Hello Lovely People! If you enjoy this conversation and are interested in learning more, do sign up to Bart's new lecture series: Finding Moses - What Scholars Know About The Exodus and The Jewish Law to learn more! Using my affiliate link helps me out as a creator (: emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/finding-moses/ If you register before the 12th and 13th, you can take part in the live recording and live Q&A session. Either way you get lifetime access to all 8 lectures, Q&A's and bonus materials. Bart's courses are always so fascinating, I cannot recommend them enough for anyone with an interest in biblical scholarship! Nothing helps you take on fundamentalism like knowing the bible ;)
Thanks, Emma! His material sure does look worth looking into. Especially because an important part about looking into history (as a basis for how to live today), is to stay away from cherrypicking and find out what life/reality really was back "then", and why something was said etc.. That's why I am curious to what more Dr. Bart Ehrman has to say about these matters.
Irrespective of the character incongruities, the Exodus is impossible from the perspectives of logistics, physiology and basic math. To whit: • How many male slaves were supposedly involved in the diaspora of Exodus according to the bible? (600,000) • How many additional wives, children, elderly, other family plus animals were there? (Assuming 3 people, 2 animals - plug in whatever number) • El Paso, Texas has a population of roughly 600,000 ( the biblical number of male slaves in Exodus) not including family and animals, how many square miles comprise its city limits? (259 square miles). Note: Unless the Jews dispersed across the entire desert, this is roughly the amount of space each encampment would require every time they temporarily settled in an area. • If the above square miles were made into an exact square, how many miles would each length of the leg of the square extend? (16 miles per side) • Without modern electronic communication, assuming an area roughly the size of El Paso, Texas, how would each member of the diaspora be informed of the complex logistics to begin their journey? (Question stands on its own) • To empty a city the size of El Paso on foot with streets not much larger than paths, how much time in staging would it take for all slaves, family members and domestic animals to abandon the city? (Haven’t done this calculation yet, but logically it would take months and the Exodus as portrayed in the bible began in one day) • Assume all slaves and families formed a single line to begin the Exodus (For now ignore the logistics of getting an entire city aligned) • What is the distance from the alleged point of the Exodus disembarkation of Rameneses to a commonly suggested point by apologists - Nuweibaa Egypt on the Red Sea? (250 miles) • What is the approximate distance from Neweibaa to the other side? (10.5 miles) • Given a depth of 2500 feet at the center of the Red Sea at a point directly east from Nuweibaa, how many additional miles would be added to the crossing? (Assuming a rough arc, 1.5 miles) • What speed are physically fit U.S. soldiers trained to march at? (3.4 mph) • What is the designated width for a single lane on a U.S. Interstate highway? (12 ft per lane) • What is the width of the oldest known paved road that was found in Egypt? (6 ft. - With most roads being no more than paths at the time) • What is the average shoulder width of a male? (16”) • What would the width of a row of 10 males be given 6 inches of separation of each shoulder between row members? (18 ft) • Assuming a row of 10 across, separated by one yard per row, how many miles would a column of 600,000 male slaves extend? (45 miles, 60,000 rows) • Assuming an average of 2 additional members in the families of each male slave, how much additional length would be added to the diaspora column? (136 miles, 120,000 rows) • Assuming two domestic animals per household that would fit into the 10 row across scenario, how much additional length would be added to the column? (91 miles) • With slaves, families, excluding animals, what would the approximate length of the Exodus be? (270 miles, 180,000 rows) • At the marching rate of a U.S. soldier, without sleep, rest periods, no narrowing or barriers on such a trail and no stops for meals, how long would it take for the first row to reach the Nuweibaa beach on the Red Sea? (850 hours, 35 days) • The last row back row at 180,000 back? (drop the animals) (136 miles [families] + 45 [male slaves] + 250 miles (distance to Red Sea Crossing =127 days) • What effect would mud have on marching speed from a recently parted sea on a column of 60,000 rows assuming no other physical barriers? Of course the bible increduously claims the crossing to be dry. • Assuming no barriers or muddy conditions at the Red Sea crossing, how long would it take for the first row to cross the narrowest point of the Red Sea? (12 miles/3.4 = 3.5 hours) • The last row? (270 miles plus 12 miles to cross = 292) (292/3.4 = 85 hours or 3.6 days) • If, as the bible indicates, the Egyptian chariots caught up to the Jews at the Red Sea and the Red Sea was only parted by the alleged Moses after seeing the Egyptian chariots, how long would the Egyptians then have to miraculously wait for the last row of Jews to begin crossing the Red Sea so that the "lord" could drown them? ( A minimum of 3.6 days) • What would be the time necessary for Moses to restage the Jews so they could cross the Red Sea with optimum speed? (Again, I am not sure of the calculations, but this alone would take weeks to months)
@@douglasrasmussen480 why would you assume they were packed into such narrow rows of 10 persons wide??? Even if your reasoning was they were all following one man (Moses), that doesnt require every person be directly behind him to follow. Even a group several thousand wide would only need to stick with the group to follow a single person in front leading that group. As far as historical evidence of the Exodus outside the Torah, its true that no Eqyptian record collaberates the story as it is told in the Torah. However, there is a REALLY GOOD REASON why. First, to say there is no evidence of the Hebrews that later inhabited Israel were beforehand slaves in Eqypt and that there was no exodus of people leaving Eqypt is false. Although the complete details are not there, Eqyptians did record a time in their history that speaks of a time of great turmoil/confusion and a massive sudden loss of their (slave) laborer force as being in Eqypt one moment and in the next moment they were gone. They also recorded at this time, the Pharoah simply disappeared. From the Eqyptians perspective, the Pharoah is going to be forced to return these missing slaves who ran off at some point given how critically important they were to the Eqyptians economy but this Pharaoh is never heard from again. A reason for this is provided in the Torah, the Pharaoh and everyone with him also drowned in the Red Sea while trying to track down and return their slaves back to Eqypt. That seems like a reasonable explanation of why the Pharoah never returned to Eqypt, death would likely be the only reason not to return to place where he would of had god-like power. Matter of Fact the ONLY people who could of witnessed everything that happened in the desert and recorded it were the Hebrews. The Eqyptians would of had NO IDEA what happened, which is kinda how they reported the event: Confused and why there is very little to collaborate the story of the Exodus in Eqypt record. Again how would the Eqyptians have known what happened to their slaves and the Pharoah who drownded trying to retrieve them??? There was no Eqyptian alive to report back to Eqypt and tell them what happened and according to the Eqyptians; their Pharoah simply vanished (dead or not). The Torah simply fills in the blanks of Eqyptian history which could have only been done so throught the persepctive of the Hebrews. So to conclude that because the Eqyptians didn't record the Exodus as it was reported in the Torah, therefor a myth is quite the leap of denial. Nothing against the experience of Bart, but for someone with such a wealth of knowledge he seems incredibly confused. Especially concluding Moses as a character doesn't make sense because it's an Eqyptian name. WHAT???? The Torah at no point attempts to hide this fact. In fact, Moses name has NOTHING to do with his ethnicity. If Bart is unclear of Moses' ADOPTED NAME, he needs to go back and read the story of Moses again. As a reported expert, this misunderstanding is shameful as every single person of the Abrahamic faith know Moses was found as a baby drifting on the Nile river by the Pharoahs Daughter. She names him a Moses but KNOWS he is one of the Hebrews. Eqyptian, huh BART??
@@ananigma - You are apparently unaware of basic topography, logistics, and cumulative circumstances. The roads of Egypt were no more than paths around 6 feet across. Although the biblical account refers to desert, the topography travelled was covered in massive dunes and depressions that would inhibit wide rows. 10 across is simply an example, but does even stretch the available paths the Jews would travel. It is incredulous how you ignore that the Jews when they saw the Roman chariots while at the shore of the Red Sea panicked but Moses assured them god would intervene. The narrowest and most shallow point of the Red Sea is 10 miles across but to marshal an aggregation of people roughly 70% the population of Chicago would be logistically impossible to mobilize in the face of imminent attack. If the Jews spread out to double, triple, 100 times the sea floor changes dramatically with great depths, coral cliffs and much wider distance across. It strains credulity to assume the Egyptian soldiers would wait the days required to marshall such a large population to cross the Red Sea. You present the typical apologist insertions of coulda's and assumptions that are wholly unbacked in biblical accounting.
No joke when I say that scholars like Dr. Ehrman have taught me far more about the Bible and Christian history in the last few years than any preacher ever did during my entire churchgoing childhood
it's mythology, the story of the founding of a people, so it's valuable for that without it being literally true; Prince of Egypt is an absolute banger of a movie
@@MadailinBurnhope unfortunately there seems to still be a lot of people who want to posit mythology as facts (there will be grains of truth in it, generally speaking, but that doesn’t equal truth like some people think it does).
Emma, I just wanted to take a moment to tell you how much I admire your interviewing skills. I've seen interviews with Bart Ehrman all over the internet and many of them either ask long, complicated questions; longer than the answers, or they talk over him as he's trying to give his answer. You ask a succinct question, then you let the man talk. That's skill and class.
I was once told by an American religious type that the restriction on garments of mixed cloth didn't apply to poly-cottons because polyester was a modern invention. He didn't like it when I suggested that by the same logic, the second amendment only refers to muskets and flintlock pistols.
To be fair, he was absolutely right. Not only does it not prohibit, polycotton, cotton (or polyester for that matter) is not even involved. It only applies to wool and flax, per the text of Deuteronomy 22:11. That is the way it is observed in orthodox Judaism today, and it does not present much of an issue. Not a fundamentalist, just in favor of accuracy.
@@ardeneberly4450 it’s actually mentioned twice, only in one place is it specific that it is wool and linen, the other place it simply says “neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.”
@@ardeneberly4450 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." I read that as using linen and wool as an example of a "diverse sort" cloth.
That's an oversight as well on your part to assume his stance on what he believes. "American religious type" can mean one of 3,000 different religions that America holds, many believing in the Torah without being Abrahamic oddly enough. If you're referring to him being a Christian, than you need to research what the new covenant is and the Christian understanding of following commandments and how that relates to Israelite exclusive Law. If he's Jewish, then that entirely depends on what kind he is whether he keeps tradition or not. Even then, Ultra-Orthodoxy have to consolidate with the degrading of tradition. There are obviously more Abrahamic beliefs that hold the Mitzvah to such high standard but you really need to do research before embarrassing yourself on the Internet with such an uneducated and pompous statement to make yourself sound intelligent when in fact, you are still ignorant about the world's largest faiths.
Not only is there ZERO evidence of the events in Exodus, at that time virtually all of the Levant was part of the Egyptian Empire. In fact, Egypt stretched all the way up to modern day Turkey.
Yep, I think they controlled up to around present Syria Turkish border area right up to the "bronze age collapse" right? Things went south for them around 1200 bc, but egypt actually managed to mostly hold together somehow while just about everyone else collapsed
Odd thing to post about, but thanks for not using the auto-generated closed captioning. Some channels rely on those and they can be weird to follow. Being able to read your proper captioning is very helpful. Thank you!
As someone who also uses captions on everything, the auto generated ones are terrible...if sometimes funny. The computer generated ones have gotten much better, but the manually entered ones are able to capture tones and inflections that can be missing. It's always nice to see someone succeed on UA-cam and pay someone for proper captions!
@@EmmaThorneVideos "I'm very grateful for all the support that allows me to get proper captions done :3" i'd like to see more captions. like in comics. a box above your head: "Emmae stared wistfully as she drank a giant mug of steaming coffee." or, "[the puppet] shook his head fearfully. The last thing he wanted was to visit a creationist museum and be called an abomination because he was felt." didn't you wear a superhero costume once? i can imagine a whole spinoff comic....
Every time I see Dr Bart Ehrman I get excited and there’s always something new to write down! I do love seeing the breakdown of Abrahamic mythology so eloquently.
Such interesting topic! Thanks so much for covering it! As an Israeli who's considered Jewish (though I'm an atheist), we're brought up learning all these stories as some absolute truths, and it took me years to start learning it more thoroughly and understand how farfetched they are from reality. I absolutely love when you have Bart on here. Just one note, according to the book, Moses' name was given to him by the Pharaoh's daughter who rescued him and adopted him. So having an Egyptian name does make sense. Also, there's an Hebrew explanation to the name in the story, she called him that because she pulled him out of the water. (It makes sense in Hebrew because "Moses" and "I pulled him" are from the same word family in Hebrew. Why would she speak Hebrew though? No clue)
I was looking for a comment about the name thing...I wonder if he meant that it's odd for the Isrealites to decide to give this figure an Egyptian name (even if they gave a reason) considering he was the most important figure in their culture? Not sure, but you bring up another great point in favor of a mythical Moses...why WOULD the Pharoah's daughter name him based on a phrase in Hebrew? It doesn't sound realistic, but sure works for the storytelling.
The only reason I can make up is meta-wise and an author's choice to make the protagonist more relatable to the audience, who are purely Hebrews. Many figures in the bible tend to go back to Egypt, like Abraham and Joseph. Only on those stories, Egypt is more neutral but still a recurring element because of their geographic location. Moses' story is where Egypt becomes a full-on antagonist.
