>An Israeli researcher is claiming in a study published this week the prophet may have been stoned when he set the Ten Commandments in stone.
>Writing in the Time and Mind journal of philosophy, he says concoctions based on the bark of the acacia tree, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, contain the same molecules as those found in plants from which the powerful Amazonian hallucinogenic brew ayahuasca is prepared.
>Moses was probably also on mind-altering drugs when he saw the "burning bush", suggested Shanon, who admitted to dabbling with such substances.
>Speaking of his own experience of ayahuasca during a religious ceremony in Brazil's Amazon forest in 1991, he said: "I experienced visions that had spiritual-religious connotations."
Acacia wood is often mentioned in reference to objects used in the construction of the tabernacle in the book of Exodus. Of greatest importance is its use in the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. Why acacia wood? Does it have any special significance? Yes!
The Israelis were tripping balls on the dmt in acacia. The storys in the bible are are obviously just what these people were experiencing from dmt trips.
Kind of this. Lots of people who make claims like this only do so because they love using drugs and want to make them seem important to history. Whether or not any of this stuff is true or not, it's usually dishonest and biased.
That being said, it's an interesting claim, with some evidence (Acacia was clearly seen as holy or tied to God in some way). I'd take it more seriously if the guy actually did acacia, though. From what I can tell, he's just being theoretical about the effects of acacia and is basically using his experiences with a different drug as a reference point.
I get kind of tired of these theories. It's probably true for a lot of stuff, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Drugs, mental illness, general misinterpretation of strange natural phenomena, whatever.
The worst I've heard is the "humans gained sapience from eating shrooms" theory.
>Kind of this. Lots of people who make claims like this only do so because they love using drugs and want to make them seem important to history
Or they've studied the numerous primitive cultures that have incorporated hallucinogenic substances into their religious rituals.Although there certainly could be some bias, many people who have used psychedelics have reported spiritual or divine experiences. John Hopkins university was recently conducting a study on this. I don't know when they plan on publishing the results.
After all, substances like magic mushrooms, peyote, and ayahuasca really only became known to westerners after they studied indigenous peoples.
>From what I can tell, he's just being theoretical about the effects of acacia and is basically using his experiences with a different drug as a reference point.
Acacia is loaded with DMT. Acacia root bark is often used by kitchen chemists for DMT extractions since it can be legally purchased in a lot of countries.
I would agree though. I'd like to see some proof that the bark alone (or mixed with some other readily available plants native to the area) could be used to get high.
>Or they've studied the numerous primitive cultures that have incorporated hallucinogenic substances into their religious rituals
I have no problem with the study of drugs and their role in culture, but most of the time, it's presented in a very biased way. Just look at the "Stoned Ape Theory." Basically, it's not done or presented the same way that other archaeological research (even phenomenological stuff) is, because the proponents of these ideas usually have an agenda of making drugs seem amazing or important to human development. And it's almost always presented without any kind of proof (like this guy, who has never done acacia and doesn't know what it's effects could be. I'm not saying that's the case all the time, but it's kind of a common trend, and it's annoying. It also gives this kind of a research a bad name. I would have no problem with a well-handled study of the possible effects of drugs on religious or cultural development.
>I'd like to see some proof that the bark alone (or mixed with some other readily available plants native to the area) could be used to get high.
That's basically what I meant. It's hard for me to take this guy's assertions seriously because he didn't actually use to drug he's talking about (and apparently no one has for a long time). Sure, there's DMT in it, but that doesn't mean whatever Moses is supposed to have been drinking would have done the same thing as ayahuasca.
most "miracles", visions are similar religions "facts" and dogmas are either side effects of psychotropic substances or plain made up bullshit
in my country for example, we have a sanctuary built to honor the memory of group vision by 3 young shepards - needless to say that during those times kids were usually drunk or near a druken state just to be able to withstand the harsh cold climate
but if people believe that it's ok since everyone needs heroes, magical feats and similar shit to be properly inspired and be happy, i guess..
Pleb: Great, this means I now have the freeway to leave behind my indoctrination with Mosaic morality, and descend into outright debauchery and abject solipsistic attitudes toward my fellow man.
That's what this "study" is intended to do, make degenerates feel even more justified in their rejection of traditional morality.
It's pure speculation.
>in my country for example, we have a sanctuary built to honor the memory of group vision by 3 young shepards - needless to say that during those times kids were usually drunk or near a druken state just to be able to withstand the harsh cold climate
How the fuck is Portugal a "harsh cold climate?"
believe me, if you're part of a miserable peasant family during the first part of the 20th century, portuguese winter's can be very harsh in several regions.
