Esther and Herodotus part two

At this point you may be wondering what an atheist is doing, trying to show how secular history and the book of Esther have many points of agreement. Do I believe the events in this story are literally true and historically accurate?   Not at all. However, I do think the book of Esther is one of the most clever pieces of historical fiction in the bible. The person writing this knew their subject well. They seem to be extremely familiar with the Persians and their customs. They are also familiar enough with the Hebrew language to make a fascinating variety of puns and other word games, and familiar enough with the canonical Hebrew history to borrow from it while doing their own world building. I think the author knew exactly what he was doing and had a lot of fun doing it. For these reasons, I find Esther one of the most fascinating books in the bible.

Time for some more historical context. Though Mordecai and Esther were considered Jews in exile. They were also third generation Persian Jews, born in Persia. They most likely would have never left the general area they were born and raised in. They might not have wanted to.They most likely would have absorbed a great deal of Persian culture. Before they were born, according to the bible,  up to 50,000 Jews had  returned to Israel with permission from Cyrus and Darius, Xerxes' grandfather and father. The "second temple" had been built by 516 BCE, probably also before Esther would have been born. The quotation marks are there because there is no clear evidence of the existence of the first temple, supposedly built by Solomon.

The bible depicts the return of the Jews to their home land as happening in four general waves. The third (458 BCE) and fourth (445 BCE) waves happened after the time period of the story of Esther. I would not be surprised if the author of Esther was among the third or fourth wave of immigrant Persian Jews, possibly leaving with Nehemiah, who was supposed to have been a royal cupbearer to the then current king of Persia, Artaxerxes, the son of king Xerxes of the book of Esther. All we really know is the author has a working knowledge of Persian culture and familiarity with the supposed history of the Jewish monarchy recorded in Samuel and Chronicles. He could also have been familiar with Herodotus's works, which would put the book closer to 400 BCE.

Herodotus was born about 486 BCE and wrote his Histories somewhere about 430 BCE, after he had traveled extensively. Strangely, or not, Herodotus does not mention the Jews/ Hebrews/ Israelites at all. In his Histories Volume II, book VII:89, Herotus does mention people from the region of Syria, including those who lived in Palestine. That would have included the area we know as Israel. It has long been my contention that the Israelites/ Jews  never were as major a name in the area as the bible makes them out to be. All that area was considered part of the first Persian empire for a while. In fact the Jews may never have been autonomously self governing again, if they ever were.

 Many of the people who immigrated to the Palestinian area from various parts of the empire may have ethnically originated from there, but they may not have been religiously united until after the generations of living elsewhere. This seems to be the case in the bible books of Ezra,  Nehemiah, and others. The people had to be told what they were to believe. Also, it is possible that a great deal of the Hebrew scriptures were compiled in an attempt to create a unified monotheistic cult of Yahweh that didn't actually exist pre-exile. There were Egyptian Jews with their own yahweh temple in Elephantine, as late as 411 BCE, who seem to have no knowledge of the torah or much of the claimed Jewish pre-exile history. They were also polytheistic.

It is taking me longer than usual to write these posts because of all the research and cross checking. Even so, it is quite possible some of my claims are erroneous. You are free to check anything that sound off to you.

Hebrews part fifteen

We are now at Hebrews 11:17. It's time to read more about Abraham's faith. Abraham's faith was so great that he offered his son Isaac as a sacrifice when god tested him. God was being a sadistic bastard. He had previously  told Abraham that the promise of numerous offspring would be fulfilled through Isaac. The Hebrews author claims Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because he "reasoned" that god could raise the dead. Baloney. The author of Hebrews is trying to use the old testament story to prove that belief in resurrection has always been part of Hebrew beliefs. There is actually no indication in most of the old testament that anyone of the ancient Abrahamic tradition believed in a resurrection of the dead. Sheol was the fate of every dead person. The author of Hebrews goes on to say that "figuratively speaking, he (Abraham) did receive Isaac back from the dead." Just so you know, figurative speech doesn't have any more substance than faith.

Next, the author says, that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob's and Esau's future. In other words, he said magical words at them that were supposed to have some mystical power over their lives. By faith, Jacob also "blessed" Joseph's sons. By faith, Joseph spoke of the exodus from egypt and what he wanted done with his bones. Joseph did speak of the Israelites leaving Egypt, going to the promised land, and taking his bones with them, in Genesis 50,  but there were no other specifics. We are not going to go into the fact that none of the stuff we are reading about actually happened. So, it doesn't matter what these supposed patriarchs supposedly said or did and why they did it. It's the same as if we would take the Iliad and the Odyssey seriously.

The author goes on to say, "by faith Moses's parents hid him for three months after he was born because they saw that he was no ordinary child, and they were afraid of the king's edict." Any parent worth being called a parent would try to do anything they could to save their child from death. Faith has nothing to do with it.

