Moses more myth than man.An article from this morning's NZ Herald (sourced from the Observer) that's worth a read.
There is no historical figure of Moses, and no reason from archaeology or history to suppose any of the exodus story is true.
[T]he absence of evidence outside the Bible story is potentially embarrassing, says Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner, who leads Reform Judaism in Britain. "You have to distinguish between truth and historicity," she said.Truth and historicity? Hmm.
"Moses himself has about as much historic reality as King Arthur," archaeologist Philip Davies famously concluded. A more moderate conclusion comes from the historian Tom Holland: "The likelihood that the biblical story records an actual event is fairly small."Oh dear, can't you just hear the choking sounds from the fundagelical fringe?
O my, Gavin, you're stirring up trouble now! "Moses himself has about as much historic reality as King Arthur". Yes, I knew that already. And I'm sure there are others here who also knew. BUT ... there's a faction that will disagree vehemently. You're taking on core beliefs my friend.
ReplyDeleteAthough direct proof for Moses and the Exodus is lacking, there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that is hard to ignore.'
ReplyDeleteSource:
'Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World' edited by Brian M. Fagan
The Jewish created the best body of ancient legendary literature, so good a SPINOFF would follow: inferior hybrid Greek/Jewish Christianity, then even more inferior Islam and Mormonism. Just like that other dream factory, Hollywood, which was better before the disintegration of the Jewish run Studio System(c1960).
ReplyDeleteSome thoughts on the subject:
ReplyDeletehttp://godcannotbecontained.blogspot.com/2014/12/did-they-or-didnt-they.html
There is kind of an anthropic principle at work here. Fundamentally, we believe that history is rich and comprehensive and what we know from history is what has happened in the world. So if there is no history of Moses or who succeeded Arsaces I, then that is a great exception. In fact we border on being ahistorical. Most people can't tell you their paternal great grandmother's maiden name even in our highly documentation-oriented society. It is no surprise that there is no evidence of Moses outside the Biblical record. Because think of how little of history we actually know. There is no archaeological evidence of Moses but we do not want to fall victim to the "gap theory" for skeptics. The evidence may turn up tomorrow.
ReplyDelete-- Neo
Don't hold your breath for that evidence to turn up...the false history was just a story to explain to the Jews how the Jewish priesthood came to inherit The Law from their "God" and why the common people had to obey the priesthood.
DeleteHey, Neptune showed up, based on science theory. Scientists knew that surrounding astral bodies were reacting in accordance to laws, but they couldn't see Why can't Moses show up based on the history compiled by a theocracy? Seems like we've got thousands of people reacting to something
DeleteOK, second attempt. Something unusual happened with the first one.
DeleteThe planet Neptune eventually showed up after scientists observed astral bodies reacting to the laws of the universe, but for centuries could not see what was causing the reactions. Moses, based on the history produced by a theocracy, could eventually show up as well. All of the people behaving in accordance to a set of laws must also have a cause for their actions.
BB
Neptune showed up as predicted by scientific theory supported by observation, evidence, and calculations. Not by thousands of people believing in Neptune.
DeleteWhen scientists who are experts in the appropriate fields (archaeology etc.) apply scientific theory supported by observation, evidence, and calculations, what probability do you think they assign to the question of whether Moses and a large group of people ever spent 40 years wandering around the Sinai desert?
Or, let me come at it from another angel. Perhaps more to the point.
DeleteMillions of people behave in accordance to the "laws" of astrology. To use your words, must "all of the people behaving in accordance to a set of laws have a cause for their actions"? (which I guess you mean must be true?)
Do you think perhaps the reasons people believe in Christianity and the reasons they believe in astrology are similar?
I personally like to see statements of fact based on an evidentiary trail. In the case of Moses, there is an interaction in play between the history produced by a theocracy, and what has been recovered by scientists of various disciplines. Unfortunately, whether or not we ignore the available "theo"- history, it remains even within the consciousness of the scientists who are part of the investigation. It will continue to remain as an influence, albeit a source of controversy. In this case, are we not asking scientists to "prove a negative"?
DeleteWhen Josephus prepared his history of the Jewish people for Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, one theory is that he had access to documents which had been maintained by the scribes and priests in the Temple at Jerusalem prior to its destruction, enabling him to conduct his research. If this is true, then those documents have long since passed to antiquity. He most certainly discusses Moses in his history. Was his history simply a paraphrase of the Old Testament, or did he have additional resources? There has also been speculation regarding what may or may not have been destroyed with the Alexandrian library.
Normally, when you have a jury trial, some expect a guilty verdict, some expect acquittal, others wait to make up their minds until the verdict is in, and still others argue and contest the verdict after the fact. In the case of believers, most are not going to wait for a verdict on Moses so that they might base their belief and lifestyle on it. The "trial" could last several lifetimes, and Christians believe that major lifestyle decisions are required here and now in their own lifetimes. On the other hand, a humanist might go with the best behavioral patterns that can be gleaned from contemporary civilization, and believes that death is simply the end.
