Mohammed was post-Christian and post-Rome, when ideas about single power ruling the world and single religion claiming all souls became widely accepted, due to inter-related expansions of Roman state and Christian church over almost all of civilized world. Moses belongs to the times when such ideas were extremely far away. His were the times of insular empires and tribal cults.
Yes, the spirit of Mosaic and Mohameddan religions are quite different, but simply because of the separation in time. That’s why I try to stick to the human nature of both M&M, which appear to be practically the same. The story of their lives appear to be quite common in the history of ME. The story of king ibn-Saud comes readily to mind, although he was not a spiritual leader. It’s like an archetype of life in those deserts: enemies are everywhere, fratricide and parricide are not unusual, one can trust only a few, one has ran away into the desert to save life, then comes back after few years to take his possessions by sword; such are stories of those who survived and prospered, most others were killed too early to become historical figures.
Not that I know of, otherwise I wouldn’t do that OP. I googled beforehand, but found mostly “learned” discourses on how they have nothing in common because Moses could strike water out of a rock and Mohammed didn’t.
The official story of Exodus never made any sense to me. Leaving aside all the preposterous Plagues and Sea-parting, suppose they made it past the border garrisons: why go wandering into the desert for 40 years? Why not just go home? They wouldn’t be welcome, apparently. So the solution was to lead a life of misery for years and then go to battle. Why not go to battle right away?
I think the whole story started in Canaan and ended there, circa 1200 BC. Egypt was having serious internal problems, so the extension into Palestinian was decided to be untenable. Message was given to Canaan tribes that all the pyramides contracts are cancelled and if they come around for food when the next famine happens, the border garrisons are under orders to spear them on sight. Canaanites are left to their own devices. Anarchy and struggle for power ensue. Factions fight. The memory of Egyptian mighty presence and assistance is still vivid. Every faction tries to inherit their mantle. That’s why Moses is reputed to be related to the Pharaoh and standing up to him at the same time, while beseeching his adherents to forget “flesh pots of Egypt”. Moses’ faction loses and has to flee for life into the desert. That makes Exodus exactly like Hijra.
Someone being sent in a reed basket, etc…etc… wouldn’t be an obvious retelling of the same tale.
The hero of a myth/tale being reared by people who aren’t his own parents and one or the other set of parents, or both being particulary important figures) is a so common scheme that necessarily you’re going to find such tales including many similarities with Moses’ birth story.
For instance, in Europe, a child is found by a river (not specifically in a reed basket) by the servant of an heirless king. He raises him as his own son, and the child turns out to be a “wise-child” who will solve various issues his father has. A similar story would be told in Africa, except that roles are reversed. It’s a childless poor woman who find the baby by the river, and he’s actually the son of a god. He will similarily be a problem-solver before leaving to search for his real father.
There could be some particular symbolism associated with the river (the water being a symbolic mother?) but once again, these stories of child found are so common that it doesn’t appear that important to me. There are only so many places were one could leave or find a baby. Similarily, the cradle floating on the river is only a detail, a variation, that I don’t find (perhaps I’m wrong) really fundamental. However, if you really want a craddle floating on a river, there will be one at the end of my post.
But before, I would like to point out that there are several different themes in the account of Moses life. His birth (and undisclosed origin) is hardly the most important. Compare it with him receiving the commandments from god, for instance. You could take each of them separately and try to compare it to other tales/myths (like the Korean myth i mentionned above) . There isn’t an infinite number of themes in myths and legends. You’re essentially doomed to find some similarities with different unrelated myths in unrelated places. Perhaps because our imagination is limited, but more likely because there are schemes which are particularily appealing for our psyche for some reason. Our (or the hero) parent’s idendity, in this case, is certainly one of them. It’s an issue story-tellers are usually very interested in, and most certainly so are mythologists, but I don’t know any mythologist.