 We are also told that "by faith, Moses refused to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of god rather than enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time." Again, this never actually happened, but let's look at what Exodus says. Did Moses refuse to be called the son of Pharoah's daughter? Nope, can't find that. Did Moses choose to be mistreated along with the people of god? Nope, can't find that either. In fact, Exodus 2:11 says Moses went out and watched his people doing hard labor.

In Hebrews 11:26, the author says, Moses "regarded disgrace for the sake of christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt because he was looking ahead to his reward." This is blatant nonsense. Go back and read Exodus 2. Moses killed a man and became a fugitive, eventually going incognito as a shepherd. He had no eternal reward in mind only saving his own skin. Moses had no christ in mind.

Next, the author says, "By faith (Moses) left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger, because he saw him who is invisible." At least that part is true to the Exodus story. The reader is also told,"By faith (Moses) kept the passover and the sprinkling of the blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel." That also happened in the story. Plus, Moses never pleaded on behalf of all the innocent children that would die that night. Nice guy.

Some more things that supposedly happened by faith: the people walked through the Red Sea on dry land, the walls of Jericho fell, Rahab welcomed spies and was not killed. These are all stories that most likely never happened, so faith had nothing to do with them. Besides, if faith was a factor, it wasn't faith in Jesus or a resurrection, was it?

Till next time.

Shepherds part 7

We are on paragraph seven of Randy Alcorn's article Shepherd's Status. Here he states, "Egyptians considered sheep worthless for food and sacrifice. Egyptian art forms and historical records portray shepherds negatively. Neighboring Arabs—their enemy—were shepherds, and Egyptian hatred climaxed when shepherd kings seized Lower Egypt."  As usual, he gives no sources.

 I did a Google search of "shepherds in Egyptian art" and saw a few depictions of actual Egyptian shepherds. I saw no negative depictions of shepherds. I did a search of "sheep in egyptian art" and hit a jackpot, including a photo of a ram mummy. The caption under the photo explains the role of sheep in ancient egypt. There are multiple paintings and relief carvings depicting sheep in agricultural settings. I also found that there was a ram headed god named Khnum. There are also sheep headed sphinxes. The shepherd's crook was an Egyptian symbol of kingly authority and is found in many depictions of pharoahs. I can find no negative depictions of shepherds.

Jewish historians in the article "Sacrificing a Lamb in Egypt" suggest that the Egyptians held sheep sacred to the god Khnum. Therefore, they might have not have been happy with the Israelite's practice of sacrificing rams. The article seems biased in favor of the historicity of Moses and the Exodus but it brings up some interesting points. 

The Wikipedia article on "Ancient Egyptian Cuisine" includes mutton as a meat food for Egyptians. It give the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt as a source. Unfortunately, you have to pay to access the encyclopedia online. Other articles say the Egyptians ate mutton, but I couldn't find some that provide sources. 

Here are some more articles of interest:
Ancient Egyptian Bestiary:Sheep
The Sheep in Ancient Egypt (Sources not given, but some interesting pictures)

About the shepherd kings that Mr. alcorn refers to, they were the Hyksos, referred to as shepherd kings by Josephus. Josephus associated them with the Israelites and the Exodus. If you read the article thoroughly, you can see that the origin of the Hyksos and their occupation of parts of Egypt are somewhat shrouded in mystery. The term "shepherd kings" comes from Josephus and was a mistranslation on his part. The actual meaning of hyksos appears to have been "foreign kings." There doesn't seem to be any other reason to identify them as shepherds. 


Mr. Alcorn's statement above appears to fall apart when we take closer look at actual Egyptian Art and history. He has taken the Biblical account of Genesis as fact, without doing the research to see if it lines up with what can be known through historical evidence.

To be continued.

Shepherds part 6

Let's take another look at the article Shepherd's Status. We have seen that Mr. Alcorn offers no evidence for his statement, in paragraph four that shepherds were on the bottom of the Palestinian social ladder in the first century.

Paragraph five goes on to show that Genesis and Exodus imply shepherding is a noble occupation because many of the so called patriarchs were shepherds. I would add Abel, Abraham, And Moses to the list of notable Bible shepherds.

Paragraph six says that the Egyptians despised shepherds because they were agriculturalists. Mr. Alcorn gives no resource for that information. It is true that in Genesis 43 we are told the Egyptians would not eat with the Hebrew because it was detestable for them, but it does not say that it was because they were Shepherds. In chapter 46, we are told that shepherds were detestable to the Egyptians but it doesn't say why. Nevertheless, in chapter 47, Paroah allow the Hebrews to settle in the land of Goshen and tells Joseph that some of them can take care of the Pharoah's own livestock. Here is proof that the Egyptians of the Bible were not solely agriculturalists. Perhaps Philo was correct in saying that it was the rich ruling class of Egyptians that considered shepherds beneath them in social value.

Here is a very interesting article, "Shepherds and Eating with Hebrews: An Abomination to the Egyptians?" Its authors are Jewish and have expertise in Jewish and Egyptian history. They explain that the kind of purity of the table mentioned in Gen. 43 did not happen until later in Egypt's history than when Joseph would have been alive, if he lived. The authors then describe what form these purity rules took.