>That's basically what I meant. It's hard for me to take this guy's assertions seriously because he didn't actually use to drug he's talking about (and apparently no one has for a long time). Sure, there's DMT in it, but that doesn't mean whatever Moses is supposed to have been drinking would have done the same thing as ayahuasca
It's essentially no different than saying poppyseed muffins or nutmeg should be banned because they contain opiates and myristicin respectivley. You can't get high off of poppyseed muffins and ginger snaps since there isn't enough of the chemical in them to do shit and even then you probably aren't ingesting it the way you are supposed to to get high.
And speaking of which, why does the Bible saying "and God told Moses 'build a shiny box out of Acacea because it will contain your staff, some manna and the 10 Commandments as a sign of my Presense with you and the Covenant I made with you guys'" mean that Israel got stoned and imagined God? They aren't going to burn their Holiest Relic. Plus where does it even say "make incense out of Acacea?" It just said "make special box out of it." This is like saying if a particular Amish farm only used ropes made of hemp then that apparently means they get stoned a lot.
>you can't get high off poppyseed muffins
But you can get high off poppy seeds. Simply take 1lb of seeds (or half a pound if you have zero tolerance) and mix it into a small volume of water. Shake well for 5 mins and drink the liquid.
It's called poppy seed tea.
You must be ignorant and stupid if you think that is 'edgy'. The archaeological evidence is that Jews just emerged as a separate culture from the Canaanites.
The whole of Exodus is a creation myth.
>Moses was a Jew
Please don't do this, it quite literally triggers my autism.
>le prophets were on drugs meme
fuck this shit, I'm so sick of hearing about Vedic rituals on shrooms and the peyote roots of spirituality, it's all a bunch of wild conjecture
Whether you like it or not, drugs have played a key role in many religious ceremonies all over the world. I would of course like to see some real evidence rather than some "what-ifs" and "maybes" like the guy in OP's link is providing.
So what was he when the Jewish people were enslaved to Egypt after rubbing elbows for so long after one Jew became a big shot for dream interpreting and saving Egypt from famine and the Pharoah of the time said "kill every Jewboy under 2 so they don't get too numerous and overthrow me" and one Jew mom put her son in a basket, floated him down the Nile and had the boy show up on the Pharoah's doorstep which he assumed was Sobek giving him a gift for mass infanticide?
>Jacob’s first wife, Leah, bore him six sons: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. Each was the father of a tribe, though Levi’s descendants (among whom were Moses and Aaron), the priests and temple functionaries, were dispersed among the other tribes and received no tribal land of their own. Two other tribes, Gad and Asher, were named after sons born to Jacob and Zilpah, Leah’s maidservant. Two additional tribes, Dan and Naphtali, were named after sons of Jacob born of Bilhah, the maidservant of Rachel, Jacob’s second wife. Rachel bore Jacob two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin provided Israel with its first king, Saul, and was later assimilated into the tribe of Judah.
It looks like you need to delete the image from your computer and stop being so autistic.
>drugs have played a key role in many religious ceremonies all over the world
I don't think that's ever been debated. I'm all for studying these rituals and the influence of drugs on major religious traditions (which is remote given that most of them also forbid or discourage drug use).
I'm annoyed by the whole "Looming, at the VERY FOUNTAINHEAD of western Civilization, are tripping ancients!"
Do you know what a "creation myth" is? A creation myth does not have to include how the world came to be. Many tribes just have a creation myth about where their tribe in particular came from.
>implying Atheists don't pounce on Christians for the most inconsequential things
>implying atheists don't completely get the concept of God as seen by Christians wrong intentionally to try and discredit belief
>implying atheists aren't all edgy bitter pricks who instead of just not being religious and leaving it at feel it neccesary for the good of mankind to snuff out any reverence of the supernatural like the fucking Abbey of the Everyman
That's Genesis' duty dipshit.
Exodus was "here's a story about how awesome our God is and how He brought us out of slavery because He loves us and has more power than all other gods because of how he subverted and fucked over Egypt's pantheon with 9 plagues."
By the time of Exodus, Israel was a sizable people, enough to worry the Pharoah of insurrection through greater numbers.
>By the time of Exodus, Israel was a sizable people, enough to worry the Pharoah of insurrection through greater numbers.
I hate to break it to you but the stories in Exodus never happened.
There's hardly a scholarly consensus on the subject. After studying some of the literature in some detail I concluded it's hoary antiquity and frankly nobody knows, but the ancients didn't typically make things up out of thin air and there are chunks of extremely ancient Hebrew in Exodus that suggest it's a very old work with far-reaching roots.
It's perfectly possible the out-of-Egypt narrative has its roots in an actual Hebrew tribe that actually fled Egypt after working there as laborers.
