So... umm... about Passover?

[Jimmy Higgins]

As we know, the Torah generally consists of three parts, Mythology (Genesis), Proto-Mythology (Genesis), and Fan Fiction (Exodus to Deuteronomy). The story of Passover is part of the Fan Fiction section in Exodus. It depicts the mass murder of Egyptian children in Yahweh's needless run up to the Exodus/freeing of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt / mindless wandering through the desert for one generation.

But this didn't happen. The Exodus of the Hebrews never occurred, they were never slaves in Egypt. God's actions was not punishing the Egyptians for their tyrannical treatment of the Hebrews. God didn't "pass over" the houses with blood smeared on their doorways.

Yet, unlike Hanukkah, which references an actual event, it is held in very high regard. I was curious as to why. The fact it is so important implies it carried some historical ritual weight, from something.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Tradition!

 

[Politesse]

This is not an issue about which there is a real scholarly consensus. "Whence the Exodus" is one of the key questions in Hebrew Scriptural studies, and there are many hypotheses to explain it (or explain it away) none with any incontrovertible supporting evidence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tradition!

This is indeed the consideration. Tradition of what? Clearly it is a ritual. Clearly this ritual has existed a long time. Arguably before the Exodus thingy. Its timing screams Pagan origin.

I hadn't given any thought until today.

When one looks at the story of Moses, it carries yet another origin story. Oi! Who is tired biblical (<- see what I did?) covenant/origin stories in the Torah? I've always held, without much authority, that the three main patriarchs were more about the larger groups of varying El model deity worshipers that would merge together to former the Hebrews. I had to now held Moses as a different type of entity. A Faux History protagonist. But is his interactions with Yahweh a sign that we aren't yet in Fan Fiction mode, but proto-Mythology? We are after all introduced a new god, by name, much like the different El brands in Genesis. Moses is also one of the last (the last?) person to have substantial direct relations with Yahweh (though arguably Jacob/Israel was second hand via his Wrestlemania II match with an angel that ended in a countout, and effectively ending Jacob's wrestling career due to a hip injury sustained in the match)? Is Moses just the Book of Genesis II? Is Moses really the fourth Patriarch?

A quick look online tells me I'm nuts. But there might be an argument that Moses is binding another Canaanite wing into the Hebrew party, if indeed the Passover is a Canaanite farming thing. Moses isn't historical, while *name in flashing lights* Aaron the Levite is.

 

[DBT]

The Passover, that's when the God of Love slaughtered the children of Egypt because the Pharaoh, who's heart He had hardened, would not let the people go?

 

[SLD]

I think the myth arose from the Hyksos dynasty that ruled upper Egypt from around 1550 - 1650 before being expelled. They were Semitic people who had settled in Egypt and the Nile delta for hundreds of years and eventually became the rulers. The southern kingdom led by Ahmose I defeated and expelled them. We know they worshipped Ba’al, a Semitic god at least related to Elohim.

Josephus argued this position. But it remains controversial because it isn’t the exact biblical text and the time period is off by a few hundred years. But myths have a way of evolving over centuries.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think the myth arose from the Hyksos dynasty that ruled upper Egypt from around 1550 - 1650 before being expelled. They were Semitic people who had settled in Egypt and the Nile delta for hundreds of years and eventually became the rulers. The southern kingdom led by Ahmose I defeated and expelled them. We know they worshipped Ba’al, a Semitic god at least related to Elohim.

Josephus argued this position. But it remains controversial because it isn’t the exact biblical text and the time period is off by a few hundred years. But myths have a way of evolving over centuries.

This makes some sense to me. If we make some acceptance that it wasn't an expulsion but an attempted subjugation and guerrilla response followed by evacuation, then turned into a victimization narrative with a twist at the end for saving face despite retreating, I can accept this as a quite plausible origin of the myth.

 

[Learner]

I've come across several theories throughout the years of my curiosity. I wouldn't doubt that each and every one one of them would 'make sense to you', and the 'thinking-alike' comrades on the thread. Just not the bibles of course.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've come across several theories throughout the years of my curiosity. I wouldn't doubt that each and every one one of them would 'make sense to you', and the 'thinking-alike' comrades on the thread. Just not the bibles of course.