Mr. Alcorn also implies that a historical enmity between shepherds and farmers goes back to Cain's murder of Abel. I am not disputing that there have been grievances between farmers, or land owners, and shepherds. We will encounter that prejudice in other forms as we continue. However, I would like us to remember that the Cain and Abel story is mythology. Plus, the historicity of the Genesis account is dubious at best, and was written hundreds of years after the supposed events, probably by Israelite religious leaders. Could those religious leaders have had a reason for portraying Egyptians as despising shepherds, the main occupation of the Israelites' legendary patriarchcal leaders? Could the story of Cain the farmer murdering Abel the shepherd have been symbolic of how the Israelites, who saw themselves as historically nomadic shepherding people, felt about those who were farmers and land owners. In other words, a classic case of projection. We do have only one side of the story in the bible. It has often been assumed the biblical account  is the right/true side and the only side that matters. Life is more complicated than that.

To be continued.

Shepherds part 5

We continue looking at Philo's philosophical discussion of shepherds. We are in section XIV where Philo has just finished telling us something about the character of prosperous Egyptians. Then he goes on to say that people may ask those who claim to be of the shepherding mindset why they would live in Egypt, "the country of the body and the passions."The answer is that they are just sojourners, not inhabitants, because "the soul of every wise man has heaven for its home." According to Philo, wisdom is the true home of the soul, this body is just a place to hang out for a while. Philo appears to be a mind-body dualist.

Pause.

I am not a cursing person, but if I was ever tempted to curse it would be after hearing one of these "this world is not my home" statements. Folks, this world is darn well every person's home. It's the only home we have, and the only home we or our descendants will ever have, if we don't destroy it first. Learn to accept it. Find a way to love the only life you have.

Unpause.

Philo ends this extended metaphor by comparing shepherds, those who rule the flock of their soul well, with kings. He compares keepers of sheep, those who are sluggish and indulgent, with bakers,  who supply the means of gluttony to those who wish to gorge themselves.

After that, Philo continues his philosophising with another metaphor about true horsemen and mere riders. I point this out to remind us that Philo's intent in all these metaphors is to extrapolate a spiritual message, not to explore the actual sociological function of shepherds. Nevertheless, we are given glimpses of the standing of shepherds in Egyptian society.

Note that we are not talking about first century Israelite society, which has a distinctly different culture. The original argument was that shepherds were despised, lowly, and unclean in that culture. We certainly do see disdain for sheep tenders by rich Egyptians. I would guess that Egyptians did not make Philo's philosophical distinction between sheep tenders and shepherds. The book of Genesis, chapters 46 and 47, is where Philo decides a distintinction is made between those who tend livestock and shepherds. In 46:2 Joseph says, "the men are shepherds, they tend livestock," making no distinction between the two occupations. It is all in Philo's philosophy. However, the distinction of shepherd and sheep keeper is an interesting one, and before we are done we will encounter it again in a different manner.

Shepherds part 4

If you are still hanging around I appreciate it. Life has to be navigated when the unexpected happens. Sometimes even the expected requires more resources than previously imagined.

Let's continue looking at Philo's shepherding metaphors in his writing On Husbandry. I was last in section XI, which ends with  "but what is really desirable is, that our mind should govern all our conduct, like a goatherd, or a cowherd, or a shepherd, or, in short, like any herdsman of any kind; choosing in preference to what is pleasant that which is for the advantage both of himself and of his flock." We have seen that the mind is either a keeper of sheep, pleasure seeking and indulgent, or a true shepherd, diligently controlling the various parts of the body or the flock.

Philo goes on to say, in section XII, that being a (metaphorical) shepherd is a good thing. This is evidenced by Psalm 23, which says "The Lord is my shepherd..." God governs his flock of people and the elements according to law and justice. According to Philo, It is impossible for god to be anything else but a good shepherd, doing what is necessary for the entire world.

In section XIII, Philo goes on to say that a soul governed by god has no need of other things. He seeks after the knowledge of a shepherd and laughs at being a mere keeper of sheep. Then he tells us that Joseph told the Israelites to tell the Pharoah that they were keepers of cattle. (Sheep and other herded animals were all considered cattle.) However, the Israelites, when asked their occupation by Pharaoh, replied that they were shepherds. Philo seems to think this was a deliberate distinction and that the Israelites were allying themselves with their god.

In section XIV, Philo tells us that the Israelites' boast of being shepherds is equivalent to a king boasting of his power and dominion. "Yet, if the discussion had been merely about the care of goats or sheep, perhaps they would have been ashamed to make such an admission through desire to avoid dishonour; for such occupations are accounted inglorious and mean among those who are loaded with great prosperity, without being at the same time endowed with prudence, and especially among kings." Aha! Here we have finally come across a true cultural statement about people who take care of cattle for a living. Philo tells us that rich people who are not endowed with prudence consider the occupation of tending sheep to be "inglorious" (defined: shameful, disgraceful, dishonorable) and "mean" (defined:inferior, poor, lowly). So, in a way, Philo does intimate that shepherds (actual, not metaphorical ones) were despised and thought lowly, by the rich.  Considering Philo's phraseology here, it seems that he may not be of that opinion himself. 