Some Arab, tending his sheep, could make another discovery in some cave where he goes to take a leak. Or archaeologists could unearth a revealing artifact while excavating near the pyramids. Neither is beyond possibility. Until then, we all play according to our own interpretation of the odds. That is an example of the application of free will.
BB
I think Corky's right. Also, the fictional Moses was likely crafted borrowing details from the life of non-fictional Sargon of Akkad.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good title "Gods and Kings", a kind of post-Christian view of Egyptian and Hebrew gods.
ReplyDeleteNot like Jewish Cecil B. DeMille's preaching to the (Christian) choir in 1956.
Times have changed but big budget films are still high risk. Thank goodness the Jews, Paramount's Zukor/DeMille and 20th Century Fox's Murdoch, have the stomach for it. How did the name Fox originate? Scott Eyman's 1997 book on Hollywood history, The Speed of Sound, suggests Hungarian Jewish immigrant had changes his name from 'Fuchs'!
What self-respecting religion wouldn't have a narrative about it's origins - including a lawgiver who was a messenger from God?
ReplyDeleteIt just makes sense that the Hebrew priests would want to infuse Judaism with such a character.
The fact that a "real" Moses- who probably would have been an obscure and minor desert warlord- and then had his image enlarged by priests to include the tweaked narratives of both historical and archetypal mythical figures in the evolution of the religion, is more interesting to me than arguments about Moses' historicity.
After all, we all know by now that many of the Bible's stories were culled from tales that existed pre-Biblically in nearby cultures.
Norm
The Bible is a somewhat unique case. The Old Testament presents the history of a theocracy, Israel, compiled, edited, and presented by the participants in that theocracy themselves. By scholarly standards of today, dispassionate secular history is weighted more heavily, considered more accurate and reliable due to the lack of religious underpinnings or bias. Here, we have a case in which there is no apparent secondary, "neutral" source of information to function as check and balance. And, it logically follows that if someone did not exist, then what they are said to have taught is also nonexistent.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that most people on planet earth even think of Moses. To those who would think of the topic of Moses as being somewhat important, there are several alternatives: belief, non-belief, or frustration over an inability to conclusively know. Normally, if we were discussing, let's say, the Akkadian empire, we would hope to find artifacts capable of surviving over millennia, such as stone inscriptions and pottery shards, which could validate and provide insights into that era of history. Could there be any such evidence of a hypothetical Akkadian nomad leader, whose main work encompassed a 40 year time period spent largely meandering about in circles in a desert? It is doubtful. At best, you would be left to ponder what was available, whether or not it had been preserved by the religiously inclined, or was a relatively late generation of manuscript. I would cite the Essenes, reputed to be the preservers of the so-called Dead Sea scrolls as providing some sort of pattern worthy of consideration. These are people whom we would not consider to be run of the mill religious folk today. They appear to have been separatist fanatics! Yet, their existence has yielded the oldest available manuscripts of what we call the Bible.
BB
The Jewish Priesthood maintains the tradition that they are descended from Aaron, the brother of Moses, Genetic research indicates that many modern day Jews who believe they are part of the Priesthood by descent have a Latest Common Ancestor. The genetic tag that has been discovered for this is called the J1 Cohen Modal Haplotype. Over the years other haplotypes such as R1A and E1B have merged into the Priestly descendants. But the original Jews of Palestine were haplogroup J. The presence of the Cohen Modal Haplotype supports the idea that there was a literal Y Chromosome Aaron. If there was a literal Aaron why would there not be a literal Moses? One could construct other imaginative scenarios to explain this away but Occam's Razor tends to support the existence of Moses.
ReplyDeleteThere is also the nature of the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have examined many mythologies and Judaism is very different from these mythologies. These mythologies tend to be overtly fabulous. They do not possess the detail and rigor of the Torah. These mythologies do not carry down through the generations like Judaism. The Greeks no longer worship Zeus. But believing Jews still recognize the Deity of the Old Testament.
-- Neo
No sources given. Tell us more about this book (booklet) that 'proves' there was an Aaron. Did you pick it up at Ken Hamm's bible theme park in Kentucky?
DeleteCheck Wikipedia
DeleteSpeaking of Wikipedia, it gives the consensus scholarly dating for the writing of Genesis at 500BC - ONE THOUSAND YEARS after the alleged "historical events"! Tall Tales of little Israel's fantastical past. Their god opens the ocean for their escape, then the pathway collapses drowning the Egyptians, very creative writing, the Jews are the best, have fooled the most people, some people still believe today.