>implying I'm coming from a basis of truth
I'm coming from a basis of mythology. Exodus is not a creation narrative. It's a pivotal cultural epic that plays a heavy role in the future of Israel as a distinct people.
>There's hardly a scholarly consensus on the subject.
There's the actual scholarly consensus on this subject, which is they literally never happened and either are based on complete fabrication or are based on events that compare no serious comparison to the events narrated in the bible. The second opinion is pure speculation and is more equivalent to the scholars that speculate whether the King Arthur legends were inaccurately inspired by an actual person, who's real life was almost completely different to the King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table of legend.
Then there is people who still just want to take the Old Testament literally, like you.
It would produce similar effects, since you'd be ingesting morphine and codeine. The other guy was saying that you won't get high off a poppy seed muffin due to the tiny amount of alkaloids present, so I pointed out that poppy seeds are used to get high even though they only yield minuscule amounts of opiates.
The guy in the OP is talking about DMT, which is hallucinogenic. I don't know if you could smoke raw acacia bark and trip balls.
Fuck off, idiot. Cline outlines 4 theories in "A very short introduction to biblical archaeology." Matthews says there's no consensus in "A brief history of the ancient Israelites." Mark Smith suggests in "The Memoirs of God" that the Sinai event must have happened to some extent in order for it to take such a remarkable prominence in the self-origin mythology of the Israelites.
Exodus chapter 15 is considered the most archaic grammatical instance of Hebrew perhaps in the entire OT (aside from the Song of Deborah).
There are Steles from the New Kingdom that describe nomads moving in and out of Egypt's borders, and references to tribes called Shasu who worship a god called Yahu. It's know that nomads occasionally were commissioned to do work for the Egyptians.
what is your problem, idiot?
>I don't know if you could smoke raw acacia bark and trip balls
DMT is active at a ug dose so it's possible I suppose
I believe it needs a high temperature to burn actively though so I dunno. Same with Salvia, although it has been proposed that ancient philosophers and soothsayers used to be all over Salvia
Consensus means consensus, fuck head.
Yeah, if you only read Minimalists (Grabbe or Lemche) then the whole Bible is a Hellenic Greek production and it's all hogwash.
If you read Dever or Finkelstein there's plenty of good archaeological finds (Tel Dan Stele, Mernepte Stele, Bronze age Hebraic temples, the inscription from Hezzekiah's tunnel) that verify a robust and ancient pre-722/586 community of proto-Jews characterized by Yahweh worship.
The point is there's a raging debate about these things, there's nothing like a consensus.
GTFO retard, the adults are talking. Smith is the foremost expert on Ugaritic, and the Ugaritic Baal Cycle is our main source for comparative theology of the Kingdom era Israelites and their predecessors. It's the reason we know El comes from a north-Levantine source and YHWH probably comes from Sinai or the south.
Biblical studies is multidisciplinary. It requires linguistic, archaeological, literary, social and historical experts.
And the archaeologists are no means in agreement on anything in the field either.
The consensus is how I laid it out.
Even the people claiming it could have had some historical basis are not claiming the events in Exodus actually happened. They are speculating, without evidence, usually based on their own religious beliefs, that something far more minor and almost completely different might have happened that could have been used as the "inspiration" behind the myths.
How long do you think it takes to cross a bit of desert, even if you got lost? You can walk around the Earth in that time.
Sir, please go. You don't know what you're talking about and you're making an idiot out of yourself. The realness (or unrealness) of miracles is a subject well outside of serious academic discourse on Ancient Israel.
The rest of us are interested in accounting for the Bible and how it came to be using several disciplines. I've nowhere mentioned the Red Sea. Naturally ones position on the possibility of miracles has to do with philosophical and religious perspectives. Incidentally I don't believe in them. But this is way, way outside the scope of what I've been arguing since >>556349
As someone who's done a bit of scholarly work and research in Biblical archaeology, I feel the need to point out that the field is pretty much divided between two types of researchers: people who take the Bible for granted, and people who rely more an the material record.
Basically, this is a issue stemming from Classics and Near Eastern studies in general, but a large number of researchers in the field aren't really archaeologists, and don't pay much attention to archaeological research (or if they do, treat it as conservatively as possible, or argue things like a story means an event must have happened - much like you referenced). These are mainly people from fields like Classics or Religious studies that have backgrounds in textual criticism, and maybe a little bit of experience doing field archaeology or studying Classical archaeology (which can be more focused on art history than archaeology). The people with strong backgrounds in archaeology usually rely on the material record more than anything, and don't give much credence to the Biblical narrative, as a result of the scientific training.