Further more we must remember Philo is living in Alexandria, Egypt. He is speaking of first century Egyptian opinion of the occupation of shepherd, not first century Israelite opinion. He makes this clear when he says, "And the Egyptian character is by nature most especially haughty and boastful whenever so slight a breeze of prosperity does merely blow upon it, so that men of that nation look upon the pursuits of life and objects of ambition of ordinary men, as subjects for laughter and downright ridicule." 

To be continued.

Deuteronomy 29

After reading chapter 29:

*  Moses calls all the Israelite people together on behalf of Yahweh to make a covenant with them in Moab. It is in addition to the one made in Horeb after they left Egypt. First he tells them that with their own eyes they saw the events of the exodus from Egypt, even though this was not true. All those who were adults when the Israelites left Egypt were now dead. (Numbers 14:26-35, 26:64-65)The Israelites had wandered in the desert for Forty years but their clothes and sandals miraculously did not wear out. Supposedly, they had also eaten no bread and had drunk no fermented drink during that whole time, even though the laws given in Exodus and Leviticus include bread and drink sacrifices. Next he tells how the Israelites conquered land on the east side of the Jordan and gave it to the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half tribe of Mannasseh, as their  part in the Israelite "inheritance."

*Moses then tells the Israelites that all the people standing there that day, including the women, children, servants, and foreigners are entering into a covenant with Yahweh. (Apparently consent didn't matter.) This is an extension of the covenant Yahweh made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. There must not be a hint of the worship of other gods. Also, just because they recieve a blessing from being present at this covenant ceremony, they shouldn't assume that they can't be thoroughly cursed some day, if they insist on doing things their own way. And what a mighty cursing it will be. When people ask,"Why is Yahweh so angry?" The answer will be,"Because these people abandoned the covenant." Verse  28 is interesting: In furious anger and in great wrath Yahweh uprooted them from their land and thrust them into another land, as it is now. As it is now? The study bible says that is just what the people would say in the future, IF the curses actually happened. It just as easily could mean that the authors wrote the book of Deuteronomy while in exile, which would have been hundreds of years after the events recorded therein.

*Then comes a statement that secret things belong to Yahweh, but revealed things belong to the Israelites and their descendants forever. (Or until someone claims that a new covenant has come.)

The Nativity part 2- the setting

Question: When did the birth of Jesus take place?

Answer: It depends which story you are reading. Matthew says " during the time of King Herod." This Herod died approximately 4 B.C.E., so Jesus must have been born before then. According to the text, the baby could have been as much as two years old by the time Herod found out about him. ( chapter 2:16) This would mean Jesus could have been born around 6 B.C.E. Or even a year or two earlier. The text says Joseph and Mary took the child to Egypt and stayed there till Herod died. (2:14) We are not told how long that was.

The book of Luke starts off with the pregnancy of Mary's cousin Elizabeth,"In the time of King Herod." ( chapter 1:5) Six months later, Mary is pregnant with Jesus. (1:26). So far, so good. However, when we get to Jesus's birth, we are told it was when " Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census be taken of the entire Roman world. This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." (2:1-3)

A problem arises because the historical records clearly show that Quirinius was not governor of Syria till 6 C.E., which is also when he began the census of the province of Judea. There was no Census of the entire Roman world at that time. Augustus taxed the citizens of Rome and the provinces in different ways. This would place Jesus's birth a decade after the death of Herod, who was supposedly alive when Jesus was conceived. Matthew's story does not mention Quirinius or a census.

Question: Where does the birth story take place?

Answer: Matthew's tale begins with the birth in Bethlehem of Judea, supposedly to fulfill Micah 5:2., which is a cryptic prophecy of a future ruler of Israel, similar to David. Then Jesus is taken to Egypt, supposedly to fulfill " Out of Egypt I have called my son." (Hosea 11:1) which is is merely a reference to the Exodus. After that, Jesus's family supposedly settles in Nazareth of Galilee to fulfill "he will be called a Nazarene," which is not an Old Testament prophecy at all. Plus, there is some question about whether a person living in Nazareth was called a Nazarene.  Matthew does not mention travel to Bethlehem from Galilee with or without a 9 months pregnant Mary on a donkey. There is no mention of registering for a census, a barn or stable, or a trip to Jerusalem to be consecrated.