However, it’s not because the elements of a myth, taken separately, are similar to the elements found in other myths that its overall signification is the same. And similarily, it’s not because the elements are differents that the myth, on the overall, isn’t basically the same. For instance, a civilizer god or hero is still a civilizer god/hero, whatever could be the intricacies of his existence (origin, motivations, tribulations, specific gifts he brings to mankind, etc…).
Also, it’s difficult (or probably impossible) to determine exactly to what extent you could draw parrallels between two different stories. For instance, let’s choose two religions’ founders. Can Moses living a sheltered life, then discovering to which people he actually belongs, the displeasant fate of his people and then choosing to renounce to his former life to “show them the way (materially)” be meaningfully compared to Siddhartha similarily living a sheltered life, ultimately discovering the reality of human condition, renouncing to his former life to “show the way (spiritually)” to follow? If yes, to which extent? From which point of view.
Now, let’s come back to your question and to this poor baby floating on the river. You asked about a “retelling of the same tale”. I’m not sure if you meant “another myth obviously inspired by Moses’ story” or if you envisionned that it could be the other way around. Here’s a poor translation of a french translation (sorry, I couldn’t find the text in english) of a tablet kept at the Louvre museum, about sarkon, king of Akkad, in Mesopotamia, around 2000 BC :
“I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was a high priestess ; I don’t know who my father was. My parents were living in the steppe. My city was Azuparinu, on the Euphrates. My mother, the high priestess, conceived me and gave birth to me in secret. She puts me in ** a reed cradle **, caulked with bitumen. She dropped me in the river.[…]. The river brought me to Aqqi, the water drawer. Aqqi, the water drawer, plunging his bucket, fished me out the river. Aqqi, the water drawer adopted me as his son and raised me. Aqqi, the water drawer, taught me his trade as agardener. While I was a gardener, the goddess Ishtar felt in love with me, and that’s why, for fiifty-six years I reigned as king”
Someone being sent in a reed basket, etc…etc… wouldn’t be an obvious retelling of the same tale.
The hero of a myth/tale being reared by people who aren’t his own parents and one or the other set of parents, or both, being particulary important figures is a so common scheme that necessarily you’re going to find such tales including many similarities with Moses’ birth story.
For instance, in Europe, a child is found by a river (not specifically in a reed basket) by the servant of an heirless king. He raises him as his own son, and the child turns out to be a “wise-child” who will solve various issues his father has. A similar story would be told in Africa, except that roles are reversed. It’s a childless poor woman who find the baby by the river, and he’s actually the son of a god. He will similarily be a problem-solver before leaving to search for his real father.
There could be some particular symbolism associated with the river (the water being a symbolic mother?) but once again, these stories of child found are so common that it doesn’t appear that important to me. There are only so many places were one could leave or find a baby. Similarily, the cradle floating on the river is only a detail, a variation, that I don’t find (perhaps I’m wrong) really central. However, if you really want a craddle floating on a river, there will be one at the end of my post.
But before, I would like to point out that there are several different themes in the account of Moses’ life. His birth (and undisclosed origin) is hardly the most important. Compare it with him receiving the commandments from god, for instance. You could take each of these themes separately and try to compare it to other tales/myths (like the Korean myth I mentionned above re. the parting of the Red Sea) . There isn’t an infinite number of themes in myths and legends. You’re essentially doomed to find some similarities between different unrelated myths in unrelated places. Perhaps because our imagination is limited, but more likely because there are schemes which are particularily appealing for our psyche for some reason. Our (or the hero) parent’s idendity, in this case, is certainly one of them. It’s an issue story-tellers are usually very interested in, and most certainly so are mythologists, but I don’t know any mythologist.
However, it’s not because the elements of a myth, taken separately, are similar to the elements found in other myths that its overall meaning is the same. And similarily, it’s not because the elements are differents that the myth, on the overall, isn’t basically the same. For instance, a civilizer god or hero is still a civilizer god/hero, whatever could be the intricacies of his existence (origin, motivations, tribulations, specific gifts he brings to mankind, etc…).
