There are elements of the Moses story that fit closely conventional narrative.

Another alternative is that Moses, Abraham and Joshua are the original gods of 'Israel'. Abraham representing fertility, Moses rulership hence his name derived by comparison with Egypt who had used Msu as part of the ruler's name so many times that it became shorthand for ruler from the Ramesside period on, Joshua the war god. I remember reading this proposal in a journal at Bangor University in 2002, unfortunately I've lost the complete reference

Timothy, brilliant! I've actually come to a similar conclusion and its in my next paper! I haven't read the paper you mention, so its an independent conclusion on my part-which tends to show its appropriateness!

My conclusion is that Abraham is El, the Israelite's god until the 7th century. The places Abraham' visits on his travels in the area of Palestine were El shrines. Yes, I made the same conclusion on Moses, a kind of inversion of real events, but also Moses' warrior status inclines towards YHWH. The conversion is towards a martial from a benevolent god involving processes of syncretism and change within the chief god.

I would recommend adding a few archeological founding's to the discussion, before suggesting theories.

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

while agreeing with the notion of addressing archaeological findings, archaeology is my own discipline, there is the problem that in this case archaeology is ill suited to answering Stanley's question. The closest it gets is to suggest that in their early period however the Israelite's were they were polytheists, after this its time to turn to anthropological and literary criticism techniques to deconstruct the Bible to see if what is concealed by later religious views can still be reconstructed

The archaeology suggests the prominance of both El, number of statuettes discovered, in south Palestine until the 10th century BCE when there is an apparent decline, and of goddesses, same rationale, before and during this date. Only in the following centuries is there a fixation on gods.

The use of Israelite is fraught with problems. The mention on Merneptah's stela does not, although many claim this, indicate their early appearance in the records. On the stela they are referenced as a group. It could refer to the group there at the time, not the groups associated with YHWH.

Israel was also a personal name throughout Canaan and Syria, related to El. It was also, like the 12 tribes (sic), a place name. In fact, the Canaanite highlands may have been so called (Israel) by some communities in the area. Naming areas in this way appears not to have been uncommon. If so, the Merneptah stela references the area, not a people. At one point, Canaan may have designated the Palestinian low country, and Israel the hilly country. This would in fact make more sense, unless you believe powerfully in the Moses story (absolutely no proof-highly dubious, with contradicting texts).

Add to this the evidence that YHWH was also used as a personal name in Syria and we have the general confusion (to us) of identifying gods, persons and people.

First and foremost the Moses story is an aetiological myth that concerns a figure who functions as the agent of a god whose attributes are multifarious and variously derived.

Moses's specific status casts doubts on how reliable the narrative of the Old Testament is. He falls into the category of the "foundling", an archetype that is likely to frequently re-emerge in fictional works. In literary works foundlings achieve a specific status, since they accomplish amazing feat. The case of Moses is telltale: starting as a humble foundling, he ends up becoming the leader of the Israelites. From a psychoanalytical point of view, you may want to treat Moses as an archetype of stamina and leadership.

In that he emulates Sargon the Great where that part of the story came from-almost word for word.

Sargon the Great presents himself as the son of a gardener who assumes the Akkadian throne, and builds an empire. This myth can be found in other cultures-Gingis Khan for example or every successful businessman who rose from poverty to become extremely wealthy. A task they usually achieve without aid (sic).

Ian, I'm not quite certain what you are arguing here as you appear to come from the point of accepting the text as not subject to changes. I could be wrong. Yes, you may be right that the text concerns ' recognition of Moses' lineage having been attached to that god for centuries ' but in what way does that matter, if it is merely a narrative? It is not an argument placed against my own, it is an alternative one based it seems on belief.

The conversion myth: crossing water, rejecting a previous existence, spending time away from cultural roots (specially in a desert region), rejoining culture but in a new fashion. These are conversion tropes. No more, no less.

The linking of Hebrew worship to el makes more sense than to YHWH who apparently appears from nowhere. It fits more closely what is actually known about Near Eastern religion of the time, of change, syncreticism, sharing gods. The evidence is on the side of the el theory, not on the side of the YHWH one, except through the text-one written long after events. It fits in with what is actually known about the history.

El was originally described within Canaanite text, which if I recollect you appeared unaware of, as the ancient one, as actually caring for his creation. Very unusual for the time! YHWH is simply concerned with his power over his worshippers (well, throughout the Moses narrative anyway).

I have not pulled this out of a hat. It comes from long painful research by me, many, many others over a period of 40 years. It is not based upon belief in a text, which only makes real sense when connected to its own internal logic. An internal logic you appear to be using to combat my idea.

Ian, there is a major problem with your approach, at least the way it comes across in your responses. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be prioritising religious sensitivities, e.g. using 'I also personally object to the idea of the Israelites having worshipped people'. Whether or not modern adherents of something find scholarly enquiry objectionable is no proper basis for research. This leads to ridiculous situations such as the one in India where archaeologists were prosecuted for offending religious sensibilities when they announced that they had found no evidence on a particular site for a temple that the faithful believed had been there a thousand years ago.

In all cases of research it is imperative that it follows the path of the evidence. In most cases this requires paying very little if any attention to ' community-in-question's own understanding of the text' since this is based on acceptance not of scholarly technique, and certainly none at all to whether or not some elements may find your conclusions offensive. If this approach is not followed then it undermines the validity of any conclusions reached, as per the Muslim scholar who told me the same thing in relation to a Byzantine document that claimed that Mohammed had lead the initial attacks on Syria. The claim was that the views of the community that Mohammed died before this should be prioritised over a contemporary Byzantine document. Needless to say this approach lead the non Muslims in the room to doubt his other conclusions as well.