Luke's story begins with Mary being visited by Gabriel in Nazareth of Galilee. Mary then goes to a town in the hill country of  Judea, where her cousin Elizabeth lived. Interestingly, Bethlehem was a town in the hill country of Judea. Mary stays three months, then returns home. Then Joseph also goes from Nazareth to Judea to register for the census with Mary, supposedly because he was from the house of David, but the Romans would not have cared who his jewish ancestors were. After Jesus's birth he was put to bed in a manger, but the text does not say he was born in a barn or stable. At least forty days after his birth, when Mary was ceremonially clean, Jesus was taken to the temple in Jerusalem to be consecrated to the lord. After that Joseph and Mary returned to Nazareth in Galilee. No mention is made of any side trip to Egypt or any prophecies.

Edited.

Wrapping up Exodus

*In this book, we find no information about Satan, demons, heaven, hell, or an afterlife. People still lived an unusual length of time, into their 130's. Rewards and punishments are earthly. Death and excommunication are common forms of punishment.

* Angels rarely appear. Sometimes they are called Angels of the lord and speak to Moses. One was around the burning bush. One is called the destroyer, and kills the Egyptian first born. The one that will go ahead of the Israelites and pester the people in the promised land is called God's  terror and the hornet.  Angels no longer appear in human like bodies.

*There is no concrete extra- biblical evidence for any of the events or main characters. The Pharoahs of Exodus are not named and it is impossible to know who they might have been. The archaeology of the relevant time periods give no indication of any event similar to the exodus. There is no evidence of a series of plagues or the sudden departure of over a million people. There is no evidence that Moses ever existed. There is no physical evidence that over a million people and their flocks, wandered around in the desert at that time. If nothing else, there should be numerous piles of quail bones.

*The events surrounding the Exodus would have caused a major economic collapse for the Egyptians. There is no evidence of such a collapse. Over a million people (The population of Austin, Texas.) living, camping, and traveling together in the desert is a practical impossibility.

*The book speaks of Moses and the events in Exodus in third person,  and displays knowledge of events beyond the lifetime of Moses. It can not have been written by Moses. If it was, it would not have been written in Hebrew. Archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites originated in Canaan and did not spend any significant time in Egypt. Also, the book does not claim to be the word of God.

*The Israelites are said to be hungry and are given manna from heaven, yet they have animals enough for a significant number of sacrifices. They also have flour for unleavened bread.

*The tabernacle and religious paraphernalia is very similar to those things used by other ancient religions. The verses claimed to be the Ten Commandments do not appear to be anything like the traditional commandments we have come to know. Three yearly feasts and the observance of the Sabbath have been instituted and an elite priesthood has been established.

Note: I  thank you if you have been reading along. Please feel free to share this site with others you think might be interested. Next up- Leviticus. That promises to be interesting. As with Genesis and Exodus, I will try to read it as though I am encountering it with fresh eyes. We will keep looking  at how it measures up to reality.

Edited to add an interesting video that I've watched recently: Matt Dilihunty in Atheist Debates- Patterns of Evidence: Exodus. 

The God of Exodus

Now that we are finished with Exodus, let's look at how God was portrayed in that book.

*God (Yahweh) speaks only to Moses, most of the time, but everyone else is expected to believe him. The Egyptians and the Israelites do not appear to have heard of Yahweh before. It is explained that he is the same God Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped, but they called him God almighty. It seems that Yahweh had not appeared to anyone else for over 400 years. He considers the Israelites his " first born."

* God says his name is "I am" but the Hebrew Scriptures, including Exodus,  call him Yahweh, which supposedly  means " he is."

*God talks from a burning bush that is not burnt up, on a mountain that belongs to him.  He tries to kill Moses for an unknown reason, but stops when Zipporah touches Moses with their son's foreskin. He sends plagues and hardens Pharoah's heart. He puts power in Moses's staff.

*He travels in a pillar of cloud and fire, and looks down from it. He does not concern himself with any other people besides the Israelites. In fact, he favors them to the extent of promising to drive people groups out of their homelands so the Israelites can take over. He still expects animal sacrifices, and still likes the smell of burnt offerings. He expects people to wave some offerings in front of him.

*God is personally responsible for the deaths of all the first born males in Egypt, plus their livestock. He is also responsible for the deaths of over six hundred Egyptian soldiers.

*Chapter 15 says Yahweh is a warrior. He says he is a jealous God. All other gods must not be worshipped, but he does not say they don't exist. He expects obedience, or death is likely to ensue. He gets angry with the Israelites but Moses is able to talk him out of destroying them.

*God says he is compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love, but he will punish children for the sins of the fathers down to the third and fourth generation.

*In various places, God is said to have a hand, a finger, feet, a back, and a face. They seem to be literal in context. He also has something called "glory" which people can not look at. He can speak, hear and smell, but does not seem to do any walking, eating, or other physical activity. He also carves stone with his finger.  Conversing with him makes Moses glow.

*He gives elaborate instructions for the construction of religious items to be used in his service.

Exodus chapter 14

After reading chapter 14:

*Then Yahweh told Moses to tell the Israelites to turn back and camp in another spot, this was to fake out Pharoah and make him think they don't know what they are doing. Yahweh was doing this to prove himself to the Egyptians. When Pharoah was told that the Israelites had fled, he changed his mind because he realized he had lost all that slave labor. He took an army of six hundred chariots, plus chariots with officers, and chased after the million-plus Israelites.

