesting is this (taken from the same site, as you will see):

"messiah Look up messiah at Dictionary.com
c.1300, Messias, from L.L. Messias, from Gk. Messias, from Aramaic meshiha and Heb. mashiah "anointed" (of the Lord), from mashah "anoint." This is the word rendered in Septuagint as Gk. Khristos (see Christ). In O.T. prophetic writing, it was used of an expected deliverer of the Jewish nation. The modern Eng. form represents an attempt to make the word look more Heb., and dates from the Geneva Bible (1560). Transf. sense of "an expected liberator or savior of a captive people" is attested from 1666."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=messiah&searchmode=none

As you'll notice, the Hebrew origin for the word "messiah" is "mashah," which means, in this case, "annointed." In the etymology of "moses," we saw this very same word "mashah" as meaning "he drew out (of the water)." This meaning simply that it was through water that one is annointed.

We also know that Akenhaten, Sargon II of Assyrai and Cyrus of Persia shared the same birth story. What this likely means is that it was a common story that signified that heavenly annointing. That is, by saying Moses was born this way is to say that he was annointed by God for some purpose. Sargon II and Cyrus would have used this story to indicated that their kingship was annointed by the gods, in the same way that naming yourself "King of Kish" in Mesopotamia would have signified that your kingship was divinely appointed. Both Sargon II and Cyrus, after conquering a nation or peoples, used that local population's traditions and religious motivations as methods of giving their rule validation in the eyes of the people. It is also important to note that both Sargon II and Cyrus conquered the area of the Levant (Sargon II conquered the Northern area). While Cyrus did reach as far as Egypt, Sargon II did not.

This implies that the story of being found as an infant from the river, and escaping death was an Hebraic tradition, and not original to Egypt. When Cyrus went into Egypt, he used Egyptian tradition to implicate his divine lordship, and this consisted of an entirely different concept (I can't recall what it was, but it has been indicated in pictograms on tablets and heiroglyphs). That this story is used to indicated Moses' divine appointing shouldn't come as a surprise, being a Hebraic tradition (as we see it indicated).

Considering that Akhenaten is said to have been born/found in this manner (from water), and that Akhenaten formed a monotheistic cult, a completely isolated religious event in the history of Egypt, it is likely that his inspiration for these things came from Hebrew influence. Whether this means that he was, in fact, the Moses of the Bible, or something else, it seems likely that at the very least Akhenaten used the story of being found in the river as an infant to prove his kingship was annointed by God.

This is most definitely significant, because it tells us that he placed a lot of importance on the perspectives of the Hebrews. Why is unclear. However, it will be important to note that he likely also borrowed monotheism from the Hebrews. Perhaps by creating this Egyptian monotheistic cult, he was attempting to unite the two peoples, Egyptians and Hebrews. After all, we hear in the Bible that the Hebrews were under oppression. This doesn't necessarily mean they were, but what it does mean is that that is how the Hebrews saw it. At the very least, the Hebrews considered themselves oppressed, and possibly for religious reasons.

Akhenaten was said to have been part Hebrew, perhaps this, like the river story, was an attempt to exemplify himself in their eyes, again, as a method of uniting the Hebrews and Egyptians. Perhaps his influence was great enough that this did inspire many of the Hebrews, and so their religious concepts took on new meaning under Egyptian symbolism. Unfortunately, Akhenaten's actions in this regard were opposed by other Egyptians. Perhaps there were anti-Hebraic movements taking place in Egypt, which could account for the Bible account of "oppression." This could also be the final reason that the Hebrews eventually left Egypt, perhaps not in one massive exodus, but certainly an exodus.

At any rate, it's all very interesting to think about.

 

This only demonstrates that Josephus may have heard the myths and stories of "Moses," not that he was able to relay any facts. Josephus was not a contemporary of Moses any more than he was of Jesus. Flavius Josephus was Jewish, and automatically an apologist for the priestly caste of the Jewish religious as well as the cult itself.

Ahh. But they were oft referred to as Canaanites or as being from the lands of Canaan. The Moses legend most likely arises from the eventual expulsion of the Hyksos by the Egyptians. The story gets retold as an "escape" by the Canaanite priests who eventually solidify their people by uniting them under a monotheistic religion. There is considerable evidence of the Canaanite pantheon in archaeological as well as epigraphical sources that have origins in Jewish texts and Canaanite sites.