One question about the Exodus I've heard asked is, how did they manage to take so long and get so lost on such a short journey? A short trip down the coast and they'd have been there in a couple of weeks walking. The ones at the front would arrive before the ones at the back had left Egypt.
They were god's chosen people! They had to suffer! You know what... just for asking that question I'm going to bury your city in a pile of pheasants six kilometers high.
The answer is simple. [EXODUS 13] And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the *land of the Philistines* although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt: *The Philistines don't show up until 1177BCE. BUT Moses took a 40 year detour*
And of course, the place they fled to from Egypt - you know who ruled it? ... *Egypt.* Back in those days, that area was ruled by Egypt. There's a lot of archeological evidence, plus lots of records. (That had probably changed by the time the stories were written down.) ... and there seems to be significant evidence that the Israelites were fellow Canaanites.
@@KaiHenningsen Do you mean this evidence? Referring to the hills of Canaan Dr William Dever: "We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite villages". *This has been verified by archeologists* i.e. Mazur, Na'aman, Finkelstein, Faust and Dever Dr William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead”.
This video is an excellent preview for the upcoming course. I've been wanting to get Dr. Bart Ehrman's take on the Exodus for years. Though raised Roman Catholic, I came to Fundamentalist Christianity at age 17 in the late 1970s. Don't ask me why! 😁 I had been fan of Science Fiction, an amateur astronomy, and a history buff previously. Later in life, at age 39, many of the things Dr. Ehrman discusses about Jesus Christ and the New Testament led me to become a 12er Shi'ite Muslim in the classic mode ... anti-Imperialist, not much interest in political or military power, defensive warfare only with limits, and no compulsion in religion. I never was talked out of my belief in one gracious, merciful, just and loving God. However, while I think there was a historical figure that became the the Moses of the Bible, I can't buy the supposed historical precision of the Bible. I believe the first five books contain some of the teachings of the historical figure Moses. But, there is a lot of added material as well. Personally, my outlook is very Libertarian as far as personal freedoms are concerned. However, as long as the government doesn't get to big, I support social programs to help the needy and to improve their position. Not only Jews and Christians but Muslims ought to consider Dr. Ehrman's scholarly work. Most of the nonsense in Islam comes from later traditions and imperialist takes on the Quran. The Quran itself says some passages should not be taken literally. That's why I think that Christians and others ought to learn about what the Bible really is. I believe there was a historical Moses, a historical Jesus, and a historical Muhammad. However, I don't think any of them would be happy with the state of the Abrahamic faiths today. Have a happy holiday season. I am subscribed to your channel.
I was taught that the name Moses (Moshe) came from the Hebrew phrase “min ha mayim mishiseehoo “ (from the water I drew him). These are Hebrew words (which, oddly were spoken by the person from the kingdom of Pharaoh,) so this was a Hebrew phrase spoken by an Egyptian. But the name Moses has a Hebrew origin
Great. Bart is always a fun scholar to listen to. Not fusty and very humane. I've signed up for his 'Moses course' and looking forward to hearing his illuminating content. Flaxen Saxon
@@pagandeva2000 Once you sign up you can access the course, and others, from the site, as required. It has been delayed presently due to Dr Erhman's personal issues. I wish him the best and a quick resolution of his problems. Flaxen Saxon.
One thing that never made sense to me is Pharoah's reaction to Moses making demands and threats over and over. Any other tyrant would have Moses beheaded at the first bit of sass. It makes for a fun story but is not plausible as history.
IMHO, Ehrman is maybe the most influential secular historian of Christianity and has tremendous influence. The Four Horsemen and other atheist pundits are easy for the faithful to marginalize and ignore, but Dr. Ehrman speaks the language in a convincing manner. He keeps a foot in both worlds, and he forces the faithful to consider their religion.
I love you too! Enjoyed listening to this. Bart is without a doubt the premier heavy hitter when it comes to pulling away the fog of traditional Christian understanding and teaching of the bible. PS, did I happen to tell you, I love you too! (Only those who watched to the end will understand.)
Curious on how people don't consider Moses being more of a title than a name. Also the similarities of Moses and Anubis as to how they were both placed in the Nile River and pulled out or saved by a foster mother figure. Also Curious is on how the mythical version of Hercules went through very similar situations.........things that make you go hmmmm......
@Putin Runs the GOP That was a typo; an honest mistake missed in the translations. It actually said accused instead of accuser :p I mean, Satan is constantly being accused of lying and doing magic and shape shifting when he's just wondering about and telling people the truth while god is lying, doing magic, and shapeshifts in all kinds of weird scheiße. If Satan is actually the bad guy, god is satan and he is the author of confusion and bigotry, encouraging and requiring people to follow him based on nothing but logical fallacies and thinking errors and encouraging and requiring people to train themselves in excusing everything and anything by those fallacies and thinking errors. It's abusive and a perfect excuse to do literally anything for your own short term personal gain by hiding behind the perfect narcissist. It's a pathetically simple strategy to accuse "the enemy" of doing things you yourself do and then have stupid morons excuse everything you do by saying you wouldn't do those bad things because you just pointed it out in "the enemy". They say ignorance is bliss. I feel it's pitiful in how pathetic and harmful it is to all the billions of victims, many of whom still worship their abusers and look up to the enablers. If Satan is considered a separate character and not just another alter ego of this "god", I have more respect for it than I have for any real person bowing down to this pathetic narcissistic god, who - by the way - does nothing in the entire book that doesn't serve worship for himself, just to provide some perfect proof for his perfect narcissism. Hail Satan!
YeahH... the same as these coming new journal might be the God enjoy killing people. If the Avangard hit the caldera of Wyoming. Wow.. cemented liver were everywhere. Funny reading the Bible Isaiah 60 verse 12. 😵 2 Kings 1 : 10
Thank you so much for sharing Dr. Ehrman's interview about the veracity / accuracy of the Moses / Exodus story. I am currently about 6 months into a planned year-long deconstruction process and Dr. Ehrman's expertise and insight have been quite informative. I've also watched him on numerous other "skeptic" channels discussing Genesis and the Gospels which was equally as informative.
@@doneestoner9945 Thanks. In June I told my therapist about my deconstruction and mentioned how Dr. Ehrman as well as the UA-camrs "Genetically Modified Skeptic", "Ex-Fundie Diaries" and "Holy Koolaid" among many others are informing the process. I am the product of a Fundamentalist / Evangelical cult (Maranatha was actually accused of cult behavior in the '80s) and after about 25 years of being emotionally manipulated, I am now undergoing EMDR therapy (commonly used for PTSD / CPTSD treatment).
@@smurfystefDeconstruction is an analysis of ones world view and the values & beliefs upon which that world view is based. In my case that means taking a close look at "spirituality" and my beliefs about "God", the bible and "faith", separating the elements based upon psychological & emotional manipulation or "indoctrination" from those based upon evidence and logic. It differs from "conversion" in that it is not an instant in which one "flips a switch", repents, says a prayer and is "saved" by the fact that it is not instantaneous or a particular "moment in time", but rather a process worked out over time. I hope the explanation clarifies it a bit. If not, check out Genetically Modified Skeptic's UA-cam page. He as some great videos discussing his own deconstruction process.
"if you're a man, you shouldn't sleep with someone else's wife" "if you are a wife, you shouldn't sleep with someone other than your husband" Pretty significant difference between those two. So basically, if you're a man, it's OK to cheat as long as it's not with a married woman. As a woman, you cannot have sex with anyone else, not even in a consensual threeway or swinging or anything.
Well, it is a book written by men for men. For example, it says that it is abominable for a m to sleep with a m but there is no mention of a f sleeping with an f. And that is only one example. There are multiple lines that give clues which gender should read the Bible.
You are missing it... Each sex had freedoms and restrictions under Jewish law when it came to avoidance of an adultery charge. A man could sleep with any woman OTHER than another man's wife or betrothed. While a single woman (unmarried and not yet betrothed) could sleep with literally ANY man.
I really like Dr. Ehrman's sobriety when it comes to this. Of course the Bible isn't an inerrant source of truth, but it *was* written _very_ long ago and it wasn't like every single author was an evil cackling villain crafting every single word out of thin air to manipulate the masses. As with almost everything in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
@@scrumpymanjack Well, there *is* evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person, at least. My point is that extreme positions are usually wrong ones; in this case, "everything in there is absolute gospel truth and there are no mistakes or manipulations" and "everything in there is absolute horseshit and nothing in there happened at all" are both wrong.
I love how excited he gets :D I'm reading the bible rn and when he talked about the bible saying that men sleeping with men isn't moral etc, it reminded me of my thoughts when I read that part. It clearly stated who can sleep with whom, and if I remember correctly it even included animals. Some scholars say the "men can't lie with men" was a mistranslation and it actually means kids. I believe this, because why tf would they leave kids out of it? Giving a precise list of stuff that's off limits and not including kids would have clear implications, wouldn't it? Edit: just realized that Dr. Bart Ehrman is the author of "Jesus, interrupted", which I started reading earlier this year. Cool little coincidence for me :)
"Some scholars say the "men can't lie with men" was a mistranslation and it actually means kids." Those aren't scholars. Those are Biblical apologists. They're lying. "I believe this, because why tf would they leave kids out of it?" The honest answer is because back then people didn't care about people having sex with kids, beyond a daughter being property of the father. Hell, the God of the Bible rapes and impregnates an underage girl, and that's a key part of the mythology.
@@EBDavis111 yep, I know, but if I was a christian, I'd rather say "yeah, they absolutely meant children", than being cool with the consequences of the other translation. In theory. Reality is that most christians didn't really read the bible though.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I’m not a homophobe, but it makes sense for the time the Bible was written to discourage people from having same sex relationships or even that it wasn’t natural because they had such limited, or even no understanding of biology etc then. It makes no sense to persecute anyone for their sexuality these days, or indeed, to apply the guidelines of a 2000 year old book to modern life in general.
@@ShintogaDeathAngel I don't think most people back then know LGBT 🌈 people existed. So they could not develop hateful feelings for them. Just like you cannot really develop hateful feelings for unicorns 🦄. Back then, humans were much more reliably hypnotised by the Unconscious. Thus, reliably served the Unconscious' end goal of *maximising the number of children of the tribe.*
You're gonna get through it!!!! It's jarring to start but you're not wrong for asking questions!!!!! The gospels themselves don't agree on a lot, thank u for listening 2 ur heart
@@dianadeejarvis7074 For the same reason any author doesn't give a character a name that fits where the author lives instead of where the character does? Even Hollywood knew not to name the daughter of the pharaoh in Mummy 2 "Janet" just because she was played by Rachel Weiz!
@LeviticusStroud the point is if Moses is completely fictional -- not based on a real person at all -- they don't need the story about him being rescued as a baby & adopted by an Egyptian princess. They could have given their hero a better background.
@@dianadeejarvis7074 Huh? Is that a serious opinion, or are you just trolling at this point? Name a famous fictional protagonist who *doesn't* have a fairly complex backstory! As for Moses, if not adopted - how else would he be fully educated and able to get access to talk to the pharaoh?
Hi Emma. Thank you so much for hosting Doctor Ehrmann again. He was the most influential scholar on my way away from mysticism to real historical thinking. Thank you Emma. And also thanks to Doctor Ehrmann. Keep on winning by being knowledgeable and mostly right. You won me over and so many more, just by saying stuff that makes more sense than what most mysticists say.
Regarding the livestock contradiction: We were taught in my evangelical church that it's not a contradiction, the Egyptians obviously went and bought more livestock from surrounding nations.
My question is since the Hebrews were slaves were they taught how to read and write? In the exodus I would imagine that only Moses could read and write since he was raised as an Egyptian who should have been literate. Why give any laws if the people/Hebrews couldn't read them, only Moses and therefore only he could verify what the words/commandments meant.
Yeah, about the livestock, don't forget the Egyptian Army somehow rode after the Jewish people on dead horses that had been killed several times over at that point.
Dr. Ehrman seems to have a controversial reputation but from everything I've read of his so far he seems like someone who just tries to look at things as logically and objectively as possible.
I had always supposed that the instruction about garments made with two kinds of thread was because different materials would shrink differently and the clothes wouldn't hold their shapes, or might even come apart.
I think that’s because Jewish law was strongly opposed to any form of syncretism. The idea of mixing things was considered dangerous in a culture that was prone to mixing religions. Therefore, the Jewish priesthood forbade mixture of any kind just to hammer that point home to people.
Even if we were to assume that the Egyptians erased the Exodus story from their own records out of embarrassment, why would the Babylonians not report it? Or the Hittites, who as long-time rivals of the Egyptians would LOVE to record a major blow to Egyptian power?
it was recorded and has been here all along, just not brought to anyones attention..The Histories By Tacitus Written 109 A.C.E Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple. Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swine's flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguilded them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Idaei, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven.