*The Israelites were terrified and accused Moses of bringing them out of Egypt to die. They had told him they would rather stay in Egypt and serve the Pharoah. Moses told them not to be afraid because God would fight for them. Yahweh asked what Moses was fussing about and ordered him to raise his magic staff and part the waters of the sea, so they could cross on dry ground. God would make the Egyptians follow and teach them a lesson they would never forget.

*The pillar of cloud they had been following then moved from in front of them to behind them and came between the Israelites and the Egyptians, obscuring the Egyptian's view. So, they did not get any nearer during the night. Moses stretched out his hand and a strong east wind drove back the waters and dried the land. This is the same direction the wind that brought the locusts came from. All million- plus Israelites crossed through the sea between walls of water. The Egyptians followed them into the sea. Just before dawn, Yahweh looked down on the Egyptians from the pillar of fire and cloud. (Aha!) He threw them into confusion by making the wheels fall off their chariots. After that, the Egyptians were eager to get out of there.

*Yahweh told Moses to stretch out his hand and at daybreak the water went back to its usual place. The entire Egyptian army was annihilated. In the meantime, over a million people had crossed over on dry land. When the Israelites saw the dead Egyptians on the shore  they trusted Yahweh, with Moses as his servant. There is no reason to believe this ever happened.

How much is a million? (Video)

To put it in perspective, San Jose, California, and Austin, Texas, have populations of about one million. A million people is more  than just  a mob. Imagine one person herding that many people who didn't want to be herded, not to mention women and children on foot, plus herds of animals. The logistics are mind boggling, and frankly unbelievable. Think about what it is like trying to get to the parking lot after a large concert or football game, multiply that by a factor of 100, throw in herds of sheep and goats.

Last edited 9/12/15

Exodus chapter 13

After reading chapter 13:

*The first part of the chapter looks into the future and introduces us to the first Israelite rules. They begin with instructions for the seven day feast of unleavened bread, again. This must be observed at the proper time, year after year. Next, the Israelites are told that all first born males of people and animals belong to Yahweh. Make no mistake, this represents a physical sacrifice (slaughter). However, a lamb may be sacrificed in place of a donkey. If a firstborn male donkey is not redeemed by a lamb, it's neck must be broken. Lovely. First born sons are not to be sacrificed but also redeemed by the blood of a lamb. Part of the ritual is answering children's questions about those practices in the proscribed manner.

*When the Israelites left Egypt they did not take the quick route to Canaan because of the possibility of war. Instead, God led them around by the desert road. They were armed for battle any way. The bones of Joseph were taken with them to fulfill his dying request. One wonders what the point of that was. Could it be the Israelites and Joseph believed that wherever Joseph's bones were, he was?

*All of the million-plus people camped at the edge of the desert. They were guided by Yahweh in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night, so they could see in the dark. It did not leave them.

NOTE: I am in the habit of going back to previous posts to edit for grammar, spelling, and fact checking. From now on, I will include the last date of editing at the bottom of each post.

Exodus chapter 12 part 2

*It was still night when Pharoah summoned Moses and Aaron and told them to take the Israelites and all their possessions and get out of Egypt. He wanted a blessing too! The Egyptians hurried them along and gave them whatever they asked for on their way out. The text says it was because they were "favorably disposed" toward the people. Yeah, right. It also says the Israelites plundered Egypt.

*There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, not including women and children. That would be at least a million people. Verse 38 says there were others as well. The study bible speculates that some Egyptians went with them. I think, if it happened, it would probably have been their personal servants (slaves). However, there is absolutely no evidence that such an event ever happened. If you combine the plagues with the absence of over a million people, there should be evidence of a large scale economic collapse around that time.

*We are told that the Israelites left Egypt exactly 430 years from the day they entered. As I mentioned in the article in Exodus chapter 1, it would have been approximately 1337 B.C.E., if we begin counting from Bishop Ussher's date of 4,004 B.C.E. The Pharoahs who lived in and around this supposed time period are all accounted for in archaeological evidence.  The Israelites in Egypt  are not.

*Before the end of the chapter, the story of the Exodus is interrupted by more instructions about how to properly observe the Passover in the future. No foreigners, temporary residents, or hired workers may eat it. Slaves can, if they are circumcised. Any male non-Israelites wanting to celebrate the Passover must be circumcised. The Passover has to be eaten inside a house and no bones may be broken. These are strange instructions for a group of people who are themselves foreigners and temporary residents at the moment. They also no longer have houses. 

Exodus chapter 12 part 1

After reading Exodus chapter 12:

*Moses has just left Pharoah after telling him that at midnight every firstborn son would die. In the first part of chapter 12, Yahweh gives Moses instructions on how to annually commemorate the "Passover" which hasn't happened yet. The instructions are given as though it has already occurred.

