Did The Exodus Really Happen? Rabbi David Wolpe On The Passover Story

[Helen47]

There has been a debate going on in Facebook and Patheos.com between David Bokavoy and Bill Hamblin over the Documentary hypothesis. Bill looks like he is on the losing side. David studies a Brandis University, a Jewish school so I imagine he has a good handle on the issue. What implications does this have for the LDS scriptures, the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham?If Abraham and the other patriarchs did not exist what does that say for the BOA?

[Coreyb]

Think of your favorite poster on this board (if you have one). Their posts always make you think deeper, their personal experiences and stories intrigue you and sometimes inspire you to be better. Suppose one day you meet someone who knows this person very well in "real life". They tell you that the stories this person tells are not true. They say this person doesn't even believe much of what they say, they just post because it's fun and they want to "make the world a better place by saying nice things". With this new knowledge, would you still be inspired by what your favorite poster writes? I wouldn't. Sometimes, it does matter if truth is really true.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Coreyb

[BCSpace]

This is how I approach all scripture. Truth is not the same thing as historical accuracy.

 

I disagree.  If truth is presented in the context of history and it's foundation is based on being historical, then such history must be real else the truth being taught is suspect.

 

The instant the LDS Church denies the historicity it claims is the instant it becomes like any other church; doesn't matter which one you join, none of them are true.

[The Nehor]

Think of your favorite poster on this board (if you have one).

 

Going to go with that Nehor fellow. He seems rather bright.

 

Their posts always make you think deeper, their personal experiences and stories intrigue you and sometimes inspire you to be better.

 

Yes, he is an inspiration to me.

 

Suppose one day you meet someone who knows this person very well in "real life". They tell you that the stories this person tells are not true.

 

I would tell them to shut their filthy whore mouth.

 

They say this person doesn't even believe much of what they say, they just post to because it's fun and they want to "make the world a better place by saying nice things".

 

But he rarely says "nice things". To be fair the "fun" bit is spot on.

 

With this new knowledge, would you still be inspired by what your favorite poster writes? I wouldn't. Sometimes, it does matter if truth is really true.

 

Nothing can shake my faith in this poster. Well, except that time he went crazy and started biting off chicken heads. Still funny but the faith took a short break.

[Gray]

Going to go with that Nehor fellow. He seems rather bright.

 

 

Yes, he is an inspiration to me.

 

 

I would tell them to shut their filthy whore mouth.

 

 

But he rarely says "nice things". To be fair the "fun" bit is spot on.

 

 

Nothing can shake my faith in this poster. Well, except that time he went crazy and started biting off chicken heads. Still funny but the faith took a short break.

 

Nehor: the ultimate man's man. 

[Gray]

I disagree.  If truth is presented in the context of history and it's foundation is based on being historical, then such history must be real else the truth being taught is suspect.

 

The instant the LDS Church denies the historicity it claims is the instant it becomes like any other church; doesn't matter which one you join, none of them are true.

 

This is the weakness of the orthodox position (all orthodoxies, really) - everything depends on a historicity that scriptures cannot reliably deliver (nor were they ever intended to). 

Edited April 23, 2014 by Gray

[Gray]

There has been a debate going on in Facebook and Patheos.com between David Bokavoy and Bill Hamblin over the Documentary hypothesis. Bill looks like he is on the losing side. David studies a Brandis University, a Jewish school so I imagine he has a good handle on the issue. What implications does this have for the LDS scriptures, the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham?If Abraham and the other patriarchs did not exist what does that say for the BOA?

 

 

The implications are grave, unless one is able to let go of the idea that scriptures have to be historically accurate and cannot be pseudepigraphical. 

 

The message is important, not the vehicle. IMO. In fact, I'd say the message is everything, the vehicle is irrelevant in and of itself

Edited April 23, 2014 by Gray

[David T]

There has been a debate going on in Facebook and Patheos.com between David Bokavoy and Bill Hamblin over the Documentary hypothesis. Bill looks like he is on the losing side. David studies a Brandis University, a Jewish school so I imagine he has a good handle on the issue. What implications does this have for the LDS scriptures, the Book of Moses and Book of Abraham?If Abraham and the other patriarchs did not exist what does that say for the BOA?

 

Read Bokovoy's book. He addresses this from a serious, and ultimately (for me) faith promoting and faithful LDS position. 

[Sleeper Cell]

I can only speak for myself. The answer is, I don't think so. How do you apply something like that to your own life? Your view on the permanence or transience of existence might affect your outlook, but it could be for good or ill either way. 

 

So can “spirituality.” 

 

Some people are inspired by not believing in an afterlife to live better lives, reasoning that this one is the only life they have, and they should make the best of it. Fear of judgement or desire for reward is not a very noble motivation, anyway.  