My church brain immediately Started singing the "high upon mount siani he gave the rules we should live by as god gave out the shalts and thou shalt nots" damn how deep the indoctrination stitches in
I'm not going to argue with Dr. Ehrman about Moses being an Egyptian name. But in Hebrew Moses had the name "Moshe" (מֹשֶׁה ) that comes from the Hebrew phrase (כִּי מִן הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ), meaning "because I pulled out of the water." The word מְשִׁיתִהוּ means to pull something out of the water, and as one can see the name מֹשֶׁה is constructed from the letters of מְשִׁיתִהוּ . Bottom line, the Hebrew Bible text has these words. This implies that "Batia" the daughter of Pharaoh was speaking Hebrew (because she named the baby that she pulled out of the water). And that is where the conflict may come about.
As a Jewish person, it's always fascinating to watch Christians/former Christians discussing Jewish law and history. It's a very different approach with very different emphases. (And tends to use translations, rather than the original Hebrew. For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder. And, of course, the issue he brings up with the Plagues is also down to translation.) After all, the Tanakh is very much only *part* of the tradition and law for Judaism. And interpretations vary *wildly.* I am absolutely not religious, but...yeah, some of Dr. Ehrman's interpretations are...not the same as Jewish scholars in some places. And it just drives me nuts to always see *only* Christian influence interpretations of Jewish writings and law. Love you, Emma, but please, please try to expand your sources--there are a *lot* of atheist Jewish scholars too! (In fact, there are *religious* atheist Jewish scholars, which is not a contradiction, and shows a huge difference between Judaism and Christianity/Islam!)
“For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder.” ==Such problems are started by one of the tribes. You seem to be saying that the Amelekites started it and the jews were on the defense. Unfortunately, we don’t know who started it. Also, we aren’t treating this as history. We are, I think Bart Erhman as well, treating this as religious text. The story is that the jews are leaving in large numbers, Egypt. The jewish god promises other people’s lands to them. Why is this god doing that? The Earth is huge. The universe is huge. There is plenty of space for his favorite people. There is no need to murder or kill other people. There are plenty of non-violent alternatives for the jewish god. Read 1 Samuel 15:1. It is describing a genocide. Why would an all loving god, a god that created everyone just watch such a thing happen? How could a person with a conscious just watch something like that? So, even if this god doesn’t exist, we can judge it, we can criticize its decisions in this story book. It is important to do this since there are people today, the people of the 20 th and 21 th century, that think that such behavior is awesome.
@@louistournas120 I never said anything about “who started it.” (That being said, the claim was that the Amelkites-who were not Canaanites-raided the Israelite camps, which did, in fact, start it.) I never said a lot of things you seem to be saying I said. As for the rest of your comment, the specific land seems to be where the Semitic peoples (not just Jews) may have originated, so there are a lot of non-black and white questions there. The archeological record seems to be pretty clear though- the massacres in the Tanakh seem to have been much more limited than a literal reading. It appears that most Canaanites assimilated into the Hebraic customs, rather than being put to the sword. As for looking at this as history rather than simply a religious text, Emma and Ehrman brought it up. I responded. Even if it *is* looked at from a religious viewpoint only, the Christian interpretation of the literature is *vastly* different than the Jewish one, and translation mistakes often inform the former. I absolutely get the quote correct skepticism of the Bible. I’m an agnostic myself. But even your framing of “a loving god” is a Christian construct, and not a Jewish one. All I’m asking is for Emma-or whoever-to take into account that that viewpoint is limited insofar as discussing the “Old Testament” (again, Christian framing) or Jewish law. Instead of saying whatever it is you thought I said.
@@cassandramiller4477 Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You had written: “For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder.” What is murder and what is to kill, according to you? “Amelkites raided the Israelite camps, which did, in fact, start it.” ==How do you know Amelkites started it? “the specific land seems to be where the Semitic peoples (not just Jews) may have originated” ==According to the Tanakh, the jews left Egypt. Previous to that, where were there and can you provide the lines from the tanakh? All atheists are agnostic as well. “But even your framing of “a loving god” is a Christian construct” ==If the word loving god is troublesome to you, replace it with caring god or moral god or a god with a conscious.
@@louistournas120 Ok, taking it in order: The “murder”/“kill” thing was specific to a difference between one person murdering another and a soldier killing in battle. That is a very specific difference in language very much tied to something Dr. Ehrman specifically talked about. The mitzvah is “Thou shall not murder.” The Amelekite thing: uh, it is, in fact, in the Bible. Whether it’s historically true or not, it’s there. And there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for the massacre in the first place. No, the Tanakh (which is more than just Exodus) says that Jacob and his people lived in the land of Canaan and went to Egypt, thus the Hebrews were *returninh* after the Exodus. Again, historically, the general area was the original home of the Semitic peoples. So, per the Bible *and* the historical/archeological record, your point is nonsensical. Your final point is almost too ignorant to be discussed. *Judaism comes from a completely different framework than Christianity.* The modern concept of a “loving God” is entirely a Christian construct and has absolutely no bearing on Judaism at all. Seriously, Judaism has literally 2000 years of commentary on all of this that was ignored by Christian culture for about 1800 of those years. They are vastly different religions with vastly different interpretations and worldviews. It’s not asking too much that a discussion of the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Histories not be simply bound to Christian discussion/interpretation. Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not the same; one believes firmly there is no such thing as a deity or higher force, the other acknowledges that it could be a possibility, although not a probability. That’s just fundamental ignorance. Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition. Now, I truly understand that you have no idea how to view this from a perspective that isn’t informed by Christianity, and I guess that’s fine. But leave me out of your interpretation then, ok? Because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@cassandramiller4477 “The “murder”/“kill” thing was specific to a difference between one person murdering another and a soldier killing in battle.” ==Interestingly enough, that is exactly what a few christians have told me. If 1 person kills another person, it is morally wrong. If a group of people kill another group, it is morally ok. My morality is different than that and that is why I point to such lines in the tanakh and claim that the jewish god is immoral. For example, if one person kills another person bc his goal was to rob him, or maybe he was jealous of his good looks, it is wrong. If one person kills another person in self-defense, then that is ok as long as he did his best to disable the attacker. Now, in the case of war. Is the tanakh talking about war? Nope. Read 1 Samuel 15:1. It is about vengeance. This isn’t about self-defense. On top of that, it is talking about killing innocent people, children and animals. It is talking about totally wiping them out. It is talking about genocide. “The Amelekite thing: uh, it is, in fact, in the Bible. Whether it’s historically true or not, it’s there. And there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for the massacre in the first place.” ==The probability of war between 2 tribes is extremely likely, therefore, I conclude wars and massacres did happen. The probability of a human drinking water is extremely likely, therefore, I conclude that a human did drink water. It is part of human nature. I can’t say that it is highly likely that amelekites started a war. I don’t know much about them. “No, the Tanakh (which is more than just Exodus) says that Jacob and his people lived in the land of Canaan and went to Egypt, thus the Hebrews were returninh after the Exodus. Again, historically, the general area was the original home of the Semitic peoples. So, per the Bible and the historical/archeological record, your point is nonsensical.” ==It could be nonsensical. Can you point me to the lines in the tanakh? I am not saying that you are wrong. I just want to save it somewhere. “Your final point is almost too ignorant to be discussed. Judaism comes from a completely different framework than Christianity. The modern concept of a “loving God” is entirely a Christian construct and has absolutely no bearing on Judaism at all.” ==Alright, the jews don’t believe in a caring or loving god. Happy? “Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not the same; one believes firmly there is no such thing as a deity or higher force, the other acknowledges that it could be a possibility, although not a probability. That’s just fundamental ignorance. Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition.“ ==Based on what I have read, there are a few definitions of atheism. In general, atheists state that there isn’t sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods, therefore, the belief switch is in the off position. The time to believe is when sufficient evidence is presented. Belief just means opinion. I use definition 2 from the Merriam-webster dictionary. It takes the form of: Do you believe that the number of trees on planet Earth is an odd number? Answer = No, I do not believe that bc no evidence has been presented. Another definition matches yours: that an atheist believes firmly that there are no gods. This is covered in wikipedia. A portion of the text from wikipedia reads: Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. The question would be: Do you know that there are gods? Answer = No, I do not know. “Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition.” ==Atheism deals with beleif while agnosticms deals with knowledge and belief and knowledge aren’t the same thing. You can be a non beleiver and not know something. There is no compatibility problem between the 2 states.. For example, I believe that person is not guilty because there is no evidence that he committed that crime, therefore, he should be set free. Not guilty is the default position used in courts. A lot atheists use the same kind of logic. They use the default position of non belief until sufficient evidence is provided. They aren’t making the claim that there are no gods. They operate under the notion that belief in the existence of something should be accompanied with evidence. “Now, I truly understand that you have no idea how to view this from a perspective that isn’t informed by Christianity” ==I’m not trying to upset you.
How do we know that Monday is really not Sunday, or Wednesday is not really Friday as God intended. Just to be safe, we should not do anything of work on any day.
When I was Christian I used to just accept the bible and not really think about the moral implications but now I'm horrified at things like the 'Passover', I mean how did I not realise this is just a mass baby killing event! Not only a mass baby killing event but one that's celebrated!
@@0752756949 I mostly agree with what you say. Generally though, children die as a result of actions rather than are deliberately killed. The point I'm trying to make though, is that this particular case is the action of a supposedly 'loving' god and as such (presumably an all powerful god as well) surely some other action could have been taken which brings me on to the hypocrisy of religious types (usually mostly religious types anyway) who are so anti-abortion.
I love Judaism because we (for the most part) don’t bullshit ourselves into saying or believing that the old testament is literally true word for word. And even so, we still believe there are countless wise lessons in there to appreciate.
So, since Moses is an Egyptian name, possibly (depending on how many people were involved in the writing and /or creation of the 5 books of Moses), maybe these writers had lived with an oral narrative that coalesced over hundreds of years until finally, while imprisoned in Babylon, they were able to be educated in writing enough to put together a full story. The name Moses would have been just a signature Egyptian name to separate him and lend credence to the stories beginning. I think all Semites were initially Egyptian. Some, much like most human populations do, congregated as a tribe,.... and at some point left Egypt... to find their own place... and the story grew from that into a reason why they left as a group.
The 10 commandments in Exodus 20 were broken, and moses had to go back up the mountain and came down with the list in Exodus 34. The 10 commandments from Exodus 34 were next put in the Arc. However, in Deuteronomy the list in the arc is the list from Exodus 20. Even worse, God says in Ezekiel that he gave commands that were not good, and included child sacrifice, in order to horrify the Israelites. The command of child sacrifice is in the commandments listed in Exodus 34, which says that the first born of EVERY womb is to be a burnt sacrifice. Every passage that apologists use to say Yahweh doesn't like child sacrifice refer to him not liking child sacrifice to OTHER gods. Interestingly, the Christian apologists who are dead set that God doesn't like child sacrifice belong to a religion that is literally founded on a sacrifice of the firstborn.
The ones 11 through 15 were, and Moses had to think quickly to cover his tripping on the slope once on the way down and dropping them - source, Mel Brooks in the documentary "History of the World, Part 2" Or, was it 1 - 5 the ones that fell... or were they 6 - 10? We may never know.
Dear Emma, thank you for being such a lovely person! I enjoyed your interaction with Bart. I have been binge watching videos of his. On a personal note, I was born in Essex, 1948 and my family moved to Canada in 1953. I have often wondered over the years how my life may have turned out had I been brought up in the U.K. I find it fascinating seeing people who had that experience! Peace and Love and best wishes. btw I have sub'd :)
The worst commandment is thou shalt not covert they neighbors man servant nor maid servant. Basically stating that coveting is bad while complete condoning slavery.
I was raised Mormon and remember being taught that basically, the Israelites were so disobedient that they were deliberately given a 'lesser' law which is the stuff in the Bible. Mormonism was supposedly the full restoration of the laws that Moses was supposed to give. This was the excuse for cherry-picking which laws to follow.
Ehrman is a thorn in the apologists' side. I have a lot of comments from my own vids with Christians who will point to a relic or a minor piece of evidence and claim that backs the exodus fable. IE: Look, something showing that Hebrews were slaves! Yes I'm sure there were some Hebrew slaves. Nothing that indicates it was a global slavery nor exodus nor wandering in the wilderness for forty years. The problem with apologists is they take a maybe truth or small truth then create a giant jump to attempt to prove a much larger truth. There remains nothing that shows Moses existed nor led an exodus nor Joshua later took Jericho and AI or any of the other fables. Cheers, DCF
The Jewish understanding of the point of these three plagues on livestock is that, no matter what the Egyptians did to replace their livestock, it got killed off because of the Pharoah's stubbornness. After the death of all the livestock in the fifth plague, the Egyptians obtained cattle and goats from somewhere outside of Egypt (and I assume you know that Egypt was not the only country on earth at the time that possessed livestock). So after partial restocking, the new livestock that remained outside (because some Egyptians refused to listen to the warning) got killed off by the fire and hail. Then, we assume, there is another partial restocking from somewhere else, and the firstborn of the survivors, and of the new stock, dies in the plague of the firstborn
I wonder, how could Israelites "escape from Egypt" going to Canaan from Goshen ? Canaan was under Egypt during 18th and 19th dynasties.(the purported period of Moses/Exodus). They just moved from one part of Egypt to another. Ramesses II even had massive troops garrisoned in Canaan for his Battle of Kadesh with Hittites.