This has resulted in Biblical archaeology basically being split on everything. Depending on your leaning, you can find evidence to support whichever position you want to take.
I'm not familiar with everyone you listed, but Cline is a great example of someone who takes the Bible as historical fact. I've had to use some of his textbooks for classes, and he reconstructs a history of the Near East using the Bible (uncritically) as a source as much as government records. I see a huge problem with that, but he's fairly highly regarded among his classicist peers.
It's basically a matter of perspective, but according to the material record, the Exodus didn't happen.
Shame on you, you're a bunch of fucking kids and you don't read anything but you're sure you've got it all figured out. Shame on you and your Googling and Wikipedia-ing, and your stupid posturing and your pretending to be experts.
Could you at least read a fucking book on a topic before launching on your tirades?
>done a bit of scholarly work and research in Biblical archaeology
>doesn't know Finkelstein, Dever, Lemche, Smith or Grabbe
These are some of the most prominent names in the field. Two of them are archaeologists. You are a loser and you know nothing.
>Cline is a great example of someone who takes the Bible as historical fact
Quote from Cline "despite attempts by a number of biblical archaeologists- and an even number larger number of amateur enthusiasts- over many years, credible direct archaeological evidence of the Exodus has yet to be found. While it can be argued that such evidence would be difficult to find, since nomade generally do not leave behind permanent installations, archaeologist have discovered and excavated nomadic emplacements from other periods in the Sinai desert... [t]hus far there is no trace of the biblical "600,000 men on foot, besides children"..."
>Could you at least read a fucking book on a topic before launching on your tirades?
Still no material evidence of what would be the most enormous event in classical history.
All you have come up with is someone who is not an archaeologist who's argument is that it is in the bibble so it must be true.
Shame on you for not treating subjects like this with the independence they deserve.
>>done a bit of scholarly work and research in Biblical archaeology
>>doesn't know Finkelstein, Dever, Lemche, Smith or Grabbe
>These are some of the most prominent names in the field
I know Finkestein and Dever, the archaeologists. You hadn't mentioned them by the time I wrote that reply. You are aware the Finkelstein is one of the major proponents of the "the Bible is incredibly factually incorrect and can't be relied on for history) position, right?
And that quote from Cline is exactly what I was talking about. He's admits there's no material evidence, but still argues that it could have happened. That's also about as critical as I've seen him be.
Look, Johnny-come-lately, why don't you read the source of the controversy up here first? I suggested that a small nomadic group who formed part of the ancestry of the Israelites may indeed have come from Egypt and brought the Sinai myth (in some early form) with them.
There's absolutely nothing controversial about that. The evidence is week and circumstantial: so is everything to the contrary.
I started the conversation.
And there is pretty much no evidence for what you just said. It is speculation because some people still want to find plausible explanations for the "inspiration" behind the Moses myth.
That speculation in no way validates a literal reading of Exodus.
*bashes head repeatedly on table*
We have this thing called the Book of Exodus. We want to know "hey, where did this thing come from, who wrote it, why?"
What's your answer to that question, bud? Since you know the field a bit like me, you know that questions comes down to "who were the Israelites and where did they come from, and why do they have these myths and beliefs?"
>so is everything to the contrary
It really isn't, though. And that's not how archaeology works. It's not anyone job to prove a negative. The material evidence states that a migration from Egypt to the Levant didn't happen, and that Judaism sprang from native Canaanite religion (read some more Finkelstein if you don't believe me). So it looks like the Exodus didn't happen. Your alternative explanation has no evidence, not even Biblical, how would you back that up or prove that it happened? It's just conjecture.
And why are you so focused on insulting people who disagree with you? What makes you such an authority on this, besides reading a few introductory books written by mostly conservative scholars? I'm a grad student in an archaeological program, and did some Biblical research as part of a few undergrad projects (I also minored in religious studies so have some experience from that side as well). It wasn't really my prime area of focus (mostly because the uncritical nature of a lot of scholarship was annoying to me), but I do have some actual academic background it it. but mostly focused on archaeology. What gives you the authority to call people idiots about this stuff?
Speaking as a degenerate atheist, I'll note that I don't need to think alleged prophets are tripping balls to reject their morality or to descend into debauchery - though I doubt that I'll ever be able to match Solomon the Wise for sheer scale of debauchery.
Could be a plot to undermine traditional morality, but I've met hippies. This could just as easily be an attempt to paint the Bible as the product of innate human truths (which is true), then exploit the naturalistic fallacy to convince people that they should respect it. Or, much more likely (Did I mention I've met hippies?) a purely sincere attempt to say 'look I think that was inspired by drugs, isn't that cool?'
Having a book makes it about as valid as Lord of the Rings.