Also, it’s difficult to determine exactly to what extent you can legitimately draw parrallels between two different stories. For instance, let’s choose two religions’ founders. Can Moses living a sheltered life, discovering to which people he actually belongs, the displeasant fate of his people and then choosing to renounce to his former life to “show them the way (materially)” be meaningfully compared to Siddhartha similarily living a sheltered life, ultimately discovering the reality of human condition, and renouncing to his former life to “show them the way (spiritually)” ? If yes, to which extent? From which point of view?
Now, let’s come back to your question and to this poor baby floating on the river. You asked about a “retelling of the same tale”. I’m not sure if you meant “another myth obviously inspired by Moses’ story” or if you envisionned that it could be the other way around. Here’s a poor translation of a french translation (sorry, I couldn’t find the text in english) of a tablet kept at the Louvre museum, about Sargon, king of Akkad, in Mesopotamia, around 2000 BC :
“I am Sargon, the powerful king, the king of Akkad. My mother was a high priestess ; I don’t know who my father was. My parents were living in the steppe. My city was Azuparinu, on the Euphrates. My mother, the high priestess, conceived me and gave birth to me in secret. She puts me in ** a reed cradle **, caulked with bitumen. She dropped me in the river.[…]. The river brought me to Aqqi, the water drawer. Aqqi, the water drawer, plunging his bucket, fished me out the river. Aqqi, the water drawer adopted me as his son and raised me. Aqqi, the water drawer, taught me his trade as agardener. While I was a gardener, the goddess Ishtar felt in love with me, and that’s why, for fiifty-six years I reigned as king”
Sojourn of some Canaan Hebrews into Egypt certainly did happen.
A number of Egyptian documents refer to Apiru (Hebrew). A letter from the time of Ramesses II,… commands: ‘Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramesses’. This matches Exodus I:II, where … Jews ‘built for pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Ramesses.’
(from “The Civilization of Ancient Egypt” by Paul Johnson)
However, there is absolutely no Egyptian record of any mass Exodus.
If I understand you correctly, you suggest paying more attention to the Message and less to the Messenger. If so, your approach is exactly opposite to mine. I don’t think that universal message of any religion can be extricated from the personality of its original prophet. First of all, practically none of worldwide religions ever obtained its place without being imposed upon people by some coercive power (except maybe Buddhism). To have a religion with a sweeping universal message is not enough. Case in point, Christianity in Arabia: an acknowledged monotheistic religion, with a clear message of One God. Yet, Arab nomads before Mohammed treated it just like one of many cults. It was respected, even revered, it had many devotees, but it failed to unite people in belief in One God. Icons of Jesus and Mary were kept inside Kaaba along with artifacts of many other local Deities. I think the reason for this paradox is that Christianity in Arabia wasn’t supported by real strong hand. Christianity in Roman world eventually obtained approval of Caesars and subsequently established itself as the one true Church throughout the realm of Roman power. Vestiges of that history are still enmeshed in all aspects of life in Christian (or post-Christian) world.
Therefore, a temporal power is necessary to the establishment of monotheistic religion. Also, the religion becomes identified and inseparable with a power that imposes it upon people. Christianity may be unique in that Jesus was a Messenger but not an Enforcer. Moses and Mohammed were both Messengers and Enforcers.
Does it make any difference nowadays? Aren’t those events buried deep in time and aren’t we living in a completely different reality? Aren’t brutal acts of Moses and Mohammed (and enforcers of Christianity) irrelevant by now? I’m afraid maybe not. Most Muslims certainly still live by Koran, which, contrary to all assurances, is not a message of Peace. Armored might of Western states still bears the imprint of Rome. Even Jews, after so many trials and tribulations, haven’t become entirely peaceful people, to put it mildly.
Just for clarity’s sake: not that I am arguing in this forum (I know better than that) for the literal truth of the Bible. I’m merely asking, even if it can be reasonably assumed by secular history that much was attributed to Moses that is either the work of others or altogether impossible, what makes it so certain that there was not, at the dawn of Israelite history, an actual man, even a leader, named Moses?