The Israelites were the Canaanites. The oppression of which Exodus speaks is precisely based upon the Egyptian occupation of Canaan. The event that inspired the Exodus story was the Egyptian exodus from Canaan, not the other way around, when the Philistines began to raid Egyptian garrisons during the 11th Century BC and brought an end to the Middle Bronze Age.
@@ethanhocking8229 Yes. After the retreat of Egypt from Levant following bronze age collapse, the Canaanites living in hills moved to plains and occupied the desolate land . They embellished that story with escape from slavery and conquering of Jericho.
She never says hi to me :( only to lovely people :p I do enjoy being accused of being lovely though :) Just as I enjoy being lumped in with puppies and kittens by Aron Ra :D
You know the part about the livestock, I remember the first time reading it I had to keep going back because I thought I misread it. Then the New Testament and how the different denominations go on about faith plus works or grace through faith. It says both. It’s a never ending debate because both sides have passages that back it up but both agree there’s no contradictions in scripture. 😐
The time that elapsed from when the Exodus was supposed to have happened, until the time when it was actually written down was more than 500 years. Like the legends of King Arthur, of which there is also no historical evidence, Moses and the Exodus is a mythic tale. As for numbers, we know that in the past thousands, or hundreds of thousands was just a literary device used by authors to convey importance of an event, not really being used like we use numbers today.
The Jewish understanding of the discrepancy in the Names of God, is that a name comes with a reputation - that's a known part of Israelite culture. The reputation that comes along with El Shaddai is of God as Provider and Protector, but that YHVH has the reputation of Deliverer and Liberator. So God was saying that you knew Me as Provider and Protector, but as Deliverer and Liberator, you did not yet know Me. Incidentally, the archaic Hebrew word for clan and thousand were written the same: alef-lamed-peh. It's not a typo, they are the same set of consonants
I think the story of Joshua is a distant memory of the conquest of Canaan by the Sea People who became known as Philistines. The Israelite tribe of Dan was probably composed of Greek Danoi.
I would love his perspective on how there are many similar stories in other religions, what those are, and where they actually come from. He has probably already spoken about this somewhere, but also I'd love to hear his take on the Council of Nicea.
What will happen to traditional religion when a new generation enters with knowledge and understanding, who don't blindly accept traditional but for the first time in history, understand the history, znd there is much more to be found. Let this generation search for the truth as no other has been able.god bless.
Talks like this are very interesting. And I appreciate having them to listen to and learn from. Thanks Emma and Bart. One nitpick at 15:10 : Did he forget the part where Moses was sent to the Pharaoh's wife on the river, and she gave him an Egyptian name because she was Egyptian?
@@jameswright... A similar word, 'Mosheh' is Hebrew for 'drawing out (of water)'. There is apparently some scholarly debate about whether 'Moses' was derived from Hebrew or Egyptian (which share a root language so a lot of words are similar anyway so it seems like a moot point.) But if Moses is an Egyptian name as Dr. Ehrman states, it would make sense in the context of him being found and raised by an Egyptian.
8:38 what period in time is he referring to? 13th century AC or does he refer to the time the Egyptians used? I have no knowledge of what the Egyptians used to indicated their years so I need to ask
I would be Interested to hear his opinion of the Harris Papyrus. It describes a rebel called Su who paid mercenaries from Canaan by looting temples. He fought Pharaoh and lost, then they fled north. Dated to the Bronze Age collapse.
From my understanding, the story of Moses and the Exodus was oral anywhere from 400 to 800 years before it was written down. It seems to me that Israelites are basically just Canaanites following the Bronze Age Collapse. I need to go back and rewatch Esoterica by Dr. Justin Sledge.
A very good example is when you are narcissistically laughing at contradictions instead of looking for someone that would explain it to you. The point being made to Moses, in Exodus 6:2, isn’t that the Patriarchs didn’t know the name "I am who I am" obviously they did. But that name was being given a new significance now as the covenant name of God with Israel. This is clear from the context of the statement (Exodus 6:2-9). God had told Moses to tell the children of Israel that “I am” (the basis for the name JHWE) had sent him to deliver them from Egypt. That was being done in fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3). He used the name JHWE with a special connection to the fulfillment of that covenant promise. So, in essence, the point is that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had known the working of the Almighty, but they did not see the fulfillment of the covenant promise that God made with them the way that generation of Israel was going to see it. So, there is no contradiction when you understand the passage correctly. We can go on and on about so called "contradictions" that some seem to take so much delight in they can't even contrain their need for narcissistic laughter, instead of looking for someone to explain to them why it's not a contradiction, only a misunderstanding. I for one can answer any point anyone feels is a contradiction... but why ask someone that can answer it when you can laugh about it with someone that also doesn't know better?
So, as I tried to explain below when Moses writes And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. You have to understand Moses while asking God knew nothing of the "JHWE" God, Moses "new" many God's from his Egyptian upbringing. So of course he must have asked "who send you" "in who's name are you talking". So to Moses JHWE was either one of many God's or he didn't even know him so that's no contradiction at all to him revealing that name to Abraham etc.... I wonder why you don't ask someone who understands this....
Setting "everything is so funny" to the side, the interesting part is that beside fundamentalists also the critiques seem to read the bible exactly alike them. Just a few words about errors, there are several sources where a comparison between 2 books in the OT gives a type like error... there were 700, and in the other, there were 7000. Shortly about the "600 thousand" vs "600 tribes" translation, while I am no linguist, let me just give the result it could open up to. 600 tribes gather and exit Egypt due to war, the number of people could easily vary between 30.000 - 300.000. Now let me mention that a historian Manetho (whos original writings are lost) is quoted by Josephus, giving 2 versions of the events. Manetho mentions an Egyptian war against the Hyksos, and one theory is that the Jews were one group (of tribes) on the Hyksos side. 400.000 Egyptians try to encircle Avaris, where the Hyksos are... and the Pharao demands them to leave... Manetho mentions that 240.000 people leave Egypt and goes east... are those the 600 tribes? Were the Jews only a number of tribes of those 600? The story would get a many times more credible foundation, being supported by the numbers of Manetho, IN CASE it was 600 tribes, and not 600.000 men. * Besides, Avaris that has been found, and we have some texts and paintings about the Hyksos. - When Ehrman says there are plenty of Egyptian records, that is a truth with modification. there are plenty of records of some events, or some kings... but there are not plenty of records of all times and events. One of the times less recorded, is the time of the Hyksos, which might be the time where the Israelites lived. The Hyksos are vilified in some Egyptian texts, and therefore the descriptions might have to be taken with a grain of salt. * If the Israelites were a part of the Hyksos, then we would have proof of their existence in both records and images. I personally take the question much more seriously, without knowing the answers to the story, what can we believe, was a part true, some exaggerated... but the jokes... well they are beneath a serious approach to an interesting matter.
Looking at the actual words, the second commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth") seems to forbid astronomy more than it forbids making images of god.
This is good, but just one question - on the point of "Moses" being an egyptian name - seeing as Moses was raised by egyptians from a baby, why wouldn't he have an egyptian name?
I believe the point was, if Moses was completely made up by the Israelites, would the writers of the story really have been worldly enough to have given him an Egyptian name? So while most of the Moses and Exodus story isn't borne out by historical evidence, this one fact raises the question of whether there was a real historical character whose story was embellished?
Hello Lovely People! If you enjoy this conversation and are interested in learning more, do sign up to Bart's new lecture series: Finding Moses - What Scholars Know About The Exodus and The Jewish Law to learn more!
Using my affiliate link helps me out as a creator (: emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/finding-moses/
If you register before the 12th and 13th, you can take part in the live recording and live Q&A session. Either way you get lifetime access to all 8 lectures, Q&A's and bonus materials. Bart's courses are always so fascinating, I cannot recommend them enough for anyone with an interest in biblical scholarship! Nothing helps you take on fundamentalism like knowing the bible ;)
Thanks, Emma! His material sure does look worth looking into.
Especially because an important part about looking into history (as a basis for how to live today), is to stay away from cherrypicking and find out what life/reality really was back "then", and why something was said etc..
That's why I am curious to what more Dr. Bart Ehrman has to say about these matters.
THAT WAS A CHUNKY BIG ONE, EMMA!!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Irrespective of the character incongruities, the Exodus is impossible from the perspectives of logistics, physiology and basic math. To whit:
• How many male slaves were supposedly involved in the diaspora of Exodus according to the bible? (600,000)
• How many additional wives, children, elderly, other family plus animals were there? (Assuming 3 people, 2 animals - plug in whatever number)
• El Paso, Texas has a population of roughly 600,000 ( the biblical number of male slaves in Exodus) not including family and animals, how many square miles comprise its city limits? (259 square miles). Note: Unless the Jews dispersed across the entire desert, this is roughly the amount of space each encampment would require every time they temporarily settled in an area.
• If the above square miles were made into an exact square, how many miles would each length of the leg of the square extend? (16 miles per side)
• Without modern electronic communication, assuming an area roughly the size of El Paso, Texas, how would each member of the diaspora be informed of the complex logistics to begin their journey? (Question stands on its own)
• To empty a city the size of El Paso on foot with streets not much larger than paths, how much time in staging would it take for all slaves, family members and domestic animals to abandon the city? (Haven’t done this calculation yet, but logically it would take months and the Exodus as portrayed in the bible began in one day)
• Assume all slaves and families formed a single line to begin the Exodus (For now ignore the logistics of getting an entire city aligned)
• What is the distance from the alleged point of the Exodus disembarkation of Rameneses to a commonly suggested point by apologists - Nuweibaa Egypt on the Red Sea? (250 miles)
• What is the approximate distance from Neweibaa to the other side? (10.5 miles)
• Given a depth of 2500 feet at the center of the Red Sea at a point directly east from Nuweibaa, how many additional miles would be added to the crossing? (Assuming a rough arc, 1.5 miles)
• What speed are physically fit U.S. soldiers trained to march at? (3.4 mph)
• What is the designated width for a single lane on a U.S. Interstate highway? (12 ft per lane)
• What is the width of the oldest known paved road that was found in Egypt? (6 ft. - With most roads being no more than paths at the time)
• What is the average shoulder width of a male? (16”)
• What would the width of a row of 10 males be given 6 inches of separation of each shoulder between row members? (18 ft)
• Assuming a row of 10 across, separated by one yard per row, how many miles would a column of 600,000 male slaves extend? (45 miles, 60,000 rows)
• Assuming an average of 2 additional members in the families of each male slave, how much additional length would be added to the diaspora column? (136 miles, 120,000 rows)
• Assuming two domestic animals per household that would fit into the 10 row across scenario, how much additional length would be added to the column? (91 miles)
• With slaves, families, excluding animals, what would the approximate length of the Exodus be? (270 miles, 180,000 rows)
• At the marching rate of a U.S. soldier, without sleep, rest periods, no narrowing or barriers on such a trail and no stops for meals, how long would it take for the first row to reach the Nuweibaa beach on the Red Sea? (850 hours, 35 days)
• The last row back row at 180,000 back? (drop the animals) (136 miles [families] + 45 [male slaves] + 250 miles (distance to Red Sea Crossing =127 days)
• What effect would mud have on marching speed from a recently parted sea on a column of 60,000 rows assuming no other physical barriers? Of course the bible increduously claims the crossing to be dry.
• Assuming no barriers or muddy conditions at the Red Sea crossing, how long would it take for the first row to cross the narrowest point of the Red Sea? (12 miles/3.4 = 3.5 hours)
• The last row? (270 miles plus 12 miles to cross = 292) (292/3.4 = 85 hours or 3.6 days)
• If, as the bible indicates, the Egyptian chariots caught up to the Jews at the Red Sea and the Red Sea was only parted by the alleged Moses after seeing the Egyptian chariots, how long would the Egyptians then have to miraculously wait for the last row of Jews to begin crossing the Red Sea so that the "lord" could drown them? ( A minimum of 3.6 days)
• What would be the time necessary for Moses to restage the Jews so they could cross the Red Sea with optimum speed? (Again, I am not sure of the calculations, but this alone would take weeks to months)
@@douglasrasmussen480 why would you assume they were packed into such narrow rows of 10 persons wide??? Even if your reasoning was they were all following one man (Moses), that doesnt require every person be directly behind him to follow. Even a group several thousand wide would only need to stick with the group to follow a single person in front leading that group.
As far as historical evidence of the Exodus outside the Torah, its true that no Eqyptian record collaberates the story as it is told in the Torah. However, there is a REALLY GOOD REASON why.