We have books about Zeus and Thor and Odin and Jupiter as well, y'know.
I genuinely understand it is the basis of your religious beliefs, but the basis of archaeological study should not be "this is right until proven wrong" and even on that basis, because the majortiy of archaeologists looking into this subject were certain that it would prove the bible right and were looking to prove the bible right, found out it proved the bible wrong.
Now all you have left is speculation that there may be some teeny, tiny, largely irrelevant fragment of "inspiration" behind the legend.
I'm sorry bud, but there you go.
How you got into graduate school is beyond me. I'm waiting for your reply to >>556509.
If you don't particularly care to play my game then that's fine. I was going to illustrate that once we pose this question, we go about using the best available evidence to try and assemble some answers. It is not enough to shrug ones shoulders and say, "Gee, I just don't know what happened, the evidence is all bad and everything's real complicated." The whole point of scholarship is to not do that.
So, I've tried to weave my web like everyone else. It is full of holes, based primarily on circumstantial evidence, and probably wrong on all kinds of levels. So is whatever you might advance, and so is the negative approach that "that particular theory is wrong" which remains a positive assertion requiring evidence all the same.
It's pretty damn clear the best available evidence doesn't show the most archaeologically reserched and top civilisation of its day didn't get catastrophically destoyed and have half its population leave.
Something that would leave overwhelming evidence.
>I genuinely understand it is the basis of your religious beliefs
I'm not religious and I haven't suggested anything to that end. But you should be absolutely embarrassed that you just tried to wield an argument about archaeology/history to advance a philosophical position.
My main concern with "rescuing" the Exodus narrative to some extent (for that is my concern) is hinged on the idea that the myth is far too complex and precise (and includes a snippet of extremely ancient Hebrew in Exodus 15) to be an instantaneous fabrication.
Incidentally I agree that the Joshua narrative is a total fabrication, but it's easy to see why someone would have created such a myth in the Kingdom period in order to propogandize military efforts. There is no such explanation for the Exodus myth.
I got into grad school because I can conduct actual scholarship, and not just assert unproveable explations for things based on personal belief while trying to insult people who disagree with me.
>I'm waiting for your reply
Again, I can't respond to something posted after I wrote (and in this case, posted) my reply. But here:
>where did this thing come from
Well, Judaism is pretty obviously a descendant of Canaanite religion. The Levant was under Egyptian control for some time, so maybe the narrative of slavery in Egypt comes from Egyptian control of Canaan. Because most of the Torah also seems to be the result of writings during the Babylonian exile, it's also somewhat reasonable to think that the narrative of foreign domination in a foreign land was intended to be a metaphor for the Jewish audiences in Babylon who hoped to gain independence and return to their homeland at some point. Or maybe it's a combination of those two; either way those explanations have always made the most sense to me, since there's evidence for them.
I agree with this and I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to make this claim. It's like you're arguing to someone who isn't hear-- a religious literalist who thinks Ramses II is somewhere in the Red Sea and that 600,000 Jews crossed the Sinai to meet the Word of God.
Did you not realize there are more subtle positions, and many of them, between "It's a big fraud" and "it's the literal actual historical truth" ? I would say the entire field of Biblical archaeology is wedged between these two extremes, and the tendency toward the former is an annoying hyper-skepticism informed more by atheism than study of the relevant materials. Take Lemche for example, pretending the Tel Dan Stele is a modern forgery (contra epigraphy) because it doesn't fit into their pre-ascertained worldview that the Bible is a Hellenic Jewish composition.
>I'm not religious and I haven't suggested anything to that end. But you should be absolutely embarrassed that you just tried to wield an argument about archaeology/history to advance a philosophical position.
This has nothing to do with a philosophical position. It has to do with the archaeological evidence not supporting claims that Exodus is actual historical fact.
>My main concern with "rescuing" the Exodus narrative to some extent (for that is my concern) is hinged on the idea that the myth is far too complex and precise (and includes a snippet of extremely ancient Hebrew in Exodus 15) to be an instantaneous fabrication.
Sorry I don't see any basis for this position. And the archaeological evidence is good enough to support it being a fabrication. If you or any one else was able to provide evidence of the "inspiration" behind the myth rather than specualating because you want to believe I would quite happily accept the evidence.
>Incidentally I agree that the Joshua narrative is a total fabrication, but it's easy to see why someone would have created such a myth in the Kingdom period in order to propogandize military efforts. There is no such explanation for the Exodus myth.
No one needs a basis to disprove myths, I'm pretty sure the story of Icarus isn't true. I can't disprove it as such.
The explanation you have is perfectly plausible. By my count you've given two reasons for why it could be the case. I can give you many more why it probably isn't and can give you way more than two for my position, if you would like.