 

So the Plan of Salvation is an appeal to our baser instincts?  

 

 

You previously stated that:

 

Spiritual teachings are things that can help us to become better, more complete people. Spiritual teachings elevate our present state. Life after death is future state.

 

I merely pointed out that:

 

a belief in an afterlife where we will be held accountable for our behavior while in this life has encouraged some people to live a better life. Paul, for example.

 

The fact that there are good people who are atheists and bad people who are Christians has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian belief in an afterlife has motivated some people to “become better, more complete people” and to “elevate our present state.”  Which is how you defined “spiritual teachings.”  Now, you may not believe that the Christian belief in an afterlife is as noble a spiritual teaching as your own spiritual beliefs are, but that is a different discussion. 

[Gray]

 

So can “spirituality.” 

 

 

 

So the Plan of Salvation is an appeal to our baser instincts?  

 

 

You previously stated that:

 

 

 

I merely pointed out that:

 

 

 

The fact that there are good people who are atheists and bad people who are Christians has nothing to do with the fact that the Christian belief in an afterlife has motivated some people to “become better, more complete people” and to “elevate our present state.”  Which is how you defined “spiritual teachings.”  Now, you may not believe that the Christian belief in an afterlife is as noble a spiritual teaching as your own spiritual beliefs are, but that is a different discussion. 

 

 

I don't think merely expressing that we will live forever or that we won't live forever is a spiritual teaching. It might be a motivator for good or ill, but there is no intrinsic message in the idea of an infinite life vs a finite life. It doesn't teach you how to become a more complete person. It might motivate you to study spiritual teachings, though.

 

Regarding the plan of salvation - fear of punishment or desire for reward are not the ideal state. What I get from the scriptures is the ideal motivation to live a good life is out of love for God and love for the human family. Baser motivations might be a stepping stone to the higher motivation of love, though. 

Edited April 23, 2014 by Gray

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Think of your favorite poster on this board (if you have one). Their posts always make you think deeper, their personal experiences and stories intrigue you and sometimes inspire you to be better. Suppose one day you meet someone who knows this person very well in "real life". They tell you that the stories this person tells are not true. They say this person doesn't even believe much of what they say, they just post because it's fun and they want to "make the world a better place by saying nice things". With this new knowledge, would you still be inspired by what your favorite poster writes? I wouldn't. Sometimes, it does matter if truth is really true.

I recently saw Saving Mr Banks (spoiler alert). Its the story of the making of Mary Poppins. It was quite moving and made me think deeply. It turns out the way it was depicted in the film was no where close to accurate. Upon learning the truth, at first I was a little upset. Upon reflection, the following line from the movie struck me from Walt Disney:

George Banks and all he stands for will be saved. Maybe not in life, but in imagination. Because that’s what we storytellers do. We restore order with imagination. We instill hope again and again and again.

Walt Disney was going to tell the story of Mary Poppins (and hence Mr. Banks) the way it should have happened and in so doing "save" mister Banks. In the same way the film makers told the story of Walt Disney and Mrs Travers the way it should have happened. I think we all do this to a certain extent when we retell stories. Little bits get changed here and there in the retelling. To me what makes a good story good is its meaning, not its accuracy.

History is sloppy and messy and difficult to get all the pieces right. We see this in our own church as it has told its own story over the years. Messy details get left out and sometimes positive details get over emphasized. Is this a big deal?

Does it matter if the exodus happened the way it is in the old testament? I don't think so. Its my opinion that some form of Exodus may have happened, but the form we have preserved is no where near historical. It's also my opinion that it doesn't matter. What we take from it matters.

Edited April 23, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

Walt Disney was going to tell the story of Mary Poppins (and hence Mr. Banks) the way it should have happened and in so doing "save" mister Banks. In the same way the film makers told the story of Walt Disney and Mrs Travers the way it should have happened. I think we all do this to a certain extent when we retell stories. Little bits get changed here and there in the retelling. To me what makes a good story good is its meaning, not its accuracy.

 

Yet if the stories never happen then no one will think they have any meaning. I would have a hard time believing in miracles if I did not believe that one ever actually happened no matter how many stories about them I heard that had "meaning".

 

The story of Alma the Younger is cold comfort to the repentant sinner who does not believe the end result of the story can actually happen.

 

Fiction does have meaning but that is because it draws heavily from our own experiences. I do not believe Frodo walked to Mount Doom but I have felt temptation like the One Ring begging to be claimed so I can derive some meaning from it. Scripture is different. It deals with another world but claims it is read. God, angels, kingdoms of glory, and universal redemption can convey some meaning in fiction but the story had a much different and much more profound impact if you actually believe it to be real.

[volgadon]

there is no intrinsic message in the idea of an infinite life vs a finite life.

 

 

There kind of is.