First, to say there is no evidence of the Hebrews that later inhabited Israel were beforehand slaves in Eqypt and that there was no exodus of people leaving Eqypt is false. Although the complete details are not there, Eqyptians did record a time in their history that speaks of a time of great turmoil/confusion and a massive sudden loss of their (slave) laborer force as being in Eqypt one moment and in the next moment they were gone. They also recorded at this time, the Pharoah simply disappeared. From the Eqyptians perspective, the Pharoah is going to be forced to return these missing slaves who ran off at some point given how critically important they were to the Eqyptians economy but this Pharaoh is never heard from again. A reason for this is provided in the Torah, the Pharaoh and everyone with him also drowned in the Red Sea while trying to track down and return their slaves back to Eqypt. That seems like a reasonable explanation of why the Pharoah never returned to Eqypt, death would likely be the only reason not to return to place where he would of had god-like power. Matter of Fact the ONLY people who could of witnessed everything that happened in the desert and recorded it were the Hebrews. The Eqyptians would of had NO IDEA what happened, which is kinda how they reported the event: Confused and why there is very little to collaborate the story of the Exodus in Eqypt record.
Again how would the Eqyptians have known what happened to their slaves and the Pharoah who drownded trying to retrieve them??? There was no Eqyptian alive to report back to Eqypt and tell them what happened and according to the Eqyptians; their Pharoah simply vanished (dead or not). The Torah simply fills in the blanks of Eqyptian history which could have only been done so throught the persepctive of the Hebrews. So to conclude that because the Eqyptians didn't record the Exodus as it was reported in the Torah, therefor a myth is quite the leap of denial.
Nothing against the experience of Bart, but for someone with such a wealth of knowledge he seems incredibly confused. Especially concluding Moses as a character doesn't make sense because it's an Eqyptian name. WHAT???? The Torah at no point attempts to hide this fact. In fact, Moses name has NOTHING to do with his ethnicity. If Bart is unclear of Moses' ADOPTED NAME, he needs to go back and read the story of Moses again. As a reported expert, this misunderstanding is shameful as every single person of the Abrahamic faith know Moses was found as a baby drifting on the Nile river by the Pharoahs Daughter. She names him a Moses but KNOWS he is one of the Hebrews. Eqyptian, huh BART??
@@ananigma - You are apparently unaware of basic topography, logistics, and cumulative circumstances. The roads of Egypt were no more than paths around 6 feet across. Although the biblical account refers to desert, the topography travelled was covered in massive dunes and depressions that would inhibit wide rows. 10 across is simply an example, but does even stretch the available paths the Jews would travel. It is incredulous how you ignore that the Jews when they saw the Roman chariots while at the shore of the Red Sea panicked but Moses assured them god would intervene. The narrowest and most shallow point of the Red Sea is 10 miles across but to marshal an aggregation of people roughly 70% the population of Chicago would be logistically impossible to mobilize in the face of imminent attack. If the Jews spread out to double, triple, 100 times the sea floor changes dramatically with great depths, coral cliffs and much wider distance across. It strains credulity to assume the Egyptian soldiers would wait the days required to marshall such a large population to cross the Red Sea. You present the typical apologist insertions of coulda's and assumptions that are wholly unbacked in biblical accounting.
No joke when I say that scholars like Dr. Ehrman have taught me far more about the Bible and Christian history in the last few years than any preacher ever did during my entire churchgoing childhood
Heck, you'll learn more just by READING the Bible without the preacher's commentary.
Amen
Thats because u never read Bible
@@amaledward2147 yes I have. Don't make assumptions about people you do not know
It's a bit like learning Klingon. Fascinating but completely useless.
I was always dubious of the Exodus story in the Bible, but Prince of Egypt will always be in my heart.
it's mythology, the story of the founding of a people, so it's valuable for that without it being literally true; Prince of Egypt is an absolute banger of a movie
@@MadailinBurnhope unfortunately there seems to still be a lot of people who want to posit mythology as facts (there will be grains of truth in it, generally speaking, but that doesn’t equal truth like some people think it does).
Emma, I just wanted to take a moment to tell you how much I admire your interviewing skills. I've seen interviews with Bart Ehrman all over the internet and many of them either ask long, complicated questions; longer than the answers, or they talk over him as he's trying to give his answer. You ask a succinct question, then you let the man talk. That's skill and class.
I was once told by an American religious type that the restriction on garments of mixed cloth didn't apply to poly-cottons because polyester was a modern invention. He didn't like it when I suggested that by the same logic, the second amendment only refers to muskets and flintlock pistols.
To be fair those are both bad arguments, but so is using the American constitution as a source of authority.
To be fair, he was absolutely right. Not only does it not prohibit, polycotton, cotton (or polyester for that matter) is not even involved. It only applies to wool and flax, per the text of Deuteronomy 22:11. That is the way it is observed in orthodox Judaism today, and it does not present much of an issue.
Not a fundamentalist, just in favor of accuracy.
@@ardeneberly4450 it’s actually mentioned twice, only in one place is it specific that it is wool and linen, the other place it simply says “neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.”
@@ardeneberly4450 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together."
I read that as using linen and wool as an example of a "diverse sort" cloth.
That's an oversight as well on your part to assume his stance on what he believes. "American religious type" can mean one of 3,000 different religions that America holds, many believing in the Torah without being Abrahamic oddly enough. If you're referring to him being a Christian, than you need to research what the new covenant is and the Christian understanding of following commandments and how that relates to Israelite exclusive Law. If he's Jewish, then that entirely depends on what kind he is whether he keeps tradition or not. Even then, Ultra-Orthodoxy have to consolidate with the degrading of tradition. There are obviously more Abrahamic beliefs that hold the Mitzvah to such high standard but you really need to do research before embarrassing yourself on the Internet with such an uneducated and pompous statement to make yourself sound intelligent when in fact, you are still ignorant about the world's largest faiths.
Not only is there ZERO evidence of the events in Exodus, at that time virtually all of the Levant was part of the Egyptian Empire. In fact, Egypt stretched all the way up to modern day Turkey.
Yep, I think they controlled up to around present Syria Turkish border area right up to the "bronze age collapse" right? Things went south for them around 1200 bc, but egypt actually managed to mostly hold together somehow while just about everyone else collapsed
Odd thing to post about, but thanks for not using the auto-generated closed captioning. Some channels rely on those and they can be weird to follow. Being able to read your proper captioning is very helpful. Thank you!
I'm very grateful for all the support that allows me to get proper captions done :3
@@EmmaThorneVideos Keep up the awesome work! Your content is some of my favorite!
As someone who also uses captions on everything, the auto generated ones are terrible...if sometimes funny. The computer generated ones have gotten much better, but the manually entered ones are able to capture tones and inflections that can be missing. It's always nice to see someone succeed on UA-cam and pay someone for proper captions!
@@EmmaThorneVideos "I'm very grateful for all the support that allows me to get proper captions done :3"
i'd like to see more captions.
like in comics.
a box above your head: "Emmae stared wistfully as she drank a giant mug of steaming coffee."
or, "[the puppet] shook his head fearfully. The last thing he wanted was to visit a creationist museum and be called an abomination because he was felt."
didn't you wear a superhero costume once? i can imagine a whole spinoff comic....
@@vforwombat9915 never thought of mood captions - "Emma boggles silently at the regressive's argument" etc
Bart is always a pleasure to see on this channel! His happy demeanor is contagious
Ditto!
His knowledge is a pleasure, but his demeanor is beyond any level he has earlier shown. It is actually ridiculously unscientific.
@@PjotrII what about New Testament scholarship is supposed to be scientific?
@@luisb8394 I don't understand your " insinuation here"... of course NT scholarship should be scientific.
@@PjotrII Demeanor has nothing to do with scientificity.
Every time I see Dr Bart Ehrman I get excited and there’s always something new to write down! I do love seeing the breakdown of Abrahamic mythology so eloquently.
Bart knows a lot about the bible but he totally butchers it and in all honesty he sounds and acts like an idiot
Such interesting topic! Thanks so much for covering it!
As an Israeli who's considered Jewish (though I'm an atheist), we're brought up learning all these stories as some absolute truths, and it took me years to start learning it more thoroughly and understand how farfetched they are from reality.
I absolutely love when you have Bart on here.
Just one note, according to the book, Moses' name was given to him by the Pharaoh's daughter who rescued him and adopted him. So having an Egyptian name does make sense. Also, there's an Hebrew explanation to the name in the story, she called him that because she pulled him out of the water. (It makes sense in Hebrew because "Moses" and "I pulled him" are from the same word family in Hebrew. Why would she speak Hebrew though? No clue)
Congrats on ur freedom bro ❤💪💪💪
I was looking for a comment about the name thing...I wonder if he meant that it's odd for the Isrealites to decide to give this figure an Egyptian name (even if they gave a reason) considering he was the most important figure in their culture? Not sure, but you bring up another great point in favor of a mythical Moses...why WOULD the Pharoah's daughter name him based on a phrase in Hebrew? It doesn't sound realistic, but sure works for the storytelling.
@@armyoftinymoas great point. It feels like it shows the lineage of the story, not that it is likely truth.
Is it possible that Hebrew was the lingua franca of the Egyptian rulers at the time.
The only reason I can make up is meta-wise and an author's choice to make the protagonist more relatable to the audience, who are purely Hebrews. Many figures in the bible tend to go back to Egypt, like Abraham and Joseph. Only on those stories, Egypt is more neutral but still a recurring element because of their geographic location. Moses' story is where Egypt becomes a full-on antagonist.
One question about the Exodus I've heard asked is, how did they manage to take so long and get so lost on such a short journey? A short trip down the coast and they'd have been there in a couple of weeks walking. The ones at the front would arrive before the ones at the back had left Egypt.
They were god's chosen people! They had to suffer!
You know what... just for asking that question I'm going to bury your city in a pile of pheasants six kilometers high.
The answer is simple.
[EXODUS 13]
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that
God led them not through the way of the *land of the Philistines*
although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people
repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt:
*The Philistines don't show up until 1177BCE. BUT Moses took a 40 year detour*
_"how did they manage to take so long and get so lost on such a short journey?"_
Being a man, Moses refused to stop and ask directions.
And of course, the place they fled to from Egypt - you know who ruled it?
... *Egypt.* Back in those days, that area was ruled by Egypt. There's a lot of archeological evidence, plus lots of records. (That had probably changed by the time the stories were written down.)
... and there seems to be significant evidence that the Israelites were fellow Canaanites.
@@KaiHenningsen Do you mean this evidence?
Referring to the hills of Canaan
Dr William Dever: "We know today, from archeological investigation, that there were more than 300 early villages of the 13th and 12th century in the area. I call these "proto-Israelite villages".
*This has been verified by archeologists*
i.e. Mazur, Na'aman, Finkelstein, Faust and Dever
Dr William Dever, an archaeologist normally associated with the more conservative end of Syro-Palestinian archaeology, has labeled the question of the historicity of Exodus “dead”.
This video is an excellent preview for the upcoming course. I've been wanting to get Dr. Bart Ehrman's take on the Exodus for years. Though raised Roman Catholic, I came to Fundamentalist Christianity at age 17 in the late 1970s. Don't ask me why! 😁 I had been fan of Science Fiction, an amateur astronomy, and a history buff previously. Later in life, at age 39, many of the things Dr. Ehrman discusses about Jesus Christ and the New Testament led me to become a 12er Shi'ite Muslim in the classic mode ... anti-Imperialist, not much interest in political or military power, defensive warfare only with limits, and no compulsion in religion. I never was talked out of my belief in one gracious, merciful, just and loving God. However, while I think there was a historical figure that became the the Moses of the Bible, I can't buy the supposed historical precision of the Bible. I believe the first five books contain some of the teachings of the historical figure Moses. But, there is a lot of added material as well.
Personally, my outlook is very Libertarian as far as personal freedoms are concerned. However, as long as the government doesn't get to big, I support social programs to help the needy and to improve their position.
Not only Jews and Christians but Muslims ought to consider Dr. Ehrman's scholarly work. Most of the nonsense in Islam comes from later traditions and imperialist takes on the Quran. The Quran itself says some passages should not be taken literally. That's why I think that Christians and others ought to learn about what the Bible really is. I believe there was a historical Moses, a historical Jesus, and a historical Muhammad. However, I don't think any of them would be happy with the state of the Abrahamic faiths today.
Have a happy holiday season. I am subscribed to your channel.
In parallel with the words now referred to as "ten commandments", we also find "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
I was taught that the name Moses (Moshe) came from the Hebrew phrase “min ha mayim mishiseehoo “ (from the water I drew him). These are Hebrew words (which, oddly were spoken by the person from the kingdom of Pharaoh,) so this was a Hebrew phrase spoken by an Egyptian. But the name Moses has a Hebrew origin
Tutmoses = Tut + Moses . The name is Egyptian, not Hebrew. I think it means “dedicated to.”
Says your interpretation.
I clicked on this video the moment I saw Dr. Ehrman was being interviewed. You two do great collaborative videos. Always interesting and fun.
Yay Dr Bart is back! And on my favourite book of the Bible. Hallelujah 👏 👏 👏
Great. Bart is always a fun scholar to listen to. Not fusty and very humane. I've signed up for his 'Moses course' and looking forward to hearing his illuminating content. Flaxen Saxon
Can the course be downloaded?