You and I would never have gotten in a squabble if you hadn't taken the unnecessarily absolute position taken up in this post >>556349. The consensus is not what you described (the Babylon + Egyptians-brought-the-myth). Nor is it what I described. There is no consensus.
I made a simple statement: There's no consensus on the origins of the Exodus narrative. Then I offered an explanation I find plausible. You didn't do the scholarly thing and ask for my reasons. Would you like to do that now, young pseudo-scholar?
I've no idea if you are the person that I started this discussion with, but I had people posting Sonic the Hedgehog at me and calling me edgy for suggesting the literal Moses character from the bible did not exist and posting charts about Jews based in literal bible interpretation.
I have always been happy to go where the evidence leads and I have not ruled out at any point an "inspiration" behind the myth, although I have pointed put that is pure speculation.
At this stage I am also happy to say my position is that Exodus is pure myth until proven otherwise.
You don't seem to know how to argue (hint: you don't do it by saying "there's no basis for that" I don't even think basis is the word you're looking for). Man kids must really be getting lazy and stupid these days if you got into grad school. That's besides the point I guess.
Reasons for believing the Exodus narrative contains truthful elements:
1. Moses, Aaron and Phinehas are Egyptian names, not Hebrew names. Yet the folk etymologies presented for these in the text use Hebrew words to explain them, suggesting the Author did not recognize them as Egyptian names.
2. The Moses narrative contains mythological elements in common with stories found elsewhere in the Middle East, for example in the Sumerian text chronicling Sargon of Akkad. This suggests an organic development rather than an instantaneous fabrication.
3. There is a papyrus called the Anastasi VI which describes a group of "Shasu tribal people from Edom" who are allowed to cross the border as refugees (cf. the Joseph narrative) and work in Egypt for a time.
4. Matthews notes in "A Brief History of the Ancient Israelites" that "Egypt employed intinerant laborers to complete its many monumental and mundane construction projects."
Thus we have established that 1) groups migrated from the region of Israel/Cannan and into Egypt and were sometimes laborers there 2) the Exodus is compiled from sources which suggest an organic development out of a wider framework of ANE myths
In light of the lack of archaeological evidence for a presence of proto-Israelites in the Sinai, I think it plausible a small contingent of proto-Israelites were the initial bearers of what became the Exodus myth.
The view that it was composed in the Exilic period is undermined by the age of Exodus 15 (Miriam's song), dated to between 1200 and 600 BCE, is almost certainly pre-Exilic (Russell).
There are additional problems.
Tying drugs to religion would probably backfire, seeing as how western society has been slowly distancing itself from religion for a while now. If these guys prove that christianity has its roots in drugs, it definitely wouldn't be seen as a positive for most people.
You have an extremely un-nuanced and fedora-tier view of the word "myth." As far as I am concerned the word "pure myth" is meaningless.
We are not here to debate magical elements. We are here to make conjectures about why the myth exists.
>You and I would never have gotten in a squabble if you hadn't taken the unnecessarily absolute position taken up in this post >>556349.
That wasn't me, by the way.
And I wasn't really interested in your reasons. They seemed fairly obvious based on the people you cited, and this is a debate on 4chan, where I'm used to people making similar assertion based on similar basic understandings of fields. Also, I don't care very much about non-archaeological explanations for this stuff because I'm an archaeologist, and again, this isn't my primary area of focus.
Again, it's a 4chan debate, not academic discourse. I really don't care about putting effort into discussions with internet experts. At least I gave my credentials. You avoided providing yours, after I asked, and keep on responding with insults for some reason.
Fair enough, but this is speculation and in no way backs the claim that Moses, the biblical character, in any serious sense of the word ever existed.
I ahve said several times that the position of scholars is that they can come up with pure speculation that supports an "inspiration" behind the Moses myth, which is what you are postulating now. I'm happy to accept that.
Come back to me when you have something that backs this incredible level of disjointed speculation and I will happily accept it as something that is probable, at the moment you have not gone beyond possible but improbable.
You acting like you have the answers for something you don't and trying to belittling the people who disagree with you.
That's as far as it goes for me. You're not trying to have a serious debate about the Exodus, and I'm just trying to point that out.
it's weak and you know it, why are you still in here?
I really think you should leave and go do some reading, you're not going to get that PhD at this rate anon. I'm an undergrad and I just take religion classes for fun. I have a math degree. You should be able to wreck me left and right.
>I'm in grad school
>you have no evidence
top fucking kek
You haven't just moved the goalposts, you have moved them to my end of the pitch and are making the position I started with and declaring I prove it wrong and then posting "weeeakkkk".