[Gray]

Yet if the stories never happen then no one will think they have any meaning. I would have a hard time believing in miracles if I did not believe that one ever actually happened no matter how many stories about them I heard that had "meaning".

 

The story of Alma the Younger is cold comfort to the repentant sinner who does not believe the end result of the story can actually happen.

 

Fiction does have meaning but that is because it draws heavily from our own experiences. I do not believe Frodo walked to Mount Doom but I have felt temptation like the One Ring begging to be claimed so I can derive some meaning from it. Scripture is different. It deals with another world but claims it is read. God, angels, kingdoms of glory, and universal redemption can convey some meaning in fiction but the story had a much different and much more profound impact if you actually believe it to be real.

 

I've found the opposite to be true. The underlying message is less impactful when you're focused on the surface level of the story. Literalism can overshadow the message. Alma's experience doesn't need to have happened for us to understand the message about the power of having a dramatic change of heart.

[Gray]

There kind of is.

 

What would you say that intrinsic message is?

[Kevin Christensen]

When I read the book The Bible Unearthed by archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman and saw how much of the story of the Exodus and Conquest were myth, I re-experienced that same feeling when I read New Approaches to the Book of Mormon and Ray Matheny's paper on archaeology and the Book of Mormon. What is left to believe?

I picked up my copy of New Approaches during a trip to Salt Lake City, shortly after it was published. On returning to California, I found I had just been laid off from a tech writing job at Zycad. So I had some time on my hands to give New Approaches a close and careful reading. I soon decided to review it, spending 12-14 hours a day for about five months. About half way through, I looked at my wife and said, "Honey,... I think I'm doing something important, and that as soon as I am done, I'll have a job." A few months later, I dropped the lengthy manuscript of my review into a mailbox as I set off to work for my new job as a tech writer for Alta. FARMS published "Paradigms Crossed" in volume 7/2. 73 pages.

Personally, I found the experience of wrestling with New Approaches extremely faith promoting. And I think the case for the Book of Mormon has become much stronger since then. I consider, for instance, things like Welch's Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, Brant Gardner's Second Witness volumes, Larry Poulson's interesting work, more on the Arabian context, Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem, and much more. My own life-changing, paradigm changing encounter with Margaret Barker's The Great Angel was still six years away, and that happened, in part, because I had seen a quotation from Great Angel in one of the essays in the Review volume 6/1, which responded to New Approaches at great length.

So the same book, the same words, brings forth a completely different harvest. The difference responses must be accounted to different soil and nurture. That data does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted. And that happened also to be the subject of my review.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited April 24, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[The Nehor]

I've found the opposite to be true. The underlying message is less impactful when you're focused on the surface level of the story. Literalism can overshadow the message. Alma's experience doesn't need to have happened for us to understand the message about the power of having a dramatic change of heart.

That is not the only lesson. The more important lesson is about redemption. Now if you make the story fictional does it give support that God will redeem the penitent? Not really.

If you water it down to "people can change" then it does not matter if it is true. We already know people can change. We see it all the time.

[Gray]

That is not the only lesson. The more important lesson is about redemption. Now if you make the story fictional does it give support that God will redeem the penitent? Not really.

If you water it down to "people can change" then it does not matter if it is true. We already know people can change. We see it all the time.

 

At the surface level, all the story means is X happened to Alma. Anything you extrapolate further is already going beyond the literal story.

 

Parables about redemption can be more powerful than true stories about redemption, because we don't get hung up on the mechanics of the story (for example, expecting to be put in a coma for days as you commune with celestial beings, when in real life redemption is far less dramatic). Jesus' parables are not powerful because they are a retelling of actual events 

Edited April 24, 2014 by Gray

[The Nehor]

At the surface level, all the story means is X happened to Alma. Anything you extrapolate further is already going beyond the literal story.

 

Parables about redemption can be more powerful than true stories about redemption, because we don't get hung up on the mechanics of the story. Jesus' parables are not powerful because they are a retelling of actual events

Yes, but the meaning of a story can and should change depending on whether it is true or not. A ghost story is fun until you find out the teller thinks he is sharing a real story.

If I tell you a story about my experiences with the atonement that offer new insights people would rightly look at it differently if they found out I made it all up.

[Duncan]

I think the Exodus happened simply because the scriptures are replete with the whole scattering and gathering of Israel, Moses held the Keys Gathering (I think) and Israel was scattered when they rejected Moses. we now have those keys again except we are to gather Israel-that's the jist of it anyways. The story of the Exodus is just one chapter in a much larger book. So I look at it that say Chapter 10 wouldn't have happened if chapter 2 wasn't written

[Gray]

Yes, but the meaning of a story can and should change depending on whether it is true or not. A ghost story is fun until you find out the teller thinks he is sharing a real story.