@@pagandeva2000 Once you sign up you can access the course, and others, from the site, as required. It has been delayed presently due to Dr Erhman's personal issues. I wish him the best and a quick resolution of his problems. Flaxen Saxon.
Great stuff Emma. I like listening to Bart he seems very enthusiastic
One thing that never made sense to me is Pharoah's reaction to Moses making demands and threats over and over. Any other tyrant would have Moses beheaded at the first bit of sass. It makes for a fun story but is not plausible as history.
It's so great that Dr Ehrman takes time for people like you & me.👍
IMHO, Ehrman is maybe the most influential secular historian of Christianity and has tremendous influence. The Four Horsemen and other atheist pundits are easy for the faithful to marginalize and ignore, but Dr. Ehrman speaks the language in a convincing manner. He keeps a foot in both worlds, and he forces the faithful to consider their religion.
I love you too! Enjoyed listening to this. Bart is without a doubt the premier heavy hitter when it comes to pulling away the fog of traditional Christian understanding and teaching of the bible. PS, did I happen to tell you, I love you too! (Only those who watched to the end will understand.)
Curious on how people don't consider Moses being more of a title than a name. Also the similarities of Moses and Anubis as to how they were both placed in the Nile River and pulled out or saved by a foster mother figure. Also Curious is on how the mythical version of Hercules went through very similar situations.........things that make you go hmmmm......
There’s also a lot of parallels between the Jesus story and and ancient mythology/religion.
@@G-L-O-R-I-A same with the story of Adam and eve. Most all the stories are similar to one another.
The similarity of Moses' river story is almost exactly like Sargon of Akkad... who was around about 2300 BCE.
I don't understand, how come this comment is posted a day ago but this video is posted only a few hours ago?
@@justsomeguywithoutamustang6436 Perhaps she releases videos earlier for Patreons or channel members.
My favorite part of the Ten Commandments is how God committed genocide several times because people were bad, and *then* gave us the rules.
@Putin Runs the GOP Nah. God and Satan are pretty much the Duke brothers from _Trading Places._
Oh I thought that the best thing was after God gives the 5th Commandment he orders a pogrom .... And doesn't bat an eyelid
@Putin Runs the GOP That was a typo; an honest mistake missed in the translations. It actually said accused instead of accuser :p
I mean, Satan is constantly being accused of lying and doing magic and shape shifting when he's just wondering about and telling people the truth while god is lying, doing magic, and shapeshifts in all kinds of weird scheiße.
If Satan is actually the bad guy, god is satan and he is the author of confusion and bigotry, encouraging and requiring people to follow him based on nothing but logical fallacies and thinking errors and encouraging and requiring people to train themselves in excusing everything and anything by those fallacies and thinking errors.
It's abusive and a perfect excuse to do literally anything for your own short term personal gain by hiding behind the perfect narcissist.
It's a pathetically simple strategy to accuse "the enemy" of doing things you yourself do and then have stupid morons excuse everything you do by saying you wouldn't do those bad things because you just pointed it out in "the enemy".
They say ignorance is bliss. I feel it's pitiful in how pathetic and harmful it is to all the billions of victims, many of whom still worship their abusers and look up to the enablers. If Satan is considered a separate character and not just another alter ego of this "god", I have more respect for it than I have for any real person bowing down to this pathetic narcissistic god, who - by the way - does nothing in the entire book that doesn't serve worship for himself, just to provide some perfect proof for his perfect narcissism. Hail Satan!
YeahH... the same as these coming new journal might be the God enjoy killing people.
If the Avangard hit the caldera of Wyoming.
Wow.. cemented liver were everywhere.
Funny reading the Bible
Isaiah 60 verse 12. 😵
2 Kings 1 : 10
Thank you so much for sharing Dr. Ehrman's interview about the veracity / accuracy of the Moses / Exodus story. I am currently about 6 months into a planned year-long deconstruction process and Dr. Ehrman's expertise and insight have been quite informative. I've also watched him on numerous other "skeptic" channels discussing Genesis and the Gospels which was equally as informative.
I've learned so much from him. I love his laugh. Congrats on your deconversion. Welcome to the World of Rationality.
@@doneestoner9945 Thanks. In June I told my therapist about my deconstruction and mentioned how Dr. Ehrman as well as the UA-camrs "Genetically Modified Skeptic", "Ex-Fundie Diaries" and "Holy Koolaid" among many others are informing the process. I am the product of a Fundamentalist / Evangelical cult (Maranatha was actually accused of cult behavior in the '80s) and after about 25 years of being emotionally manipulated, I am now undergoing EMDR therapy (commonly used for PTSD / CPTSD treatment).
wtf is a "deconstruction process"?
How can you possibly plan the duration of your deconstruction process? Are you like "this date next year will be the day I stop believing in God"?
@@smurfystefDeconstruction is an analysis of ones world view and the values & beliefs upon which that world view is based. In my case that means taking a close look at "spirituality" and my beliefs about "God", the bible and "faith", separating the elements based upon psychological & emotional manipulation or "indoctrination" from those based upon evidence and logic. It differs from "conversion" in that it is not an instant in which one "flips a switch", repents, says a prayer and is "saved" by the fact that it is not instantaneous or a particular "moment in time", but rather a process worked out over time.
I hope the explanation clarifies it a bit. If not, check out Genetically Modified Skeptic's UA-cam page. He as some great videos discussing his own deconstruction process.
"if you're a man, you shouldn't sleep with someone else's wife"
"if you are a wife, you shouldn't sleep with someone other than your husband"
Pretty significant difference between those two. So basically, if you're a man, it's OK to cheat as long as it's not with a married woman. As a woman, you cannot have sex with anyone else, not even in a consensual threeway or swinging or anything.
That is because a biblical marriage is one man, and as many wives and concubines as he can afford to keep.
Well, it is a book written by men for men. For example, it says that it is abominable for a m to sleep with a m but there is no mention of a f sleeping with an f.
And that is only one example. There are multiple lines that give clues which gender should read the Bible.
Unless your name is Mary, then God can impregnate you even though you are betrothed to a mortal.
@Putin Runs the GOP No, it's condoned by man, who uses 'god', to control everyone else.
You are missing it... Each sex had freedoms and restrictions under Jewish law when it came to avoidance of an adultery charge. A man could sleep with any woman OTHER than another man's wife or betrothed. While a single woman (unmarried and not yet betrothed) could sleep with literally ANY man.
I love Numbers 31, it's so uplifting and positive
I really like Dr. Ehrman's sobriety when it comes to this. Of course the Bible isn't an inerrant source of truth, but it *was* written _very_ long ago and it wasn't like every single author was an evil cackling villain crafting every single word out of thin air to manipulate the masses. As with almost everything in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I don’t think the (lack of) evidence paints a picture of the truth “being somewhere in the middle”.
@@scrumpymanjack Well, there *is* evidence for the existence of Jesus as a person, at least.
My point is that extreme positions are usually wrong ones; in this case, "everything in there is absolute gospel truth and there are no mistakes or manipulations" and "everything in there is absolute horseshit and nothing in there happened at all" are both wrong.
@@cobrasys I agree on the Jesus point. The Bible also mentions real places. But you need more than that to get you to “somewhere in the middle”.
I love how excited he gets :D
I'm reading the bible rn and when he talked about the bible saying that men sleeping with men isn't moral etc, it reminded me of my thoughts when I read that part. It clearly stated who can sleep with whom, and if I remember correctly it even included animals. Some scholars say the "men can't lie with men" was a mistranslation and it actually means kids. I believe this, because why tf would they leave kids out of it? Giving a precise list of stuff that's off limits and not including kids would have clear implications, wouldn't it?
Edit: just realized that Dr. Bart Ehrman is the author of "Jesus, interrupted", which I started reading earlier this year. Cool little coincidence for me :)
"Some scholars say the "men can't lie with men" was a mistranslation and it actually means kids."
Those aren't scholars. Those are Biblical apologists. They're lying.
"I believe this, because why tf would they leave kids out of it?"
The honest answer is because back then people didn't care about people having sex with kids, beyond a daughter being property of the father. Hell, the God of the Bible rapes and impregnates an underage girl, and that's a key part of the mythology.
@@EBDavis111 yep, I know, but if I was a christian, I'd rather say "yeah, they absolutely meant children", than being cool with the consequences of the other translation. In theory. Reality is that most christians didn't really read the bible though.
The Bible either says all homosexuals should die or there is nothing wrong with it.
Jeremiah's new covenent or the many reasons not to believe Paul.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana I’m not a homophobe, but it makes sense for the time the Bible was written to discourage people from having same sex relationships or even that it wasn’t natural because they had such limited, or even no understanding of biology etc then. It makes no sense to persecute anyone for their sexuality these days, or indeed, to apply the guidelines of a 2000 year old book to modern life in general.
@@ShintogaDeathAngel I don't think most people back then know LGBT 🌈 people existed. So they could not develop hateful feelings for them.
Just like you cannot really develop hateful feelings for unicorns 🦄.
Back then, humans were much more reliably hypnotised by the Unconscious. Thus, reliably served the Unconscious' end goal of *maximising the number of children of the tribe.*
Your videos are the only thing keeping me sane currently. Thank you
You're gonna get through it!!!! It's jarring to start but you're not wrong for asking questions!!!!! The gospels themselves don't agree on a lot, thank u for listening 2 ur heart
I saw the light, I saw the light, no more in darkness, no more in night,praise God I have Jesus!!! KJV
King James, his bishops, and the panel of translators would have had you imprisoned for the nonsense you believe. Why use KJV?
31 minutes of pure intellectual pleasure......Thank you Emma and Thank you Dr. Ehrman
This is pure nonsense and dribbling
Keep saying "love you". Is very
sweet and Inclusuve, and because it is spontaneous, it reflects well on you
Dr Ehrman: "Why did they call him Moses, an Egyptian name?"
The Bible: "He was adopted by an Egyptian princess who named him Moses."
Me:
Not quite. He asked *if Israelites were making up the story* why would they give their hero an Egyptian name.
@@dianadeejarvis7074
For the same reason any author doesn't give a character a name that fits where the author lives instead of where the character does?
Even Hollywood knew not to name the daughter of the pharaoh in Mummy 2 "Janet" just because she was played by Rachel Weiz!
@LeviticusStroud the point is if Moses is completely fictional -- not based on a real person at all -- they don't need the story about him being rescued as a baby & adopted by an Egyptian princess. They could have given their hero a better background.
@@dianadeejarvis7074
Huh?
Is that a serious opinion, or are you just trolling at this point?
Name a famous fictional protagonist who *doesn't* have a fairly complex backstory!
As for Moses, if not adopted - how else would he be fully educated and able to get access to talk to the pharaoh?
Hi Emma. Thank you so much for hosting Doctor Ehrmann again. He was the most influential scholar on my way away from mysticism to real historical thinking.
Thank you Emma. And also thanks to Doctor Ehrmann. Keep on winning by being knowledgeable and mostly right. You won me over and so many more, just by saying stuff that makes more sense than what most mysticists say.
Regarding the livestock contradiction: We were taught in my evangelical church that it's not a contradiction, the Egyptians obviously went and bought more livestock from surrounding nations.
This!!
That’s exactly what my church said
Has anybody mentioned yet how great your shirt is!? Yes, Dr Ehrman is fantastic as always too- thanks for sharing
My question is since the Hebrews were slaves were they taught how to read and write? In the exodus I would imagine that only Moses could read and write since he was raised as an Egyptian who should have been literate. Why give any laws if the people/Hebrews couldn't read them, only Moses and therefore only he could verify what the words/commandments meant.
Yeah, about the livestock, don't forget the Egyptian Army somehow rode after the Jewish people on dead horses that had been killed several times over at that point.
Emma and Bart make a good podcast duo!😊
Dr. Ehrman seems to have a controversial reputation but from everything I've read of his so far he seems like someone who just tries to look at things as logically and objectively as possible.
He’s an extremely uncontroversial scholar, except among fundamentalists, who unfortunately are embedded in some spheres of biblical academia
I had always supposed that the instruction about garments made with two kinds of thread was because different materials would shrink differently and the clothes wouldn't hold their shapes, or might even come apart.
I think that’s because Jewish law was strongly opposed to any form of syncretism. The idea of mixing things was considered dangerous in a culture that was prone to mixing religions. Therefore, the Jewish priesthood forbade mixture of any kind just to hammer that point home to people.
Good point.