Sorry, the OP was meant to actually look into the issue raised with how Passover is viewed so importantly by the Jewish despite the origin of the story having zero linkage in actual history, unlike Hanukkah which is viewed as more ceremonial than important.

Not to make potshot insults at others. If you can't talk about the subject maturely, it'd be best you stayed out of this upper-fora thread.

Midrash exists because there is so much unsettled material.

 

[Learner]

I've come across several theories throughout the years of my curiosity. I wouldn't doubt that each and every one one of them would 'make sense to you', and the 'thinking-alike' comrades on the thread. Just not the bibles of course.

Sorry, the OP was meant to actually look into the issue raised with how Passover is viewed so importantly by the Jewish despite the origin of the story having zero linkage in actual history, unlike Hanukkah which is viewed as more ceremonial than important.

Apologies...yes of course. This sort of sarcastic attitude does happen when there are serious intentions for a proper discussion on the subject matter of the OP. This attitude has sort of 'rubbed-off' on me a little.

(I may come back to the subject sometime later in a decent manner).

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some more thoughts on Moses is that Moses is like Abraham in that he effectively has no back story of lineage. Moses is a beginning. But unlike Abraham, his lineage is almost entirely without any sense of importance.

Yahweh appears to both Abraham and Moses, both in places that aren't of Yahweh's territory. Abraham (well Abram) has to move from Ur. Moses must bring the people back to where Abraham had moved to. That makes these journey narratives. Moses with the prologue is doing the Star Wars journey thing. Both have notable histories, obvious Moses a tad more written because he had a better publicist. Isaac has almost nothing and Jacob has a little history as does his kids.

Origin of Hebrews II or a book end of the original patriarchs. Again, the uniqueness here is that Moses and his kids are of absolutely no importance. This could indicate a political thing among the Hebrews and how lineage wasn't as important. But maybe more likely the fact that Moses didn't have a lineage himself which means the exact opposite. The whole Moses thing is weird.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some more thoughts on Moses is that Moses is like Abraham in that he effectively has no back story of lineage. Moses is a beginning. But unlike Abraham, his lineage is almost entirely without any sense of importance.

Yahweh appears to both Abraham and Moses, both in places that aren't of Yahweh's territory. Abraham (well Abram) has to move from Ur. Moses must bring the people back to where Abraham had moved to. That makes these journey narratives. Moses with the prologue is doing the Star Wars journey thing. Both have notable histories, obvious Moses a tad more written because he had a better publicist. Isaac has almost nothing and Jacob has a little history as does his kids.

Origin of Hebrews II or a book end of the original patriarchs. Again, the uniqueness here is that Moses and his kids are of absolutely no importance. This could indicate a political thing among the Hebrews and how lineage wasn't as important. But maybe more likely the fact that Moses didn't have a lineage himself which means the exact opposite. The whole Moses thing is weird.

To me... There's a certain time on which someone becomes concerned with their lineage and there's a certain time where lineage is seen as unimportant in stories.

Consider this: I've been toying behind putting together a belief system that can draw people together through validating that capability can come from anywhere, so that it has the capability to be popular with anyone.

When a prophet/hero is a "king by birth" rather than an "elevated nobody", it makes each individual in the group feel more confident in their ability to become something within their society.

It says "this is a religion where anyone can become great, and a peasant may become a priest".

This is reflected further by the later culture wherein the story turned towards "we want a king", and the prophets really discouraged that but the movement won out so the prophets emplaced a "king". Its after that that lineages started to seem to matter, at least from my dim recollections.

In some ways it made "prophecy" seem to be pulled away from the get of "peasants".

It can benefit a belief system, I think, to have prophets whose lineage matters only insofar as it can be shown they are "peasants with peasant pedigrees", just given a chance to show that it is humanity (and perhaps literacy and education) rather than 'noble lineage' that bears the legacy of 'capability'.

To that end, the Moses story stands out because Moses was a very prototypical "origin story" rather than a "sequel about an heir".

 

[Tigers!]