You seem to be implying that information from Egyptian Dynasties is limited to the very little real information that Manethos provides, is this right? I assure you, there are many sources of information, which together, provide a fairly accurate chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Manetho is a minor, albeit colorful source, one that isn't considered by archaeologists to be completely reliable since it has proven unreliable on many occasions.

That the early Jewish cult made monotheism a significant tenet of their newly improved Canaanite religion is consistent with the actions of a formerly polytheistic culture moving to a monotheistic one. The monotheistic cult of Akhenaten may have had some influence on the early Jewish one, but I don't think Akhenaten was Moses. I think its more likely that Moses didn't actually exist, or if he did, was a minor Canaanite leader that obtained a bit of legend about himself because of his leadership and deeds and was agrandized by the priestly caste, creating a hero mythos in much the same manner as American culture has done with George Washington, Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett.

Akhenaten is a fascinating Pharaoh whom I've studied a bit.

I've speculated a bit about the so-called Exodus and compared the story with what we know about chariotry in Egypt as well as foreign invaders/immigrants to the country, and I see the Hyksos as the most likely source of this legend. The Canaanites were overcome by Egyptian forces under Kamose and, later, his brother Ahmose. The Canaanite/Hyksos city of Avaris was well fortified and there is some evidence that after a long but unsuccessful siege, the Egyptians allowed the Canaanites/Hyksos to leave Lower Egypt. The Canaanites, retelling the story to later generations, probably updated the story to one of an 'escape' rather than an 'expulsion.'

But it is with the reigns of Kamose/Ahmose that the earliest evidence of chariotry appears. And because the Jewish version of the so-called Exodus includes Egyptians on chariots, this is the earliest period it could have occured. Of course, this is speculation and most archaeologists date the so-called Exodus to the Ramesside period.

 

*************
M*W: SkinWalker, do you not know that Egyptian chariot wheels have been found lying deep on the floor of the Red Sea? (Even if there was no 'Exodus,' somehow those 'chariot wheels' had to get there, and there are pictures on the Internet to prove it! Jayleew's been there and seen them for himself! He's posted authentic photographs of the barnacled chariot wheels which must be authentic, because there they are, on the floor of the Red Sea. (Even if it wasn't the Red Sea that the ancient Egyptians supposedly crossed to get away from Pharaoh's army). How can you deny those chariot wheels? They've been posted on the Internet, so they must be true. After all, Jayleew knows exactly where Noah's Ark landed, and he's seen photos of it on top of Mount Ararat. That's real, too. Everything the bible says must be true, because it's all published on the Internet. You know as well as I do that everything published on the Internet is as true and accurate as the bible. After all, Jayleew is a christian. He's got to be telling the truth. Christians don't lie. Do they???

 

Last week I was studying for the exam for my History of the Ancient Near East course, and my mind was a-rollin. There had been some classes I missed, so I didn't have notes for them, so to make up for that I read the assigned readings for those days as a study tool. With all this talk about Egypt, and the Hebrews, etc... certain things just jumped out from the pages at me as I read them.

Around 1200 BC, the Near East goes silent, that is, writing drops off for the most part. Many cities, particularly in the Levant and Anatolia, are either sacked, destroyed or abandoned, and many more left untouched. A mysterious "Sea Peoples" is said to have made an invasion into the Near East at this time (sources mostly coming from Egyptian texts, Ramesses III in particular). In fact, Ramesses III provides a short list of a number of these peoples. He tells that these peoples, from several islands in the Mediterranean, banded together, forged an alliance to invade the Near East, that they had laid waste civilizations in the Near East (like the Hittite kingdom, Assyrians and Babylonians), but that he had been successful in vanquishing their armies, both in land battles and at sea.

Some problems arise, however, if we are to take Ramesses' account at face value. First, these 'foreign' armies didn't destroy these other civilizations. Certainly, they were reduced and weakened, but they survived (except the Hittites, they never rose again). Also, a number of the 'Sea Peoples" that he names we know had already made settlements, or lived among other cultures in the levant and other areas long before 1200BC. Another thing to consider is, if it was an invasion, then why were some towns destroyed, some merely sacked, some just mysteriously abandoned, and others not touched at all? Something didn't add up.

A closer look needed to be taken at the time leading up to 1200BC (and the proceeding 200 years of much textual silence). What was found is the following:

At that time, there had been a huge rift that had been forming for a long time between upper and lower classes. The wealthy had burial sites profuse with objects of wealth. The poor hardly received proper burials. The wealthy were highly educated and literate, the poor were not. The rift between the two classes was immense, and the poor often turned to lives of crime.