You can pretty much throw every time unit out of the window when dealing with the Bible. This is also why YECs are absolute idiots for believing the universe was created in literal 6 days.
Ironic term of endeerment.
I am unable to decipher the intended meaning of the following non-native English: "and are making the position I started with and declaring I prove it wrong and then posting 'weeeakkkk.'"
This was my position >>556349
a) the bible acounts aren't literally true
b) the scholarly consensus is that the bible accounts aren't literally true, but there is a great deal of speculation that they may have some "inspiration" behind them that does not suggest they are literally true.
Everyone lurking in this thread can see you (or the anon's you talk the side of) have moved from claiming they are literally true to arguing against my own position.
Sorry mate, you're just asking me to argue against what I said in the first place.
I'm happy to argue with you, I'm not terribly enamoured of the propostion I should argue against myself, no matter how hard you squawk about it.
(a) the bible acounts aren't literally true
This sentence is so clumsy it's idiotic. What Bible accounts? What do you mean "literally true"? Do you think these (or "literally false") are appropriate terms to use in reference to ancient myths? What parts of what narratives?
So far your arguments seem to consist in saying "there's no archaeological evidence." I've discussed several relevant inscriptions and you haven't so much as commented on any of them (Merneptah Stele, Tel Dan, Hezekiah Tunnel inscription). Why haven't you said anything specific about anything?
And there's no fucking scholarly consensus (on the origins of the Exodus narrative), you can fuck right off about that one. There are in fact usually two chunks of thought on such topics (the Minimalists and the Maximalists/Literalists) with everything in between, and there are tons of theories on the origins of the Israelites (which is obviously tied up with ones ideas about the Exodus narrative).
>What Bible accounts?
Exodus, what did you think we were talking about?
>Merneptah Stele, Tel Dan, Hezekiah Tunnel
None of those even come even remotely close to backing a literal reading of Exodus, that is ludicrous.
Exodus is an enormous work. Supposing you mean "Exodus narrative" (and hence up to Ex 20 or so), what part of the "exodus narrative" are we talking about?
The part where Moses meets the priest of the Midianites? The plauges? The Red Sea crossing? The Song of the Sea? The part where God tells Moses to go to Sinai?
Have you even read Exodus?
>None of those even come remotely close to backing a literal reading of the Exodus
No, they "verify a robust and ancient pre-722/586 community of proto-Jews characterized by Yahweh worship" (>>556384). This undermines the idea that everything in the OT is a post-exilic fabrication. There was obviously something like Judaism pre-exilic, and characters like Moses and David don't get made up out of thin air. Moreover the Tel Dan Stele and Lemche's "it's a forgery" rebuttal illustrates the limitations of minimalist approaches.
I was referring, this entire time, to the plausibility of some aspect of the out of Egypt hypothesis being true, namely that a contingent of migrants could very well have lived in Egypt and returned to Israel with a seed of the myth.
> Reasons for believing the Exodus narrative contains truthful elements:
There is absolutely zero archaeological evidence to support any of the myths in the Old Testament, with the oldest extant reference being the Greek Septuagint from the 3rd century B.C. (at the earliest) and until 1948 A.D., Israel had been nothing more then an occasionally rebellious province of one of the surrounding (and historically proven) empires which controlled the territory.
What if many of the old testament's mythological components describe pre-Monotheistic worship in Canaan and the conflict between male high place asherah-husband gods and their opponents.
>There is absolutely zero archaeological evidence to support any of the myths in the Old Testament
Please be joking.
>Apparent tomb of Joseph at Avaris
Yeah, people claim that the Exodus had to happen 1250 BC or so, but new archaeological finds have led some, like Professor Rohl, to rethink the presently held conception of Egyptian chronology. One of these pieces of evidence is a place excavated in Avaris, a Middle Kingdom city of Semites. They found a house with twelve pillars and twelve tombs in the backyard (twelve being a significant number to Hebrews because of the twelve tribes of Jacob). One of these tombs is bigger than the rest and is in the pyramid style, consistent with that of a vizier from the period. Inside is a big statue of a northern Semite with red hair and white skin. The body is gone, which is inconsistent with grave robbers, but consistent with the Biblical narrative about the removal of Joseph's body from his tomb during the Exodus.
>Battle of Jericho excavation
They did some interesting archaeological digs at the site of Jericho, a Canaanite city destroyed by the Israelites. The walls had collapsed outward, consistent with the Biblical narrative. Inside the houses, they found pots nearly full of grain, inconsistent with a long siege, but consistent with the Biblical narrative. Along the wall, they found houses that were built into the wall that were not destroyed, consistent with the Biblical narrative.