I recall that most historians didn’t believe in the existence of Troy (not merely the historicity of Homeric events, but the city’s actual existence) until Schleimann, nor of King David until the recent discovery of a wall fragment in Israel describing a King as being of “David’s house.”
Why so certain that the man never existed at all? Other historical figures have become mythologized before. It’s not unusual for even figures from recent history to have legends developed around them (e.g., George Washington and the cherry tree incident). But disbelieving the scope of the story is a far cry from disbelieving in the existence of the man himself.
I have a serious issue with that. I knew the hapirus/abirus/whatever were mentionned in egyptian sources. But I never heard about them building anything, and never about this letter, either. I googled and googled, but couldn’t find any reference to this . Only mentions of them threatening egyptian colonies.
I would suspect that if there was such a letter, it would be well-known and widely mentionned. So I must admit that I’ve big doubts about the veracity of Mr Johnson’s statement. The only references I found were the El-Amarna tablets, and they’re about the Apirus invading, not building something.
Besides, the Apirus weren’t necessarily the Hebrews. Many believe they were because the names are similar and the geographical situation matches. But it isn’t proven. Would it be really debated if what is known about them matched so closely the bible’s content?
I’m sorry, but at this point, I’m unwilling to accept this cite without some other references.
I have many contradictory feelings and thought reading your post. I don’t think I’m going to take the time to sort them out and write them down, at least right now. But very roughly, it seems to me that your approach is rather historical( “how such or such religion survived and became widespread?”) and mine “religious”, sort of (“What’s the meaning of this myth/ message of this religion”). I’m not convinced they’re necessarily opposites.
I see two problems with that in the case of the Jewish religion. The first is that we know nothing, from an historical point of view, of the person who is considered as its founder. Knowledge about Moses can only be derived from the myth, hence is inextricably tied to it. The second is that this religion evolved over time and only took its final form long after the supposed founder’s death, during the exile in Babylon. So, even if this Moses enforced something, it’s not what we consider now as the jewish religion.
Perhaps there’s an oposition indeed, if you think that the Jewish religion was dependant on Moses message. I would assume that at the contrary, the story of Moses is dependant on the jewish religion’s message. He is here (or perhaps have been left in) because his story had some signifiance from the Hebrews point of view.
Also, Moses enforcing the religion (the golden calf, for instance) is part of the myth while for instance Constantine and its successors enforcing the christian religion is an historical event. The longer away we are from factual history, the less relevant is the real personnality of the person who founded (or is told to have founded) the religion. At some point, this founder’s personnality and life history will be molded to fit the needs of the religion.
Maybe, but before being imposed, enough people (and preferably enough powerful people) have to be convinced that it deserves being imposed. And as you mentionned yourself, the christian religion wasn’t enforced by its founder. Whatever could have been Jesus and Paul’s personnalities, the christian religion would have fallen into oblivion if its message had not resonated in people’s mind. Enforcing isn’t enough, either. Akhenaton tried to enforce a religion, and failed.
[…]
Problem is : by considering only monotheistic religions, you’re reducing the sample to three, all related. Besides: Mohammed was an enforcer. Jesus was not. Of Moses, we know nothing, really. It doesn’t seem to me to point to an obvious general rule.
Also, Mohammed’s message was likely fairly similar to the content of the current Muslim religion. The closeness of Jesus message and the content of the current christian religion is dubious. Moses message, if there was any, was most certainly very different from the content of the current Jewish religion. So, I think we’re comparing apples and oranges when using these examples to discuss whether the religion’s founder personnality is more or less relevant than the religion’s message.
What matters is what people believe. Concerning religion, it’s their interpretation of this religion, or of these events buried deep in time, which matters. The words used in a sacred book are way less important than people’s perceptions. Or else there would be many threads here about oysters-eating people being allowed to marry or not.
