Moses - The Anti- Egyptian

[Tladatsi]

Ah, OK. Yes, I see, I thought that was your point but I thought maybe you were responding to Spirit Woman so I thought I would ask. I see your point, it would ironic to take a polular Egyptian and turn it into an anti-Egyptian story.

Tladatsi: You raised the issue of Anti-Egyptian stance in the books of moses. I was pointing out there is anti-egyptian positions but equally important is the hijacking of egyptian mythology by the hebrew writers and subtle and complex attempts at hiding that fact.

Yes Sargon's birth mirrors Moses birth in distinct narrow way but you should not ignore the parallels to Horus birth (which should be the oldest story of this type in the world). That the writers hijacked much of Horus birth story points to the anti-egyptian stance you claimed. Does it disturb you that the writers may be too fond of the egyptian mythology as they stole so much from it?

[Cassius]

Ah, OK. Yes, I see, I thought that was your point but I thought maybe you were responding to Spirit Woman so I thought I would ask. I see your point, it would ironic to take a polular Egyptian and turn it into an anti-Egyptian story.

Tladatsi: I do not see it as ironic so much as very clever and essential if there is to be a future Hebrew tribal state. The Books may have been written around 700 BC area after the fall of Israel and maybe even after Judah fell. A powerful mythology would and apparently did keep hope alive for these people as they did survive today as Jews. I am impressed. The anti-egyptian stance would be natural as the area had been an Egyptian dominated society for a very long time and they sought independence and identity.

I do believe SpiritWoman is wrong in suggesting the Books were written simple to conform or reveal secrets to the Greeks or anyone else. The story of Abraham and family is simply a sophisicated history of past/present diplomacy of relations between the various local kinship tribes and attempt of the Hebrew tribe to place themselves in elevation and other kin in lesser status. Again it is survival of a Hebrew state between a powerful Egypt and Babylonia/Assyria. The Christant, Jew, and Islamist godhead is the same source.

[SpiritWoman]

Tladatsi: I do not see it as ironic so much as very clever and essential if there is to be a future Hebrew tribal state. The Books may have been written around 700 BC area after the fall of Israel and maybe even after Judah fell. A powerful mythology would and apparently did keep hope alive for these people as they did survive today as Jews. I am impressed. The anti-egyptian stance would be natural as the area had been an Egyptian dominated society for a very long time and they sought independence and identity.

I do believe SpiritWoman is wrong in suggesting the Books were written simple to conform or reveal secrets to the Greeks or anyone else. The story of Abraham and family is simply a sophisicated history of past/present diplomacy of relations between the various local kinship tribes and attempt of the Hebrew tribe to place themselves in elevation and other kin in lesser status. Again it is survival of a Hebrew state between a powerful Egypt and Babylonia/Assyria. The Christant, Jew, and Islamist godhead is the same source.

Hi Cassius,

You misunderstand my posts. I simply beleive that under the circumstance, for the Hebrews, it was detriment to thier survival to conform thier mythology through out history to other more powerful civilizations for the sake of acceptance and survival. Ultimately it also lead to thier spiritual base being the most dominant and the most degenerate (as in changed, deformed or evolved into or out of it's root). No secrets were revealed in my mind but much more the greater civilizations superstitions were taken advantage of, twisted, and used as a political tool to control populations submissiveness.
No matter where the Jews lived. Thus Christianity, Islam.

Clever for the Hebrews to survive with this very logical tool.

After all, you cannot degress the fact that Muhammed originally sought to integrate His notion of Islam with Judaism and was regected. This when the Jews were at thier power politically and would most assuredly would anounce thier soveriegnity as a nation.

Thus the change in the Myth of Abraham in the Quran. And the ultimate separation of the Abrahamic religions today.

Muhammed united the G_Ds of the Arabs. Much like Moses did for the tribes of the Hebrews. But it was the Egyptian influence of wealth and prosperity that drove Moses theology and it is protrayed in the myth clearly. He gathered his tribes into one nation under one G_D theory that at the time would be under His perceptual and learned rule.

So basically I agree with you.

Peace
SW

[Tladatsi]

Tladatsi: I do not see it as ironic so much as very clever and essential if there is to be a future Hebrew tribal state. The Books may have been written around 700 BC area after the fall of Israel and maybe even after Judah fell. A powerful mythology would and apparently did keep hope alive for these people as they did survive today as Jews. I am impressed. The anti-egyptian stance would be natural as the area had been an Egyptian dominated society for a very long time and they sought independence and identity.