If I tell you a story about my experiences with the atonement that offer new insights people would rightly look at it differently if they found out I made it all up.

 

I understand why source can be important as far as impact. On the other hand, scripture can occupy a middle ground between ghost story and factual history, where the events may not have happened, but the story can still be inspired, if not a literal word for word revelation or retelling of historical events.

 

And really, when we're talking about ancient scripture, the very idea of a literal retelling of facts would, itself, be anachronistic. That's a relatively modern idea. 

[mfbukowski]

I understand why source can be important as far as impact. On the other hand, scripture can occupy a middle ground between ghost story and factual history, where the events may not have happened, but the story can still be inspired, if not a literal word for word revelation or retelling of historical events.

 

And really, when we're talking about ancient scripture, the very idea of a literal retelling of facts would, itself, be anachronistic. That's a relatively modern idea. 

An excellent point.  When we look at medieval painting where some people are painted larger than houses, we think "Oh- these poor dummies did not know how to draw", which could not be further from the truth.   In fact, more important people were represented as literally "larger than life" because the priority was not placed on "scientific accuracy" as it is now, but on creating a "morality play"- a tale which taught a lesson and represented a religious truth.  The important people were represented importantly- and therefore larger than the unimportant ones.  The story was the priority, not the "facts".

 

The actual characters became almost irrelevant to the value of the story to be told,  Learning spiritual principles was far more important that "accuracy" the way we think about it now.

 

Suppose I had a moral principle I wanted to teach so I made up a story using, say, Star Wars characters to do so.  For the ancients, the choice of characters might be a story about Jesus or the apostles, or Moses, or someone totally made up.   The idea that the story never "really happened" was the farthest thing from their minds- what was important was the LESSON the story taught.  So indeed we might call such a story "inspired fiction" though when it was written it was not seen as "fictional" but "true" because the LESSON taught true principles.

 

It is widely believed that the Book of Job, for example, is just such a story.

[The Nehor]

And really, when we're talking about ancient scripture, the very idea of a literal retelling of facts would, itself, be anachronistic. That's a relatively modern idea. 

 

I do not really agree with this.

 

There are traditions in many cultures (such as the medieval pictures mentioned) where reality was altered in a specific way for a specific reason. We do the same thing today.

 

However I am not sure I agree that the Apostles and the Prophets were making things up. Paul makes a big deal about how devotion to Jesus is not following cunningly devised fables, contrasting that to the prevailing scriptural culture. After the apostles died Chrisianity was of course flooded with silly imitations but it looks like the earliest stuff was trying to be different.

 

The Old Testament is on shakier ground of course. I give it a little more credence then the royal records of the surrounding powers because at least their record was willing to call out the leaders and people of the state. Still, the Lord's endorsement of Isaiah as the words of Isaiah carries quite a bit of weight for me. I suspect a lot of the other prophets are equally well-kept though of course they ignored things we would make a big deal about (plagiarizing each other and the like).

[mfbukowski]

I do not really agree with this.

 

There are traditions in many cultures (such as the medieval pictures mentioned) where reality was altered in a specific way for a specific reason. We do the same thing today.

 

However I am not sure I agree that the Apostles and the Prophets were making things up. Paul makes a big deal about how devotion to Jesus is not following cunningly devised fables, contrasting that to the prevailing scriptural culture. After the apostles died Chrisianity was of course flooded with silly imitations but it looks like the earliest stuff was trying to be different.

 

The Old Testament is on shakier ground of course. I give it a little more credence then the royal records of the surrounding powers because at least their record was willing to call out the leaders and people of the state. Still, the Lord's endorsement of Isaiah as the words of Isaiah carries quite a bit of weight for me. I suspect a lot of the other prophets are equally well-kept though of course they ignored things we would make a big deal about (plagiarizing each other and the like).

Just for the record I was not saying that the apostles "made things up"

 

All I meant was that it was common practice for some to make up stories and attribute them to apostles and prophets, some so that it now may be hard to tell what is authentic and what is not.  I think that is well substantiated in scriptural studies.  There of course is quite a lot of controversy about who "really" wrote some of the epistles etc.

 

That doesn't mean that the real person Paul made things up- all I am saying is that it might be difficult to figure out what Paul said and what some imposters said he said.

 

And I further think that whoever wrote whatever scripture the Lord has directed the process so that his message has gotten through the gobbledygook regardless of who wrote what

 

My point has always been that regardless of what may be proven to be scientifically or historically "correct" or "really happened" the spiritual message is what is important and what shines through

Edited April 26, 2014 by mfbukowski

[bcuzbcuz]

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1

 

Some key quotes:

 

 

 

 

This is how I approach all scripture. Truth is not the same thing as historical accuracy.

There is no such thing as historical accuracy. We can get the dates right for some details but the rest is all fiction.