>New Kingdom steele naming Israel as a sovereign nation
Not much to explain here, just a Rameses(?) era steele naming Israel as a country.
>Archaeological evidence from the first temple
We have many artifacts consistent with the writings about the first temple. So many that I shouldn't have to explain any single one.
If it were not the Bible, there would be enough correlation between the Biblical account and the archaeological record to name at least some parts of the Bible as historical documents. But its the Bible lel.
>Israel had been nothing more then an occasionally rebellious province
So native americans and such are people too and should be looked at in detail even though they were relatively powerless in history, but bibleland shouldn't because "muh fedora". Interesting.
None of that proves that the Bible is historically accurate. Yes, it's incorrect to state that nothing from the Old Testament can be found, but the material record can only confirm general things already recorded in other sources (Israel existing, temples existing, Jericho existing). In many cases, the material record actually contradicts the events as described in the Bible (the Exodus, the United Monarchy, the date/authorship of the Torah). The Bible can be seen as a historical document, but not a very factual one.
Oh, and the first thing you gave as an example is a pretty terrible example of the Bible being accurate. It only works if you mess with the chronology of the Bible a pretty serious amount, and even then, it's just all speculation. According to Google, Simcha Jacobovitch is the most prominent proponent of that interpretation of the site, which isn't really a good sign.
"The difference between a scholar and an average person is that a scholar is not afraid of complexity."
Since the 19th century and the promulgation of the Documentary Hypothesis (Wellhausen), the Torah and historical books are a compendium of text traditions, each with a unique history. Even the original classifications of Wellhausen (Yawhist, Deutoronimist, Priestly, Eloist) have undergone constant revision: the scholarship on this stuff is actually often very brilliant and interesting.
In any case, the work is complex. We cannot say "The Bible is historically accurate" any more than we can say "Homer is historically accurate." Neither the authors of the Bible nor Homer wrote like Herodotus, it is true, but the notion that it is some kind of brilliant forgery is absurd. There are scattered clues from Ancient Israel that suggest the origins of some of the strands in the Bible. Using archaeology and text-based scholarship, it is possible to reconstruct certain elements of these origins.
I don't know where people get this idea that "there is no archaeological evidence for the Bible" (the sentence indicates a rash refusal to take the multifarious authorship and content of the text seriously) .
The goal of Biblical scholarship is not to prove or disprove religion. It is to try and use the text and what we know from archaeology to reconstruct the story of the Bible using modern scholarship.
I agree with you but Vedic priests were actually definitely fucked up on soma
The irony is not lost on me that the one actual generally accepted historical usage of a drug that really gets you gone is now lost because we don't actually know wtf soma was.
>I would have no problem with a well-handed study of the effect of drugs on religion
Me either friend, or with this one
1 man can repopulate a village of 100 women to a village of 500 useful people in about 20 years.
1 woman can repopulate a village of 100 men to a village of 500 useful people in about 100 years, if you count her daughters and granddaughters.
Let's start making a list of good 4chan experiments never conceived before
The word you're looking for is etiological, not ethnological. These are a general class of myths regarding the origins of peoples, languages, places etc.
A myth regarding the creation of the world is called a cosmogonical myth (or a cosmogony).
I don't mind spiritual people experimenting with drugs, but when potheads like Joe Rogan begin pontificating about what transcendental mysteries they've been privy to from the bourne of mushroom trips, it makes me incredibly loathe to admit any discourse which touches the subject of entheogens.
>The word you're looking for is etiological, not ethnological.
Nope. I really meant ethnogenetic
ethnogenetic-Of or relating to ethnogenesis.
Ethnogenesis (from Greek ethnos ἔθνος, "group of people, nation", and genesis γένεσις, "beginning, coming into being"; plural ethnogeneses) is a process in which a group of people acquire an ethnicity, that is, a group identity that identifies them as an ethnic group. This can originate through a process of self-identification as well as come about as the result of outside identification.
Of course, ethnogenetical myths can be a subset of ethyology, but i meant those, specifically.
Using the word ethnogenetic in this context is like using the word cosmogonical in the context of physics (as opposed to cosmological).
In the study of mythology, we say a myth is etiological if it describes the origins of a people.
But this is 4chan so presumably you're always right, especially since you can ctrl+v Greek characters *woooo, I'm very impressed*.
>Using the word ethnogenetic in this context is like using the word cosmogonical in the context of physics (as opposed to cosmological).
Ok, i'm listening.
>In the study of mythology, we say a myth is etiological if it describes the origins of a people.
Ok, then. Ethiological myth it is.
>But this is 4chan so presumably you're always right, especially since you can ctrl+v Greek characters *woooo, I'm very impressed*.
And get you took it personally and got your panties in a twist.