Cassius,

I think the anti-Egyptian attitude is much older than that 700 BC and may have had two separate origins. One is that Egypt control Canaan for hundreds of years, until the arrival of the Philistines in about 1100 BC. From then on, the Philistines appear to thave acted as surrogates for the Egyptians, maintaining order in Egypt's unruly borders in return of Egyptian support. It has been argued that pro-Egyptian residents were called "Canaanites" while anti-Egyptian residents were called "Israelites". So the anti-Egyptian attitude may stem in part from this root.

The other possible root was was a later period. When the Babylonians conquored Judea, many Judean fled to Egypt and became mercenaries for the King of Egypt. The Judean were restive and supported the Persians when they invaded. An anti-Egyptian attitude would make sense in this period as well.

[Cassius]

Cassius,

I think the anti-Egyptian attitude is much older than that 700 BC and may have had two separate origins. One is that Egypt control Canaan for hundreds of years, until the arrival of the Philistines in about 1100 BC. From then on, the Philistines appear to thave acted as surrogates for the Egyptians, maintaining order in Egypt's unruly borders in return of Egyptian support. It has been argued that pro-Egyptian residents were called "Canaanites" while anti-Egyptian residents were called "Israelites". So the anti-Egyptian attitude may stem in part from this root.

The other possible root was was a later period. When the Babylonians conquored Judea, many Judean fled to Egypt and became mercenaries for the King of Egypt. The Judean were restive and supported the Persians when they invaded. An anti-Egyptian attitude would make sense in this period as well.

Tladatsi: Here's my speculation to compete with everyone elses: The Abraham and his tribe reportedly claimed to be Aramaeans/Semetic peoples who we know somewhat that they were a fairly primitive desert tribe peoples who worked the camel trade routes and were herdmans of nomadic inclinations. They were in constantly pressure from the imperialistic powers mostly the Assyrians and therefore forced toward a west/southwest direction from the Great Desert of Syria interior. We know they dominated Damascus I think around 1000 BC and their langauge dominated the area.

There was a great Aramaean migration into the area of the Judean Hills due to conflicts and famine in their original area. Bible claimed only famine. This may have around 10000 BC where this tribes began to abandoned their nomadic ways and to become farm and raise livestock in those hills. This is traditional Egyptian empire but sparely populated hill country and they may have been accepted as allies against Assyrian aggression at first. But would switch side back and forth when it pleased that tribal leadership.

Historical geography proves that upland hills in any culture is where rebels, outlaws, exiled, and any displaced groups seek a haven from the dominate imperialist forces who would control the rich lowlands. Here a remarkable fusion took place among groups that would lead to the Hebrew culture. What was this fusion materials composed of? Based on what the Bible is composed of, it appears as follows: Aramaean tribal heroes tales and their monothestic god concept; Egyptian exiled rebels (monothestic believers) with their rich mythological legends; Canaanite rebels/exiles; and a small portion of Greek/Philistine mythology. The groups met there were all Egyptianized by way of colonization as they would pay tribute to remain somewhat tolerated.

My point is that the Anti-Egyptian subject of the thread is deceptive as the matter is vastly more complex. It is an excellent subject for a thread. For example, while the end result Hebrew mythology is mostly hostile to Egypt mythology it is ironically built upon Egypt mythology plus to lesser degree the other people's mythology of the neighborhood groups. There was an attempt and a strong desire by the Egyptains to defend Jerusalem against the Babylonians but they were too weak. Israel fall to the Assyrians and I would think the Egyptians were opposed to that but again were too weak.

My additional point is that Moses and others are simply keystones to the new mythology constructed around 700 BC. It is likely Moses never really existed as a real person but was a powerful written constructed concept.

[SpiritWoman]

Tladatsi: Here's my speculation to compete with everyone elses: The Abraham and his tribe reportedly claimed to be Aramaeans/Semetic peoples who we know somewhat that they were a fairly primitive desert tribe peoples who worked the camel trade routes and were herdmans of nomadic inclinations. They were in constantly pressure from the imperialistic powers mostly the Assyrians and therefore forced toward a west/southwest direction from the Great Desert of Syria interior. We know they dominated Damascus I think around 1000 BC and their langauge dominated the area.