There had been a class of people developing named the Habiru. The Habiru were not a race of peoples, rather they were a social class. They were societal outcasts, often depicted as robbers, murderers or criminals. The Habiru appeared not only in Egyptian inscriptions, but also in Assyrian, Babylonian, Hittite, and other major-near eastern players. The Habiru had been around for some time when the attacks from the "Sea Peoples" began.

One thing that is important to remember is that it was the wealthy at this time who were literate and responsible for the vast amounts of texts which we have today. As such, we should understand such texts under that bias. It was the rich who were characterizing the Habiru as these kinds of bandits.

What seems to have taken place was a kind of social revolution. The attack of the 'Sea Peoples' seems to merely have been its catalyst. What likely happened was that when the Sea Peoples attacked, the Habiru joined them against the beaurocracies of the period. The revolt probably picked up support and momentum from the poor of the period. This would explain why some cities (like the Hittite capital, as well as certain ports on the Mediterranean) were destroyed, why some were only sacked, why some abandoned, and some not even touched. It seems that the trade centers (which included ports), and the beaurocratic capitals were the main targets in the attacks. Even Mycenae (Greece) suffered in this revolution, both because its trading ports were cut off, and because it suffered from attacks of its own. The final target in this revolt was Egypt, and against whom the hordes lost.

This theory is supported in several ways. First, the preconditions for this existed. Second, there is a virtual textual silence beginning around 1200 BC for approximately 100 - 200 years. Bear in mind that it was the wealthy who were educated and literate. With the destruction/weakening of the beaurocracies, and the widespread 'take-over' of the poor, it isn't surprising that not many texts were written at this time. Third, a completely new Near Eastern world emerges from that 'dark age.'

Part of this new Near East was the beginning of the Iron Age. This change is a direct result of the social revolution. Bronze had been a major Near Eastern Import, and was the commonly used metal of the preceding era (the Bronze Age) in the Near East. Iron had always been around, but was more a commodity for the rich than anything. It wasn't a widely used metal. After the social revolution, the Near Eastern population no longer had easy access to bronze, particularly because the major trading ports and centers had been destroyed. Only the severly weakened beaurocracies still had access to the metal.

So, what was turned to? Iron. It was abundant in the Near East, and was easily accessible. Shortly after becoming a widely-used metal, how to make steel from it was discovered. The beaurocracies needed to play catch-up.

Also, it was only very shortly after this upheaval that we see the settlement of a new people in the Levant and the creation of a new kingdom, Israel, which was made up of 12 tribes. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the religion of this new kingdom has many commonalities with religions from all over the Near East, from the major civilizations that had existed there over the millenia. It also kept laws held by these other civilizations, wrote in literary styles particular to some of them and had similar myth stories as many of them. Most interesting about this new kingdom is that it was made up of a peoples we now call "Hebrew."

There are a few things we should take into careful consideration when thinking about this time, and what kinds of textual sources we have that might actually refer to these "Hebrews." First, the only textual sources that we have name them Habiru, and depict them as thieves, robbers and bandits. They were a social class, made up of outcasts of society. Second, the major textual source regarding the period comes from an Egyptian Pharaoh, who misrepresented the true events that took place. No doubt, he did so to bolster his name in the eyes of the people, which was a common 'kingly' practice of the time throughout the whole of the Near East. Third, the textual silence that proceeds 1200BC is the reason that we have so little sources regarding what might be considered the time of the "exodus. Furthermore, the textual sources we do have come from the biased self-glorifying proclamations of a Pharaoh, who wouldn't have admitted any great losses on his side even if he did win the day in the end.

However, it's still quite interesting the think about, because then we could consider the Biblical stories in a whole new way. Not merely myths, but perhaps something entirely different. Not actual histories, per se, but something like that. The specific characters in the histories of the Bible may not be real persons, and the chronologies presented may also not be accurate, but the actual individual and specific events were probably real events. That said, the "Israelites" would have been a loose term, not simply referring to a single ethnic group, so the stories could have referred to "Israelites" but at the same time could have referred to different ethnic backgrounds and histories. However, an important thing to note, then, is that the reasons offered in the Biblical stories for particular events probably also do not have historical grounding (at least not all of them anyway).

Ahh... much to think about.