Even if we were to assume that the Egyptians erased the Exodus story from their own records out of embarrassment, why would the Babylonians not report it? Or the Hittites, who as long-time rivals of the Egyptians would LOVE to record a major blow to Egyptian power?
it was recorded and has been here all along, just not brought to anyones attention..The Histories
By Tacitus
Written 109 A.C.E
Most writers, however, agree in stating that once a disease, which horribly disfigured the body, broke out over Egypt; that king Bocchoris, seeking a remedy, consulted the oracle of Hammon, and was bidden to cleanse his realm, and to convey into some foreign land this race detested by the gods. The people, who had been collected after diligent search, finding themselves left in a desert, sat for the most part in a stupor of grief, till one of the exiles, Moyses by name, warned them not to look for any relief from God or man, forsaken as they were of both, but to trust to themselves, taking for their heaven-sent leader that man who should first help them to be quit of their present misery. They agreed, and in utter ignorance began to advance at random. Nothing, however, distressed them so much as the scarcity of water, and they had sunk ready to perish in all directions over the plain, when a herd of wild asses was seen to retire from their pasture to a rock shaded by trees. Moyses followed them, and, guided by the appearance of a grassy spot, discovered an abundant spring of water. This furnished relief. After a continuous journey for six days, on the seventh they possessed themselves of a country, from which they expelled the inhabitants, and in which they founded a city and a temple.
Moyses, wishing to secure for the future his authority over the nation, gave them a novel form of worship, opposed to all that is practised by other men. Things sacred with us, with them have no sanctity, while they allow what with us is forbidden. In their holy place they have consecrated an image of the animal by whose guidance they found deliverance from their long and thirsty wanderings. They slay the ram, seemingly in derision of Hammon, and they sacrifice the ox, because the Egyptians worship it as Apis. They abstain from swine's flesh, in consideration of what they suffered when they were infected by the leprosy to which this animal is liable. By their frequent fasts they still bear witness to the long hunger of former days, and the Jewish bread, made without leaven, is retained as a memorial of their hurried seizure of corn. We are told that the rest of the seventh day was adopted, because this day brought with it a termination of their toils; after a while the charm of indolence beguilded them into giving up the seventh year also to inaction. But others say that it is an observance in honour of Saturn, either from the primitive elements of their faith having been transmitted from the Idaei, who are said to have shared the flight of that God, and to have founded the race, or from the circumstance that of the seven stars which rule the destinies of men Saturn moves in the highest orbit and with the mightiest power, and that many of the heavenly bodies complete their revolutions and courses in multiples of seven.
My church brain immediately Started singing the "high upon mount siani he gave the rules we should live by as god gave out the shalts and thou shalt nots" damn how deep the indoctrination stitches in
Great discussion, thank you both.
I'm not going to argue with Dr. Ehrman about Moses being an Egyptian name. But in Hebrew Moses had the name "Moshe" (מֹשֶׁה ) that comes from the Hebrew phrase (כִּי מִן הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ), meaning "because I pulled out of the water." The word מְשִׁיתִהוּ means to pull something out of the water, and as one can see the name מֹשֶׁה is constructed from the letters of מְשִׁיתִהוּ . Bottom line, the Hebrew Bible text has these words. This implies that "Batia" the daughter of Pharaoh was speaking Hebrew (because she named the baby that she pulled out of the water). And that is where the conflict may come about.
As a Jewish person, it's always fascinating to watch Christians/former Christians discussing Jewish law and history. It's a very different approach with very different emphases. (And tends to use translations, rather than the original Hebrew. For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder. And, of course, the issue he brings up with the Plagues is also down to translation.) After all, the Tanakh is very much only *part* of the tradition and law for Judaism. And interpretations vary *wildly.*
I am absolutely not religious, but...yeah, some of Dr. Ehrman's interpretations are...not the same as Jewish scholars in some places. And it just drives me nuts to always see *only* Christian influence interpretations of Jewish writings and law. Love you, Emma, but please, please try to expand your sources--there are a *lot* of atheist Jewish scholars too! (In fact, there are *religious* atheist Jewish scholars, which is not a contradiction, and shows a huge difference between Judaism and Christianity/Islam!)
“For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder.”
==Such problems are started by one of the tribes.
You seem to be saying that the Amelekites started it and the jews were on the defense.
Unfortunately, we don’t know who started it.
Also, we aren’t treating this as history. We are, I think Bart Erhman as well, treating this as religious text.
The story is that the jews are leaving in large numbers, Egypt. The jewish god promises other people’s lands to them. Why is this god doing that? The Earth is huge. The universe is huge. There is plenty of space for his favorite people. There is no need to murder or kill other people. There are plenty of non-violent alternatives for the jewish god.
Read 1 Samuel 15:1.
It is describing a genocide. Why would an all loving god, a god that created everyone just watch such a thing happen? How could a person with a conscious just watch something like that?
So, even if this god doesn’t exist, we can judge it, we can criticize its decisions in this story book.
It is important to do this since there are people today, the people of the 20 th and 21 th century, that think that such behavior is awesome.
@@louistournas120 I never said anything about “who started it.” (That being said, the claim was that the Amelkites-who were not Canaanites-raided the Israelite camps, which did, in fact, start it.) I never said a lot of things you seem to be saying I said. As for the rest of your comment, the specific land seems to be where the Semitic peoples (not just Jews) may have originated, so there are a lot of non-black and white questions there. The archeological record seems to be pretty clear though- the massacres in the Tanakh seem to have been much more limited than a literal reading. It appears that most Canaanites assimilated into the Hebraic customs, rather than being put to the sword. As for looking at this as history rather than simply a religious text, Emma and Ehrman brought it up. I responded. Even if it *is* looked at from a religious viewpoint only, the Christian interpretation of the literature is *vastly* different than the Jewish one, and translation mistakes often inform the former.
I absolutely get the quote correct skepticism of the Bible. I’m an agnostic myself. But even your framing of “a loving god” is a Christian construct, and not a Jewish one. All I’m asking is for Emma-or whoever-to take into account that that viewpoint is limited insofar as discussing the “Old Testament” (again, Christian framing) or Jewish law. Instead of saying whatever it is you thought I said.
@@cassandramiller4477 Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
You had written:
“For example, the Hebrew word used in the Exodus Commandments is specifically translated as "murder," rather than the Hebrew word for "kill." Which is why the destruction of the Amelekites isn't prohibited--it was considered killing in war, not murder.”
What is murder and what is to kill, according to you?
“Amelkites raided the Israelite camps, which did, in fact, start it.”
==How do you know Amelkites started it?
“the specific land seems to be where the Semitic peoples (not just Jews) may have originated”
==According to the Tanakh, the jews left Egypt. Previous to that, where were there and can you provide the lines from the tanakh?
All atheists are agnostic as well.
“But even your framing of “a loving god” is a Christian construct”
==If the word loving god is troublesome to you, replace it with caring god or moral god or a god with a conscious.
@@louistournas120 Ok, taking it in order:
The “murder”/“kill” thing was specific to a difference between one person murdering another and a soldier killing in battle. That is a very specific difference in language very much tied to something Dr. Ehrman specifically talked about. The mitzvah is “Thou shall not murder.”
The Amelekite thing: uh, it is, in fact, in the Bible. Whether it’s historically true or not, it’s there. And there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for the massacre in the first place.
No, the Tanakh (which is more than just Exodus) says that Jacob and his people lived in the land of Canaan and went to Egypt, thus the Hebrews were *returninh* after the Exodus. Again, historically, the general area was the original home of the Semitic peoples. So, per the Bible *and* the historical/archeological record, your point is nonsensical.
Your final point is almost too ignorant to be discussed. *Judaism comes from a completely different framework than Christianity.* The modern concept of a “loving God” is entirely a Christian construct and has absolutely no bearing on Judaism at all.
Seriously, Judaism has literally 2000 years of commentary on all of this that was ignored by Christian culture for about 1800 of those years. They are vastly different religions with vastly different interpretations and worldviews. It’s not asking too much that a discussion of the Five Books of Moses, the Prophets, and the Histories not be simply bound to Christian discussion/interpretation.
Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not the same; one believes firmly there is no such thing as a deity or higher force, the other acknowledges that it could be a possibility, although not a probability. That’s just fundamental ignorance. Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition.
Now, I truly understand that you have no idea how to view this from a perspective that isn’t informed by Christianity, and I guess that’s fine. But leave me out of your interpretation then, ok? Because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
@@cassandramiller4477 “The “murder”/“kill” thing was specific to a difference between one person murdering another and a soldier killing in battle.”
==Interestingly enough, that is exactly what a few christians have told me. If 1 person kills another person, it is morally wrong. If a group of people kill another group, it is morally ok.
My morality is different than that and that is why I point to such lines in the tanakh and claim that the jewish god is immoral.
For example, if one person kills another person bc his goal was to rob him, or maybe he was jealous of his good looks, it is wrong.
If one person kills another person in self-defense, then that is ok as long as he did his best to disable the attacker.
Now, in the case of war. Is the tanakh talking about war? Nope. Read 1 Samuel 15:1.
It is about vengeance. This isn’t about self-defense.
On top of that, it is talking about killing innocent people, children and animals. It is talking about totally wiping them out. It is talking about genocide.
“The Amelekite thing: uh, it is, in fact, in the Bible. Whether it’s historically true or not, it’s there. And there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for the massacre in the first place.”
==The probability of war between 2 tribes is extremely likely, therefore, I conclude wars and massacres did happen.
The probability of a human drinking water is extremely likely, therefore, I conclude that a human did drink water. It is part of human nature.
I can’t say that it is highly likely that amelekites started a war. I don’t know much about them.
“No, the Tanakh (which is more than just Exodus) says that Jacob and his people lived in the land of Canaan and went to Egypt, thus the Hebrews were returninh after the Exodus. Again, historically, the general area was the original home of the Semitic peoples. So, per the Bible and the historical/archeological record, your point is nonsensical.”
==It could be nonsensical.
Can you point me to the lines in the tanakh? I am not saying that you are wrong. I just want to save it somewhere.
“Your final point is almost too ignorant to be discussed. Judaism comes from a completely different framework than Christianity. The modern concept of a “loving God” is entirely a Christian construct and has absolutely no bearing on Judaism at all.”
==Alright, the jews don’t believe in a caring or loving god. Happy?
“Additionally, atheism and agnosticism are not the same; one believes firmly there is no such thing as a deity or higher force, the other acknowledges that it could be a possibility, although not a probability. That’s just fundamental ignorance. Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition.“
==Based on what I have read, there are a few definitions of atheism.
In general, atheists state that there isn’t sufficient evidence for the existence of any gods, therefore, the belief switch is in the off position. The time to believe is when sufficient evidence is presented.
Belief just means opinion.
I use definition 2 from the Merriam-webster dictionary.
It takes the form of:
Do you believe that the number of trees on planet Earth is an odd number? Answer = No, I do not believe that bc no evidence has been presented.
Another definition matches yours: that an atheist believes firmly that there are no gods.
This is covered in wikipedia.
A portion of the text from wikipedia reads:
Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.
Agnosticism deals with knowledge.
The question would be: Do you know that there are gods? Answer = No, I do not know.
“Atheists aren’t agnostics by definition.”
==Atheism deals with beleif while agnosticms deals with knowledge and belief and knowledge aren’t the same thing.
You can be a non beleiver and not know something.
There is no compatibility problem between the 2 states..
For example, I believe that person is not guilty because there is no evidence that he committed that crime, therefore, he should be set free.
Not guilty is the default position used in courts. A lot atheists use the same kind of logic. They use the default position of non belief until sufficient evidence is provided. They aren’t making the claim that there are no gods.
They operate under the notion that belief in the existence of something should be accompanied with evidence.
“Now, I truly understand that you have no idea how to view this from a perspective that isn’t informed by Christianity”
==I’m not trying to upset you.
Love Bart Ehrman. Thank you Emma I learned a lot today.
Keep up the great videos.
I honour the Sabbath day by not doing anything on Saturday, or Sunday. Just to be on the safe side.
How do we know that Monday is really not Sunday, or Wednesday is not really Friday as God intended. Just to be safe, we should not do anything of work on any day.
On the name of "Moses" according to the Old Test./Torah he was *given* that name by the parents who *adopted* him. That explains his name, I believe.
Wow! Dr. Ehrman, Emma you have outdone yourself 🎉
When I was Christian I used to just accept the bible and not really think about the moral implications but now I'm horrified at things like the 'Passover', I mean how did I not realise this is just a mass baby killing event! Not only a mass baby killing event but one that's celebrated!
@@0752756949 I mostly agree with what you say. Generally though, children die as a result of actions rather than are deliberately killed. The point I'm trying to make though, is that this particular case is the action of a supposedly 'loving' god and as such (presumably an all powerful god as well) surely some other action could have been taken which brings me on to the hypocrisy of religious types (usually mostly religious types anyway) who are so anti-abortion.
The questions of which laws Christianity says to follow, and why, is something that I don't think gets enough attention.
I love Judaism because we (for the most part) don’t bullshit ourselves into saying or believing that the old testament is literally true word for word. And even so, we still believe there are countless wise lessons in there to appreciate.
Where does the ability to separate the BS from the "wise" lessons come from?:
So, since Moses is an Egyptian name, possibly (depending on how many people were involved in the writing and /or creation of the 5 books of Moses), maybe these writers had lived with an oral narrative that coalesced over hundreds of years until finally, while imprisoned in Babylon, they were able to be educated in writing enough to put together a full story. The name Moses would have been just a signature Egyptian name to separate him and lend credence to the stories beginning. I think all Semites were initially Egyptian. Some, much like most human populations do, congregated as a tribe,.... and at some point left Egypt... to find their own place... and the story grew from that into a reason why they left as a group.