Koran is a message of peace if you want it to be so, generally. The will of people (including non-muslims, actually) to read it that way is the main issue. God dislikes slavery if you want him to do so. He orders you to forcefully retake the promised land if you want him to order so.
Apparently the quote: ‘Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramesses’, comes from Leiden papyrus.
We have Apiru (Hapiru, Habiru) in Canaan on the fringe of Egyptian empire. We have record of them working on Temple or statues contruction. I find it quite natural that people from small tribes on the outskirts of a great Empire would constantly go to work there to make a buck, while hating it all the time (kind of like Palestinians do nowadays with Israel). To me that makes sense.
Exodus doesn’t make sense and I see no convincing evidence for it. If you notice my reading of the whole story is quite different from the Biblical legend. I think ancient Hebrews were cut off and left hanging instead of escaped from Egypt.
The reed basket deal was simply one of many common features between the two stories. I’m talking about something that scholars recognize as being of the same mythical tradition. I’m thinking of something along the lines of the Noah/Utnapishtim stories in the Bible/Epic of Gilgamesh.
Now, maybe I’m wrong and there isn’t a parallel myth. I can’t remember where I read it, and googling isn’t getting me anywhere. DtC would know, which is why I asked him originally.
OK. I searched for the Leiden papyrus. Which is apparently mainly cited in relation with alchemy, esoterism, etc…Appears also on some christian sites. It seems it include some magic recipes or somesuch.
But, amongst the sites I quickly looked at, I read the “so-called” Leiden papyrus, the post-pharaonic Leiden papyrus, and one date for it : around 200 AD . which makes this papyrus a fake written long after Ramses II, during the christian era.
This papyrus not being genuine would explain quite easily why it isn’t usually mentionned.
I didn’t thoroughly searched for reputable sites giving an accurate dating, because it’s quite late over here. I’ll try latter, or ask in GQ, though if someone is willing to do so, or perhaps already know about it (I’m sure there are some posters who do) , it would be great.
Indeed
Apparently not, at this point.
There are also records of nomads people being allowed into Egypt in time of drought to feed their herds. There were certainly also mercenaries, and most probably some people would came in for a buck. “Constantly” or in great numbers is another story entirely.
That’s possible. But I think one could imagine many stories. Just out of my head, a group of war prisonners escaping from Egypt, could be possible as well. Or several stories could have been conflated. Or the story could have originated amongst another people, like the flood and latter attributed to an Hebrew hero, already existing or not. Or a little group of people actually in servitude could have actually fled Egypt. Or whatever else. My contention is that we don’t know, and can’t know what could have been the origin of the exodus story, which was told and retold for centuries at least, before being written down, anymore than the origin of any other myth.
I believe that the legend about Sargon being found in a reed basket and raised by a palace’s gardener is considered amongst scholars as belonging to the same tradition than the birth of Moses, though I wouldn’t swear it. That’s why I posted it.
Now, if you’re searching for a myth which would include both the floating reed basket and the hero leading his people out in the desert, or something like that, I don’t know of any.
I agree with many separate points you make in describing religion and religious feelings. And yes, I find it difficult to concentrate on “message/meaning” of religious myths, I admit.
My approach to history in general is that if there is a record, then something must have happened (I am a great admirer of Frazer and Toynbee). Quite often it turns out that what really might have happened is completely opposite to the official story, but the grain of truth, such as personality name and basic events, is still there. That’s why I think that there was somebody called Moses and there was some kind of Exodus he was leading, whether in person or as a cult figurehead. When some elements of the story begin to sound too familiar (like a reed basket episode, for example) and similar to legends of other times and people, then they have to be discounted as myths. However, Exodus appears to be an original event, as much as official story of it is full of palpable nonsense. That’s why I was trying to come up with my own explanation of what might have happened. In order to do that I looked at other historical records from the same part of the world and it stuck me that escapes into the desert by Mohammed (or king ibn-Saud) are very similar to Exodus and may explain what really happened there.