There was a great Aramaean migration into the area of the Judean Hills due to conflicts and famine in their original area. Bible claimed only famine. This may have around 10000 BC where this tribes began to abandoned their nomadic ways and to become farm and raise livestock in those hills. This is traditional Egyptian empire but sparely populated hill country and they may have been accepted as allies against Assyrian aggression at first. But would switch side back and forth when it pleased that tribal leadership.

Historical geography proves that upland hills in any culture is where rebels, outlaws, exiled, and any displaced groups seek a haven from the dominate imperialist forces who would control the rich lowlands. Here a remarkable fusion took place among groups that would lead to the Hebrew culture. What was this fusion materials composed of? Based on what the Bible is composed of, it appears as follows: Aramaean tribal heroes tales and their monothestic god concept; Egyptian exiled rebels (monothestic believers) with their rich mythological legends; Canaanite rebels/exiles; and a small portion of Greek/Philistine mythology. The groups met there were all Egyptianized by way of colonization as they would pay tribute to remain somewhat tolerated.

My point is that the Anti-Egyptian subject of the thread is deceptive as the matter is vastly more complex. It is an excellent subject for a thread. For example, while the end result Hebrew mythology is mostly hostile to Egypt mythology it is ironically built upon Egypt mythology plus to lesser degree the other people's mythology of the neighborhood groups. There was an attempt and a strong desire by the Egyptains to defend Jerusalem against the Babylonians but they were too weak. Israel fall to the Assyrians and I would think the Egyptians were opposed to that but again were too weak.

My additional point is that Moses and others are simply keystones to the new mythology constructed around 700 BC. It is likely Moses never really existed as a real person but was a powerful written constructed concept.

Great thinking!! Great concept.

Peace
SW

[GKC_fan]

... the hijacking of egyptian mythology by the hebrew writers...

Yes Sargon's birth mirrors Moses birth in distinct narrow way but you should not ignore the parallels to Horus birth (which should be the oldest story of this type in the world). That the writers hijacked much of Horus birth story points to the anti-egyptian stance you claimed. Does it disturb you that the writers may be too fond of the egyptian mythology as they stole so much from it?

Cassius and SpiritWoman,

There is certainly a lot of - wild? informed? uninformed? fascinating? - speculation going on here with complex ancient history and documents. It's all very interesting speculation, but for now I'll just point out the fallacious logic in your allegations about Moses.

This amusing modern myth - that the story of Moses being put in a basket in the Nile for safety is "obviously" untrue, because other similar stories exist elsewhere - is at best merely another good example of the lack of imagination and logic and knowledge of normal human life on the part of some professional scholars. And in your case (and some of theirs), it seems to me that your claim is merely an example of flawed reasoning due to your a priori assumptions. I.e, you don't believe the Bible is historically trustworthy, so you are uncritically accepting of any criticism of it.

I say this because the story of baby Moses in the basket - its inherent possibility and believability given the culture and environment of the participants - is completely unproblematic on its face; the story has no obvious internal or cultural problems or contradictions. (At least none you've mentioned.)

As for being a copy, the mere existence of a similar story is no more proof of one or the other being false/copied than the existence of more than one kingdoms, or people with the same name, or assassinated leaders, or wars, or anything. Because no one is claiming that this was the first and only time in the entire history of humanity that a parent or older sibling thought up this particular idea, or any similar one. If they were, then the Horus myth would be strong counter-evidence; but they're not, so it isn't.

As for the believability of the story itself -
Given the culture and natural environment of Moses's mother, what is supposed to have prevented her from thinking up this idea on her own, no matter if there were a hundred fictional stories like it, or if ten million other people had actually thought it up down through the centuries?! After all, it is a well-known fact that unlinked people do sometimes come up with identical ideas, and Moses' mother certainly had motivation for creative thinking in this regard. (Yes, I know you're assuming that the entire story is fictional, but that's what you have to prove with evidence; you can't just claim it.)

In fact, the existence of the Horus myth could actually be seen as supporting evidence for the biblical account, since it could easily be the very thing that gave Moses' mother the idea in the first place!

Or are you seriously suggesting that possible copyright infringement would have stopped her, or any mother in the history of the world, from saving the life of their child by using a borrowed technique, simply because it wasn't her original idea????!!!!

So the mere existence of a similar story - whether the Flood, Jesus, Moses, you name it - is irrelevant to the questions of authenticity and truthfulness. Mere existence of a copy or similar story only "disproves" the biblical one if, and only if, one has already made the a priori assumption - i.e., already decides or believes beforehand - that the biblical documents are historically untrustworthy. Certainly it's a theoretical possibility, but you have presented no evidence at all in this case, just assertions. So - no offense - your assertions are merely that: unsubstantiated assertions based solely (apparently) on the beliefs you already hold.