*The month of these events is to be the first month of the Israelite year from now on. On the tenth day of the month, a young, unblemished, male goat or sheep is to be selected and saved to be slaughtered on the fourteen day of that month. The blood of the lamb is to be painted on the door frames of the houses in which the lamb is eaten. The meat is to be roasted over a fire and eaten with bitter herbs and unleavened bread. Every bit is to be consumed or burnt. It is to be eaten in a hurry in traveling clothes.

*Verses 12-13 are written as though Passover hasn't happened yet. That night God will kill all the firstborn Egyptians and animals. (Even though the animals have already been killed in previous chapters) God will pass over the houses with blood on the door frames. The people inside them will not be harmed. Yahweh will bring judgement on the gods of Egypt. Does he say the gods of Egypt don't exist and he is the only God? Nope.

 *With verse 14 we are back to how these events will be commemorated in the future as a lasting ordinance. For seven days they will eat unleavened bread. Yeast is to be removed from the house on the first day and anyone who eats yeast from the first to the seventh days is to be cut off from Israel. (Harsh. I wonder if that sentence has ever been carried out.) There will be a sacred assembly on the first and seventh days. In between that, no work will be done, except for food preparation. This is called the feast of unleavened bread and commemorates God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, even though it hasn't happened yet. Verses 18-20 are a repetion of the previous instructions with slightly different wording.

*In verse 21, Moses repeats god's instructions about the lamb and the blood to the Israelites. He tells them to make sure they stay indoors and God will not let the destroyer get them. Sounds like a child's worst nightmare. We are not told who or what the destroyer is. Moses tells the Israelites to make sure they keep this ceremony and explain it to their children when they get to the land he promised them. Then the people bowed down and worshipped. They did what Moses said. At midnight all the firstborn of Egypt from the throne to the prison, plus the non-existent livestock, were killed by Yahweh. There was loud wailing in Egypt. No kidding. I wonder if the Egyptians were still favorably disposed to the Israelites after that.

*After reading the bible this far, one might get the idea that God doesn't like firstborn males very much. Oddly enough, Pharoah himself should have been a firstborn son, but he didn't die. Maybe he got off on a technicality.

Exodus chapter 11

After reading chapter 11:

* Yahweh tells Moses there will be one more plague and it will make Pharoah drive the Israelites out of Egypt. When they go, they are to ask their neighbors, who are presumably Egyptians, for their silver and gold. Apparently most of the Egyptians liked Moses and the Israelites, except for Pharoah. What??? This makes no sense, considering that Moses is responsible for calling on God to bring plagues upon the land. The Egyptian people supposedly no longer have any livestock or produce. They have endured boils, insect bites, putrid water, and three days of darkness. Yet, they are so "favorably disposed" to the Israelites they would be willing to give them riches? Does this sound like reality to you?

*Apparently, before Moses left Pharoah in chapter 10, he told Pharoah that Yahweh said he would kill every first born son in Egypt, including Pharoah's son. He would kill all the first born cattle too. (What cattle?! See chapter 9.) Nothing would happen to the Israelites because God can tell the difference between an Israelite and an Egyptian. (DNA?) Moses predicted that Pharoah's officials would come to him and beg the Israelites to leave. But God hardened Pharoah's heart and he would not let the Israelites leave.

Exodus chapter 10

After reading chapter 10:

*God tells Moses he has hardened Pharoah's heart so that some day the Israelites will have exciting stories to tell their grandchildren. Then Moses and Aaron go threaten Pharoah with locusts like he had never seen before. Pharoah's officials advise him to let the Israelites go, Egypt is already ruined because of them.

*Pharoah tells Moses and Aaron they can go worship their God. Then he asks, "By the way, who is going with you?" Moses says that all the Israelites and their livestock are going to celebrate a festival to Yahweh. Pharoah thinks they are up to no good and says only the men can go. Then Moses and Aaron are kicked out. Moses stretches out his magic hand and God made an east wind bring in hordes of locusts. They covered everything. They ate everything that had been left after the hail. Even  though the hail had supposedly stripped all the leaves from the trees, this time they were really really destroyed. Pharoah called Moses and Aaron back and asked them to pray for the locusts to go away. They did, and God sent a west wind to blow all the locusts into the Red Sea. Pharoah still would not let Moses and his people go.

*God tells Moses to stretch out his hand toward the sky and a darkness that can be felt will cover Egypt. The darkness was so thick that none of the Egyptians could see anyone else for three days. The Israelites, however, had light where they lived. Then Pharoah told them they could all go to worship Yahweh, but they had to leave the animals behind. Moses said all the animals must go because they had no idea what God would want for a sacrifice once they got to the desert. (Excuses, excuses.) Pharoah wasn't willing to let all those people and animals go. Pharoah told Moses to go away from his sight  and never come back or he would be killed. Moses said, "As you wish."