I agree that “What matters is what people believe”. St. Augustine deduced all the horrors of Medieval Christianity from the Gospels. Conversely, it might be possible to make the most ferocious religion an active agent of Peace. Still, I think there must be a two-way traffic present on that road: people try to mold religion to their needs, but they do not have a completely free hand, because accumulated body of religion influences people in its turn. It appears to be an extremely complicated process.
There isn’t any clear parallel such as there is with some of the Genesis stories like Creation, the flood, Cain and Abel, etc. It seems rather to be a mishmash of several different motifs. There was a pagan Syrian hero called Mises who was a mythical “lawgiver.” Mises was also drawn from the water in a box, had horns (The Bible says Moses had horns when he came down from the mountain, but this is quite often interpreted as rays of light), had a staff which with he worked wonders and he was said to have parted a couple of rivers. He also was supposed to have recieved his laws on two stone tablets.
Pagan mythology is full of the floating baby motif, it isn’t just Sargon. IIRC the Greek hero Perseus was supposed to have been sent down the river by his king father and raised by peasants . Usually the motif has a royal baby being raised unaware by common folk but Exodus does a reversal which gives a secret Jewish birth to a hero with an Egyptian name and nobility. The story is so old and woven up with other motifs that it’s virtually impossible to locate any sort of historicity but there are theories. One theory (advanced originally by Freud, I believe) was that Moses represented some sort of priestly tradition or community which was descended from the montheism of the Pharaoh Akhenanten. This would explain the need to Judaize a theology with an Egyptian priestly origin via the floating baby device.
I made a search for ‘Leiden papyrus Apiru’ and got a few pages of hits. It seems to be widely accepted and commonly mentioned. If you find anything fishy, please share the information.
Yes, we can’t know for sure and many other explanations are possible. Heck, there is an original version to begin with, which quite a few people would swear by. Then some say that nothing like that ever happened, period. Still, we can entertain some theories if we still are not satisfied with any of those explanations.
It was an epochal event, on the Canaan scale. People from the desert, professing One God, took the country by force. Who were they and where did they come from? They were not strangers, because they insisted that this is their land. Why their victory is remembered as Exodus and celebrated with reminders of deprivations and hardships? I’m sorry, but at this point Hijra simply leaps to mind, because the moment of greatest danger for Mohammed was made a starting date of Muslim calendar. May be Exodus happened not because Moses told his people to go into the desert, but because they had to run away for their lives, just like first Muslims?
There is no “epochal event” in the archaeology. There is no influx of people from the desert and no conquest of Canaan. No one “took the country by force.” There is no four century absence of “Israelites” from Canaan, no enslavement in Egypt, no trace of any mass movement across the Sinai Peninsula, nothing at all which would support any kind of historicity to the Exodus story. Even the story itself was likely a piece of political propaganda written during the time of Josiah. Some of it may have been based on older tribal legends. Passover likely had its origins in ancient Canaanite agricultural festivals and acquired its Exodus significance much later on.
There really is nothing to find by pursuing Moses as a historical figure. He’s as mythical as Adam and Noah.
I agree, there was no abscence of “Israelites” from Canaan, because they never left. Some of them were going to Egypt and coming back sometimes, as is reasonable to suppose. I agree, there was no wholesale enslavement of the whole nation in Egypt and mass migration across Sinai Peninsula. All these are legends.
As far as archeological evidence for “influx of people from the desert and conquest of Canaan”, let’s think of Mohammed again. Is there any archeological evidence for Mohammed taking control of Mecca? Running away to Medina? There isn’t any, because all thes events were taking place within the same culture and not on such a great scale.
Same might have happened with the Exodus. They were same Hebrew people, except with an outlandish idea of One God; they had to escape for their lives; they came back and imposed their rule and religion over the rest of Canaan Hebrews.
I agree, Moses doesn’t come through as a real human being in the Bible, more like a cult figure.