[Conductor42]

It's more anti-canaanite than anti-egyptian
the prohibition against cooking a calf in its mothers milk is a direct prohibition against one of their religious ceremonies, for example

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2&page=6&pp=16

In another thread, the issue of the relationship between the religion of the Israelites and the Egyptians was raised. I commented that it was an important topic but for a different thread. So here is that thread.

The Israelite religion as founded by Moses is an anti-Egyptian religion. Almost everything that Egyptian religion did or believed, Moses’ religion did or believed the opposite.

For example, a key element of Egyptian religion is images or icons. The system of hieroglyphs was more than just for writing. Each hieroglyph had a symbolic and magical element. By creating a physical symbol of something, you gave it power and a connection to this world. Likewise, destroying a hieroglyph, for example of deceased individual, robbed their soul of power. It is a version of “sympathetic magic”. Moses’ commandments explicitly forbid religious imagery of all sorts. Indeed, while all of Egypt’s gods are immediate and visible, Yahweh is invisible and inaccessible. Indeed, to see Yahweh is to die.

Egyptian religion was of course joyously polytheistic and generally tolerant of any religion. Moses’ religion was sternly monotheistic and totally intolerant of any religion other than Yahwahism. Egyptian religion was strong magical and accepted divination and astrology. Moses rejects all forms of magic, astrology, fortune-telling, and divination. Egyptians believed that after death the souls of the dead were judged and lived on in either a pleasant or unpleasant fashion based on how they were judged. Yahwahism in contrasts ignores the afterlife altogether and focuses all of it’s attention on this life.

In Egypt only the priests were circumcised when they were initiated into the priesthood as adults. Moses has all males circumcised eight days after birth. Israelites must sacrifice rams and oxen while Egyptians were forbidden to sacrifice them as sacred embodiments of Amun (and Khnum) and Apis respectively, I could go on into the more detail examples but the point is clear enough. Moses was the anti-Egyptian, even though he himself had an Egyptian name (as did other leading Levites).

[shunyadragon]

[quote=Tladatsi;1646616]http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...2&page=6&pp=16

In another thread, the issue of the relationship between the religion of the Israelites and the Egyptians was raised. I commented that it was an important topic but for a different thread. So here is that thread.

The Israelite religion as founded by Moses is an anti-Egyptian religion. Almost everything that Egyptian religion did or believed, Moses’ religion did or believed the opposite.

For example, a key element of Egyptian religion is images or icons. The system of hieroglyphs was more than just for writing. Each hieroglyph had a symbolic and magical element. By creating a physical symbol of something, you gave it power and a connection to this world. Likewise, destroying a hieroglyph, for example of deceased individual, robbed their soul of power. It is a version of “sympathetic magic”. Moses’ commandments explicitly forbid religious imagery of all sorts. Indeed, while all of Egypt’s gods are immediate and visible, Yahweh is invisible and inaccessible. Indeed, to see Yahweh is to die.

Egyptian religion was of course joyously polytheistic and generally tolerant of any religion.

tolerance was indeed a virtue lacking in Judaism and Christianity. There were Monotheists also in Egyptian history. The Sun was symbolic of the monotheistic God among these believers, where the central polythesitic God was the moon.

[quote] Moses’ religion was sternly monotheistic and totally intolerant of any religion other than Yahwahism.

Monotheistic only terms of there God was the most powerful God. In the commandments it is said something like, 'Do not put other Gods before (the one true) God.'

Egyptian religion was strong magical and accepted divination and astrology. Moses rejects all forms of magic, astrology, fortune-telling, and divination.

Moses performed magic before the court of the Pharaoh (turn staff into snake) to demonstrate the superiority of his God.

Egyptians believed that after death the souls of the dead were judged and lived on in either a pleasant or unpleasant fashion based on how they were judged. Yahwahism in contrasts ignores the afterlife altogether and focuses all of it’s attention on this life.

This is not clear as a true difference, both Jews and Egyptians show a deep concern for both this life and the next.

In Egypt only the priests were circumcised when they were initiated into the priesthood as adults. Moses has all males circumcised eight days after birth.

I do not believe this is true of Egyptians. I believe all Egyptians of rank were circumsized as a ritual of right of passage into adulthood. This is not a significant difference anyway.