The same applies in the case of the Moses story. It needs to be addressed as a matter of source criticism, not as a matter of scripture. While I usually disagree with Stanley's conclusions, e.g. over his characterisation of the relationship of Ancient Greece to our modern western culture, in this instance I agree that what he is doing is methodologically sound.

Timothy, thanks but you are wrong to disagree with me over the Ancient Greek issue. Have a look at my question on Gilgamesh on here. I felt you hadn't really understood what I was saying (driving me crazy with continued mentions of Bernal, when he wasn't the issue-but you shouldn't dismiss that either so easily as Egyptian involvement with the Sea Peoples (possibly many from Greece) went back some way (their ships demonstrated Greek design by 1200 BCE). We can't dismiss anything-just in case.

I don't want a discussion on Bernal, I'm not really interested in his work. I do not believe in any Egyptian invasion as that goes against what we know of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom Egypt, which was mainly concerned with preserving its borders. As far as I'm concerned the beginnings of culture in Greece may have occurred as the result of wealth goods entering Aegina. There are a number of early towns, etc, in that area. But Greece was early a place of flux, of population and transmitted ideas. I do think though it was difficult for you to grasp that Ancient Greece was intellectually affected by Sumerian literature, etc, and they were not as original as imagined by Classics departments.

Problem with Ian, I felt, with all respect, that he (you i.e. addressed to Ian) do not know enough about these matters and some of your (his) answers were simply wrong. I do think it is always wiser to research before offering views.

Timothy, that bit on Mohammed, can you send link. It will help research I'm doing.

The Flood Story, Moses, Eden, Adam, Eve, .. etc. all have their origin and counterparts in Sumer! This is the beauty of our ancient past and our future...no one really knows with absolute certainty. I enjoyed reading these posts.

I believe the link provided by K. Karthik is a good read. Amir

Although Amir is correct, that there are connections of the Moses story to Sumerian (and Egyptian-Sinuhe-literature) the story had its own internal life.

Again-crossing water (Joseph Campbell) tends to indicate a new life. For example, Christian baptism and many ancient origins' stories, or a new epoch, as in the story of Sargon the Great. The annihilation of the pursuing Egyptian forces represents a change of motivation from passivity (slavery) to aggression (an invading army). This is a process of alteration.

The lengthy time in Sinai-the time needed to implement the change and create a new group identity, a martial one. Finally, the death of Moses-the end of the old god and the beginning of the new one-YHWH. Moses, with aspects of the old god/s could not thereby enter the 'promised land' where the Hebrews were subject to group changes, political, religious and social. The stories around Moses fit in with the Egyptian story of Sinuhe (see above), Sargon the Great (see above), the magician's fight in The Raid on Aratta (early Mesopotamian story), the remainder discussed or to be discussed. Incidentally, Sinai, at the beginning of the Iron Age, was a stronghold of el worship.

The old god-in this is to be regarded as el (initially YHWH was connected to el's wife, Astarte or Asherah) -was insufficiently proactive and martial. El was not associated as was Ba'al with kingly institution and for that reason alone had to go. Another alteration, probably over centuries, was from a fertility god (at some point the Israeli god would have been one thereby YHWH's early connection to Asherah) to a martial god based on the already available templates of Transjordan population groups, Assur, the Assyrian god, Marduk and Ba'al. In later stories of YHWH, he represents a powerful potentate, using human beings as proxy representatives on earth (resembling Mesopotamian religious concepts), controlled with contracts (Mesopotamian procedure but already known in Canaan/Syria between gods and city states, also identified as Covenants), with an army of angels -Persian invention I believe but closely resembles Mesopotamian constructs-who act also as a police force. The later YHWH closely resembled Persian emperors and their political system.

YHWH changes throughout the Bible, assuming and discarding characteristics.

All the above, comprising narrative integrity, are literary tropes, used for dramatisation. The actual period of conversion would have been long and complex involving several distinctive processes, changes of appellation and worship. There would have likely been changes of population, new groups identifying with the older groups through assumulation of worship. The temple would have provided a focus. Evidence of el worship declined around about the 10th century in southern Palestine, the actual personal name reappearing with Allah, and in many ways disappeared, which may have been connected to the Ba'al cult.

These literary tropes do not represent actual events. There is no evidence for the Exodus and therefore there is unlikely to have been one. I consider the options in Ancient Fictionality, and what really occurred. The Exodus represents a familiar ancient origin's myth concerning journeys of several generations in order for new identities to be formed and thereby construct the religious and historical reasons for known group/state formation. The later Germanic tribes had such myths as well, travelling as a single group with a single identity (which we know was not the case), until arriving in their 4th century political identity, fully formed. The Aztecs had similar myths, indicating such processes are connected to human creativity.

In the myth, YHWH himself grows more powerful. At one stage he merely walks when getting from one point to another. The original story of the 'mountain', usually or often associated with el or the Amorite god Hadad/Adad/Dagan, involved only a private meeting of elders, not the printing of the 10 commandments-a scribal addition emphasising the importance of that profession. The 10 commandments are clearly taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead (I have not killed becoming Thou shalt not kill) and the law codes of Mesopotamia, whereby punishment-based secular laws were attached to the royal deity.