The 10 commandments in Exodus 20 were broken, and moses had to go back up the mountain and came down with the list in Exodus 34. The 10 commandments from Exodus 34 were next put in the Arc. However, in Deuteronomy the list in the arc is the list from Exodus 20. Even worse, God says in Ezekiel that he gave commands that were not good, and included child sacrifice, in order to horrify the Israelites. The command of child sacrifice is in the commandments listed in Exodus 34, which says that the first born of EVERY womb is to be a burnt sacrifice. Every passage that apologists use to say Yahweh doesn't like child sacrifice refer to him not liking child sacrifice to OTHER gods. Interestingly, the Christian apologists who are dead set that God doesn't like child sacrifice belong to a religion that is literally founded on a sacrifice of the firstborn.
well the apologist would say that this was all myth but weened the people off child sacrifice
The ones 11 through 15 were, and Moses had to think quickly to cover his tripping on the slope once on the way down and dropping them
- source, Mel Brooks in the documentary "History of the World, Part 2"
Or, was it 1 - 5 the ones that fell... or were they 6 - 10? We may never know.
didn't expect Bart Ehrman on this channel...
this channel has come a long way
good job
I want to know how you get lost in a desert for 40 years, was walking north too hard for them to work out?
Symbolic language, 40 years represents the death of a generation
Dear Emma, thank you for being such a lovely person! I enjoyed your interaction with Bart. I have been binge watching videos of his. On a personal note, I was born in Essex, 1948 and my family moved to Canada in 1953. I have often wondered over the years how my life may have turned out had I been brought up in the U.K. I find it fascinating seeing people who had that experience! Peace and Love and best wishes. btw I have sub'd :)
The worst commandment is thou shalt not covert they neighbors man servant nor maid servant. Basically stating that coveting is bad while complete condoning slavery.
hitchens does a good talk on the 10
Love this, Emma! You are a fantastic interviewer. Let me recommend Bart's podcasts with Megan Lewis as well.
I was raised Mormon and remember being taught that basically, the Israelites were so disobedient that they were deliberately given a 'lesser' law which is the stuff in the Bible. Mormonism was supposedly the full restoration of the laws that Moses was supposed to give. This was the excuse for cherry-picking which laws to follow.
Ehrman is a thorn in the apologists' side. I have a lot of comments from my own vids with Christians who will point to a relic or a minor piece of evidence and claim that backs the exodus fable. IE: Look, something showing that Hebrews were slaves! Yes I'm sure there were some Hebrew slaves. Nothing that indicates it was a global slavery nor exodus nor wandering in the wilderness for forty years. The problem with apologists is they take a maybe truth or small truth then create a giant jump to attempt to prove a much larger truth. There remains nothing that shows Moses existed nor led an exodus nor Joshua later took Jericho and AI or any of the other fables. Cheers, DCF
Yes we know it's interesting, that's why we're all here.
The Jewish understanding of the point of these three plagues on livestock is that, no matter what the Egyptians did to replace their livestock, it got killed off because of the Pharoah's stubbornness. After the death of all the livestock in the fifth plague, the Egyptians obtained cattle and goats from somewhere outside of Egypt (and I assume you know that Egypt was not the only country on earth at the time that possessed livestock). So after partial restocking, the new livestock that remained outside (because some Egyptians refused to listen to the warning) got killed off by the fire and hail. Then, we assume, there is another partial restocking from somewhere else, and the firstborn of the survivors, and of the new stock, dies in the plague of the firstborn
I wonder, how could Israelites "escape from Egypt" going to Canaan from Goshen ? Canaan was under Egypt during 18th and 19th dynasties.(the purported period of Moses/Exodus). They just moved from one part of Egypt to another. Ramesses II even had massive troops garrisoned in Canaan for his Battle of Kadesh with Hittites.
The Israelites were the Canaanites. The oppression of which Exodus speaks is precisely based upon the Egyptian occupation of Canaan. The event that inspired the Exodus story was the Egyptian exodus from Canaan, not the other way around, when the Philistines began to raid Egyptian garrisons during the 11th Century BC and brought an end to the Middle Bronze Age.
@@ethanhocking8229 Yes. After the retreat of Egypt from Levant following bronze age collapse, the Canaanites living in hills moved to plains and occupied the desolate land . They embellished that story with escape from slavery and conquering of Jericho.
What a fantastic segment ❤
You know what, Emma? WE LOVE YOU TOO. So now it’s out there.
She never says hi to me :( only to lovely people :p
I do enjoy being accused of being lovely though :) Just as I enjoy being lumped in with puppies and kittens by Aron Ra :D
What a fun conversation.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Such informative content and strength in the Atheist community. Keep up the great work Emma ;)
Strength? I rest my case!
You know the part about the livestock, I remember the first time reading it I had to keep going back because I thought I misread it. Then the New Testament and how the different denominations go on about faith plus works or grace through faith. It says both. It’s a never ending debate because both sides have passages that back it up but both agree there’s no contradictions in scripture. 😐
Plot Twist: Emma IS Moses!!
Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
*Darth Vader noises*
If we didn't have the Bible we would still know right and wrong and how to love.
The time that elapsed from when the Exodus was supposed to have happened, until the time when it was actually written down was more than 500 years. Like the legends of King Arthur, of which there is also no historical evidence, Moses and the Exodus is a mythic tale. As for numbers, we know that in the past thousands, or hundreds of thousands was just a literary device used by authors to convey importance of an event, not really being used like we use numbers today.
About the 10 commandants, Lisa ok for George Carlin his take down of the 10 commandments. He does it brilliantly
Regarding the deaths of the Egyptian livestock- it isn't specified the time gap between each plague; livestock numbers could have built up again
What's the reproduction rate of zero livestock?
@@cargo_vroom9729 Hi'five
Nice one. :)
The Jewish understanding of the discrepancy in the Names of God, is that a name comes with a reputation - that's a known part of Israelite culture. The reputation that comes along with El Shaddai is of God as Provider and Protector, but that YHVH has the reputation of Deliverer and Liberator. So God was saying that you knew Me as Provider and Protector, but as Deliverer and Liberator, you did not yet know Me. Incidentally, the archaic Hebrew word for clan and thousand were written the same: alef-lamed-peh. It's not a typo, they are the same set of consonants
I think the story of Joshua is a distant memory of the conquest of Canaan by the Sea People who became known as Philistines. The Israelite tribe of Dan was probably composed of Greek Danoi.
Emma with Dr Ehrman! Am I interesting?! How awesome is this.
I hope Emma can forgive me for this but one of the most interesting takes on the biblical story is Dark matters power corrupts animated series.
I would love his perspective on how there are many similar stories in other religions, what those are, and where they actually come from. He has probably already spoken about this somewhere, but also I'd love to hear his take on the Council of Nicea.
Search "Indo-European sky father".
If Moses did not exist, how can he (Christ) talk to Moses when this Christ was transformed?
Finding Moses? I didn't know we lost him. RIP
What will happen to traditional religion when a new generation enters with knowledge and understanding, who don't blindly accept traditional but for the first time in history, understand the history, znd there is much more to be found. Let this generation search for the truth as no other has been able.god bless.
Talks like this are very interesting. And I appreciate having them to listen to and learn from.
Thanks Emma and Bart.
One nitpick at 15:10 : Did he forget the part where Moses was sent to the Pharaoh's wife on the river, and she gave him an Egyptian name because she was Egyptian?
Moses is hebrew for "to pull out or draw from wster" the pharaohs wife gave him a hebrew name linked to how he was found in the mtyh of moses.
@@jameswright... A similar word, 'Mosheh' is Hebrew for 'drawing out (of water)'. There is apparently some scholarly debate about whether 'Moses' was derived from Hebrew or Egyptian (which share a root language so a lot of words are similar anyway so it seems like a moot point.) But if Moses is an Egyptian name as Dr. Ehrman states, it would make sense in the context of him being found and raised by an Egyptian.
Maybe like the Exodus itself he dismisses that naming story as a fairy tale?
8:38 what period in time is he referring to? 13th century AC or does he refer to the time the Egyptians used? I have no knowledge of what the Egyptians used to indicated their years so I need to ask
I would be Interested to hear his opinion of the Harris Papyrus. It describes a rebel called Su who paid mercenaries from Canaan by looting temples. He fought Pharaoh and lost, then they fled north. Dated to the Bronze Age collapse.
From my understanding, the story of Moses and the Exodus was oral anywhere from 400 to 800 years before it was written down. It seems to me that Israelites are basically just Canaanites following the Bronze Age Collapse. I need to go back and rewatch Esoterica by Dr. Justin Sledge.
Excited for this 👏👏
Every biblical character is a fictional character, that's why they have circles around their heads in illustrations, to highlight they are not real.
King Cyrus is mentioned in the bible, and he certainly exists. But he is not Jewish so…
A very good example is when you are narcissistically laughing at contradictions instead of looking for someone that would explain it to you. The point being made to Moses, in Exodus 6:2, isn’t that the Patriarchs didn’t know the name "I am who I am" obviously they did. But that name was being given a new significance now as the covenant name of God with Israel. This is clear from the context of the statement (Exodus 6:2-9). God had told Moses to tell the children of Israel that “I am” (the basis for the name JHWE) had sent him to deliver them from Egypt. That was being done in fulfillment of the covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3). He used the name JHWE with a special connection to the fulfillment of that covenant promise. So, in essence, the point is that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had known the working of the Almighty, but they did not see the fulfillment of the covenant promise that God made with them the way that generation of Israel was going to see it. So, there is no contradiction when you understand the passage correctly. We can go on and on about so called "contradictions" that some seem to take so much delight in they can't even contrain their need for narcissistic laughter, instead of looking for someone to explain to them why it's not a contradiction, only a misunderstanding. I for one can answer any point anyone feels is a contradiction... but why ask someone that can answer it when you can laugh about it with someone that also doesn't know better?
So, as I tried to explain below when Moses writes And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. You have to understand Moses while asking God knew nothing of the "JHWE" God, Moses "new" many God's from his Egyptian upbringing. So of course he must have asked "who send you" "in who's name are you talking". So to Moses JHWE was either one of many God's or he didn't even know him so that's no contradiction at all to him revealing that name to Abraham etc.... I wonder why you don't ask someone who understands this....
Setting "everything is so funny" to the side, the interesting part is that beside fundamentalists also the critiques seem to read the bible exactly alike them.
Just a few words about errors, there are several sources where a comparison between 2 books in the OT gives a type like error... there were 700, and in the other, there were 7000.
Shortly about the "600 thousand" vs "600 tribes" translation, while I am no linguist, let me just give the result it could open up to. 600 tribes gather and exit Egypt due to war, the number of people could easily vary between 30.000 - 300.000.
Now let me mention that a historian Manetho (whos original writings are lost) is quoted by Josephus, giving 2 versions of the events. Manetho mentions an Egyptian war against the Hyksos, and one theory is that the Jews were one group (of tribes) on the Hyksos side. 400.000 Egyptians try to encircle Avaris, where the Hyksos are... and the Pharao demands them to leave... Manetho mentions that 240.000 people leave Egypt and goes east... are those the 600 tribes? Were the Jews only a number of tribes of those 600?
The story would get a many times more credible foundation, being supported by the numbers of Manetho, IN CASE it was 600 tribes, and not 600.000 men.
* Besides, Avaris that has been found, and we have some texts and paintings about the Hyksos.
- When Ehrman says there are plenty of Egyptian records, that is a truth with modification. there are plenty of records of some events, or some kings... but there are not plenty of records of all times and events. One of the times less recorded, is the time of the Hyksos, which might be the time where the Israelites lived. The Hyksos are vilified in some Egyptian texts, and therefore the descriptions might have to be taken with a grain of salt.
* If the Israelites were a part of the Hyksos, then we would have proof of their existence in both records and images.
I personally take the question much more seriously, without knowing the answers to the story, what can we believe, was a part true, some exaggerated... but the jokes... well they are beneath a serious approach to an interesting matter.
I love Emma’s chair. When I set up my studio for Flight Simulator I shall look for one like yours.
I feel the laughter. It's the same feeling Christians get when they hear atheists trying to understand the Bible
It is a piece of fiction
Looking at the actual words, the second commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under earth") seems to forbid astronomy more than it forbids making images of god.
I first "met" Dr. Bart Ehrman on the Paulogia youtube channel. He's certainly interesting!
This is good, but just one question - on the point of "Moses" being an egyptian name - seeing as Moses was raised by egyptians from a baby, why wouldn't he have an egyptian name?
I believe the point was, if Moses was completely made up by the Israelites, would the writers of the story really have been worldly enough to have given him an Egyptian name? So while most of the Moses and Exodus story isn't borne out by historical evidence, this one fact raises the question of whether there was a real historical character whose story was embellished?
@@JonS it didn't come over like that to me. Ok, if he meant it as you say, it's a fair point. I'll watch it again.
It's affection; it's heart-warming, Goblin, do you.