[SpiritWoman]

Cassius and SpiritWoman,

There is certainly a lot of - wild? informed? uninformed? fascinating? - speculation going on here with complex ancient history and documents. It's all very interesting speculation, but for now I'll just point out the fallacious logic in your allegations about Moses.

This amusing modern myth - that the story of Moses being put in a basket in the Nile for safety is "obviously" untrue, because other similar stories exist elsewhere - is at best merely another good example of the lack of imagination and logic and knowledge of normal human life on the part of some professional scholars. And in your case (and some of theirs), it seems to me that your claim is merely an example of flawed reasoning due to your a priori assumptions. I.e, you don't believe the Bible is historically trustworthy, so you are uncritically accepting of any criticism of it.

I say this because the story of baby Moses in the basket - its inherent possibility and believability given the culture and environment of the participants - is completely unproblematic on its face; the story has no obvious internal or cultural problems or contradictions. (At least none you've mentioned.)

As for being a copy, the mere existence of a similar story is no more proof of one or the other being false/copied than the existence of more than one kingdoms, or people with the same name, or assassinated leaders, or wars, or anything. Because no one is claiming that this was the first and only time in the entire history of humanity that a parent or older sibling thought up this particular idea, or any similar one. If they were, then the Horus myth would be strong counter-evidence; but they're not, so it isn't.

As for the believability of the story itself -
Given the culture and natural environment of Moses's mother, what is supposed to have prevented her from thinking up this idea on her own, no matter if there were a hundred fictional stories like it, or if ten million other people had actually thought it up down through the centuries?! After all, it is a well-known fact that unlinked people do sometimes come up with identical ideas, and Moses' mother certainly had motivation for creative thinking in this regard. (Yes, I know you're assuming that the entire story is fictional, but that's what you have to prove with evidence; you can't just claim it.)

In fact, the existence of the Horus myth could actually be seen as supporting evidence for the biblical account, since it could easily be the very thing that gave Moses' mother the idea in the first place!

Or are you seriously suggesting that possible copyright infringement would have stopped her, or any mother in the history of the world, from saving the life of their child by using a borrowed technique, simply because it wasn't her original idea????!!!!

So the mere existence of a similar story - whether the Flood, Jesus, Moses, you name it - is irrelevant to the questions of authenticity and truthfulness. Mere existence of a copy or similar story only "disproves" the biblical one if, and only if, one has already made the a priori assumption - i.e., already decides or believes beforehand - that the biblical documents are historically untrustworthy. Certainly it's a theoretical possibility, but you have presented no evidence at all in this case, just assertions. So - no offense - your assertions are merely that: unsubstantiated assertions based solely (apparently) on the beliefs you already hold.

Greetings GKC,

Your opening sentence says it all;

Speculation, ancient History or what "believers" beleive to be ancient history, and your right;

Moses mom could have very well taken the idea of Horus story to use to her advantage, much like Moses used simular ideas HMMM myths from the Egyptians to create a G_D for his rebel slaves and newly created rebel hoard. You assert and we assert and we can all be unsubstantial now can't we. Keeping in mind that all beliefs are based on assertions and speculation of historical and mythological minds who left evidence for us 'Modern thinkers' to peruse to our delight.

After all, we can only speculate any one subject, based on it's origins of concept. It is but one's ability to see past as an evolution of minds and lessons learned in life, without stigmatizing it to one tribe of people who fought to preserve themselves in a violent world.

In other words don't assert the Hebrews had a patent on Creator, and are exact in thier knowledge of. Nor were they innocent of any of the commandments they carried on that sacred stone, in that sacred box they worshipped in thier nomadic portable synagog by spilling massive amounts of blood of innocent animals after warring and pillaging peoples lands for thier own. All in the name of the Chosen.

Such is the mind of a free thinker.

Peace
SW

[SpiritWoman]

I do not believe this is true of Egyptians. I believe all Egyptians of rank were circumsized as a ritual of right of passage into adulthood. This is not a significant difference anyway.

Makes sense that Moses thought to take a ritual practice from the Egyptian upper classmen and adopt his own rule of practice to be exacted on his newly won hoard. What better way to win the people then to create a sense of equality between the hiarchy of Egypt and the slavemen who won thier independance from the very same people. After all you need to build confidence in your future soldiers if you wish to fight and win your future land holdings and wealth. Basically create your own dynasty.

Now I know why so many were so eager to mutilate themselves.

Peace
SW