* I notice that in the last few chapters Moses is no longer using his staff, but his hand. He also appears to be relying on Aaron less. I wonder where Moses was staying during this time. Did he travel back and forth constantly between Goshen and the capital city where the Pharoah lived? Or did he camp out in front of the palace?

Last edited 9/12/15

Exodus chapter 9

After reading chapter 9:

 *God tells Moses to tell Pharoah there will be a plague on all the livestock if he doesn't let the Iraelites go. The Israelites' animals would not be affected. The next day, all the Egyptian livestock died, the Israelite livestock did not die. Pharoah still would not let the people go.

*Then God told Moses to take soot from a furnace and toss it into the air in front of Pharoah. The soot would become fine dust and cause festering boils on all the men and animals in Egypt. (Wait a minute, weren't all the animals dead from the previous plague?) Even the magicians had boils. Pharoah still would not let the people go. Today we know that boils are caused by bacteria.

*Now God tells Moses to tell Pharoah he hasn't seen anything yet. God is now going to unleash the full force of his plagues. If he wanted to, he could wipe them out. In fact it was God who made them great, just so he could perform this demonstration of his power. The next show would be the hailstorm of all hailstorms. They better bring their livestock and slaves indoors. (Um, what livestock??) So, Moses stretched out his hand toward the sky and there was a violent hailstorm. All the livestock left outdoors was struck. (again) Everything growing in the fields was beat down and all the trees were stripped, but not where the Israelites lived. We are told it was just the barley and flax that had been destroyed, not the wheat and spelt.

*Pharoah summoned Moses and Aaron. He said, "Yahweh is right, we are wrong. Make it stop hailing and you can go." Moses went out of the city and spread his hands toward the lord (Where is that?). The hail stopped and Pharoah changed his mind. He wouldn't let the Israelites go.

Exodus chapter 8

After reading chapter 8:

*Seven days passed from the Nile turning into blood. God told Moses to tell Pharoah to let the Israelites go or there would be a plague of frogs. Then God told Moses to tell Aaron to stretch his hand over the waters of Egypt and frogs came up and covered the land. Pharoah's magicians were able to do the same thing. Pharoah asked Moses to pray to Yahweh to get rid of the frogs, then he would let the people go. Moses gave Pharoah the honor of choosing the time that the frogs would leave. For some crazy reason, Pharoah said tomorrow instead of right now. So, Moses asked God to get rid of the frogs and they all died, except for the ones in the Nile. However, Pharoah would not let the people go.

*Next, God told Moses to tell Aaron to stretch out his hand over the dust and it would turn into gnats. Aaron did that. Pharoah's magicians were not able to match that trick. They told Pharoah it was the finger of God, but he still wouldn't let the Israelites go.

* I still don't get why God couldn't talk to Aaron directly. Maybe it has something to do with Moses being the favored younger brother.

Exodus chapter 7

After reading chapter 7:

*God tells Moses to tell Pharoah whatever God tells him. Moses balks. God says Moses will be like God and Aaron will be his messenger, telling Pharoah everything that God tells Moses. However, God will harden Pharoah's heart and no matter what miraculous signs occur, he will not listen. But God will teach the Egyptians a hard lesson, and will bring the Israelites out of Egypt. At this time, Moses was 80 and Aaron was 83, both well past retirement age. Notice that Moses was the younger brother.

*Moses and Aaron went to Pharoah and magically turned the staff into a snake. Pharoah's wise men were able to do the same thing with their staffs, but Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes. Pharoah still wouldn't listen to them.

*Then God told Moses to take the staff to the River Nile when Pharoah went to the water. He was to tell Pharoah to let the Israelites go to worship Yahweh in the desert. Then, as proof of God, when Moses stretched his staff out over the water, all the water in Egypt would turn to blood and all the fish would die. No Egyptians would be able to drink the water. It happened just that way. However, Pharoah's magicians were able to perform the same trick. So, he wouldn't let the Israelites go.

Chapter 6 part 2

* Now we learn about the clans of the Israelites and are introduced to some characters that will appear later. The text states that the Israelites kept records of the clans. One wonders in what language those records were kept, if they were actually kept. After 400 years in Egypt, the Israelites would have assimilated much of the Egyptian language and culture, even if they had their own dialect. Assimilation and blending of cultures doesn't take that long. Sometimes it occurs in as little as one or two generations. On what medium did the Israelites keep their records? How did the Israelites store and maintain 400 years worth of geneologies? Think about how long 400 years is in terms of your own life and past history.

* Moses, presumably educated separately by the Egyptians,  would have spoken and written, if he actually existed and could write, in the language of the Egyptians at that time, not Hebrew.  Even the Israelites would not have been likely to speak or write Hebrew at that time. In the bible story so far, everyone seems to be able to communicate with no problem as they travel from place to place, almost like they have Star Trek universal translators. In reality, every tribe or nation would have had its own Language or dialect. Many would not have been able to communicate in writing. Just as in other times, communication methods would have included gestures, pictures drawn in the sand or other medium, and translators familiar with multiple languages. The biggest question of all is "What language did God speak?"