The Passover, that's when the God of Love slaughtered the children of Egypt because the Pharaoh, who's heart He had hardened, would not let the people go?

Always need to remind people that Pharoah hardened his heart first (Ex. 5:2).
In Ex. 7 God did say he would harden Pharoah's heart as confirmation that Pharoah had already started the process.
Pharoah's pride and hubris would sufficient of themselves.

 

[DBT]

If Pharaoh had hardened his own heart, there is no need to say that God had hardened Pharaohs heart. Both can't be true.

But that's not the issue, which is, that the God of Love slaughters innocent children to make point.

Which as a display of power is hardly a matter of goodness, morality or decency.

What if a human rulers did such a thing? What would we say about them?

 

[bilby]

Yeah, the idea that you can reasonably punish a ruler by punishing his people is OK for gangsters and warlords, but it's not really acceptable from a supposedly loving and moral God.

 

[Learner]

The Passover, that's when the God of Love slaughtered the children of Egypt because the Pharaoh, who's heart He had hardened, would not let the people go?

His heart hardened more and more with arrogant anger, being in denial that he had limited power in the face of his people.

God gave him 10 chances warning him of the consequences if his people were not let go. Who gives many chances like that? Pharaoh blew those 10 chances unfortunately for him.

They were ironically punished by their own methods... consequences of judgement when the Egyptians first did the slaughtering of the 'first born' of the Israelites, reminding us of when Moses narrowly escaped the killings of 'first borns' when he himself was a first born during that particular time!

 

[DBT]

The Passover, that's when the God of Love slaughtered the children of Egypt because the Pharaoh, who's heart He had hardened, would not let the people go?

His heart hardened more and more with arrogant anger, being in denial that he had limited power in the face of his people.

God gave him 10 chances warning him of the consequences if his people were not let go. Who gives many chances like that? Pharaoh blew those 10 chances unfortunately for him.

They were ironically punished by their own methods... consequences of judgement when the Egyptians first did the slaughtering of the 'first born' of the Israelites, reminding us of when Moses narrowly escaped the killings of 'first borns' when he himself was a first born at that time!

The Pharaoh doesn't matter at all, that his heart was hardened hardly relates to the issue of God slaughtering innocent children in order to show His power and make a point.

We are told that God strengthened Pharaohs resolve. Given that God intervened in the state of Pharaohs heart, God could have went the other way, He could have weakened Pharaohs resolve, softened his heart and ended things peacefully, but no, the option to slaughter the first born of Egypt was needlessly taken.

Divine morality? I don't think so.

 

[Learner]

The Passover, that's when the God of Love slaughtered the children of Egypt because the Pharaoh, who's heart He had hardened, would not let the people go?

His heart hardened more and more with arrogant anger, being in denial that he had limited power in the face of his people.

God gave him 10 chances warning him of the consequences if his people were not let go. Who gives many chances like that? Pharaoh blew those 10 chances unfortunately for him.

They were ironically punished by their own methods... consequences of judgement when the Egyptians first did the slaughtering of the 'first born' of the Israelites, reminding us of when Moses narrowly escaped the killings of 'first borns' when he himself was a first born at that time!

The Pharaoh doesn't matter at all, that his heart was hardened hardly relates to the issue of God slaughtering innocent children in order to show His power and make a point.

I'm sure you have 'feelings' about certain verses. I wouldn't think this was from a logical viewpoint in terms of 'human life coming to a sudden end, where you would be viewing this loss of life in a manner of it being just wasted resources?'

We are told that God strengthened Pharaohs resolve. Given that God intervened in the state of Pharaohs heart, God could have went the other way, He could have weakened

The 10 plagues is what influenced Pharaoh's heart to harden... at each plague passing.

God formed the 10 plagues therefore I could go with your line above:
'God strengthened Pharaoh's resolve.'

Pharaohs resolve, softened his heart and ended things peacefully, but no, the option to slaughter the first born of Egypt was needlessly taken.

Divine morality? I don't think so.

Physical life, depending on the contextual angle is down to perspective. Justice in this regard has earthly consequences and to God there are levels of importance values.

Mark 8:36, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

To sound crude, babies that physically die, get an automatic pass to heaven etc.