DeleteJewish historians would probably offer additional explanation for the 500 BC date, in that this was the date for one of the periodic compilations, and revisions of the manuscripts which took place throughout the lifetime of the Torah, normal maintenance by the scribes and priests. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities of Israel and Judah are not contested, because they are substantiated by still-existing secular records and histories from those empires. These records proved very useful in papers which were written to debunk British Israelism.
DeleteBB
The DNA evidence points to a shared ancestry and validates that part of the story, but its relevance to the actual existence of Aaron is a little more clouded. Check out: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/11/what-was-really-aarons-lineage-cohen.html Even so, I share your conviction that the Judeo-Christian tradition is unique among the religious mythologies of the world and continues to offer a relevance to the world that is lacking in the others (for reasons that I have stated in many different posts on my own blog).
ReplyDeleteThe Muslims have a conviction that the Islamic tradition is unique among the religious mythologies of the world and continues to offer a relevance to the world that is lacking in the others. One can find their reasons in many different posts in many different blogs. Their arguments are as good as yours if not better.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, the Budhists, the Hindus, the Zoroastrians, etc. Every religion has a conviction that their tradition is unique among the religious mythologies of the world and continues to offer a relevance to the world that is lacking in the others. The reason that you, Biker Bob and others think Christianity is the right one is this: Christianity happens to be the religion you grew up in. It was ingrained into you since as far back as you can remember. That's the ONLY reason you think it is unique and special. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Skeptic, you've been on the planet long enough to have been alive during the Christian era of the USA (We're probably in the post-Christian era at this point in our history, and Europe is definitely post-Christian). So, you know what it was like to live in a system that was dominated by Christianity. In retrospect, are you saying that your quality of life would have been just as good or better if you had been born into and nurtured by a predminantly Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, or Zoroastrian system?
DeleteAlso, I can't speak for the other gentlemen, but for decades I was a rabid anti-Christian. No good would be served by going into further detail, but I really thought Christianity was the scourge of the earth, and wanted to see it stamped out. It would be easy for someone who wasn't along for the ride to assume that I just lapsed by default into something comfortable from the past, but I did spend a considerable amount of time investigating other religions and philosophies. It's all a personal thing, and I am certainly not here to evangelize anyone, but my decisions over the past several years have not been easy, and were not casually or trivially made.
As for Moses, it is entirely possible that some artifact could be discovered in some cave somewhere in the future, much in the same way as the Dead Sea scrolls were found, and might end up substantiating the historicity of Moses. I'm afraid this is unlikely in the near future, because the fact is the Egyptians have severely limited archaeological exploration in some of the likely places, as have Muslim governments throughout the Middle East.
BB
Skeptic, your attack offers contradictory statements. You acknowledge that we have offered many arguments to support the uniqueness of Christianity, which you characterize as being on a par with or worse than those offered by the adherents of other faiths. Then you go on to say that the ONLY reason we think that Christianity is unique is because of the fact that it was "ingrained" into us through childhood.
DeleteBob, I agree, living under modern Christianity is better than living under modern Islam. But that's setting the bar pretty low, wouldn't you say? Living under modern Christianity also is much better than living under circa-1200 AD Christianity. That's not because Christianity is unique and wonderful: it's because Christianity no longer has the power to impose its will. Why is life much better in the nominally-Christian modern USA? Because we have moved away from Christianity in substance if not in form.
DeleteJust look at the countries that rank above the USA in the various quality-of-life measurements. After all, the USA routinely ranks in the 15-20 range among the various ways of looking at quality of life. Who are the 14-19 countries that are ahead of us? That's right, they're the ones you describe as post-Christian.
Bob I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. I just strongly disagree with your conclusion.
As for Moses, I think a leader named Moses probably did exist way back in antiquity. Similarly a King Arthur probably also existed. After all, these stores had to get started somehow. But certainly neither Moses nor King Arthur did the deeds attributed to them.
Regarding finding some artifact in some cave that will substantiate your beliefs: do you really think this is how science works>
Miller, there is nothing contradictory about my statements. Yes you offer many arguments, none of which stand up to scrutiny. My point is: you made up your mind long ago, and then set out to devise arguments to support your preconceived opinion.
DeleteBob, one more thing. I don't doubt the sincerity of your beliefs. And I know you traveled from WCG to ex-WCG to atheist to traditional believer to get there, so you no doubt feel you've studied hard and arrived at the right conclusion. But please consider that your early training might still have strongly influenced your ultimate conclusion.
DeleteSkeptic, if your observation is meant to suggest that our life experiences have a profound impact on the conclusions that we reach about anything, then yes my beliefs (including those religious in nature) were influenced and shaped by those experiences - so were yours. However, if I had made up my mind about these things long ago, then why would I have discarded so many of my beliefs from my Worldwide Church of God days and adopted new ones? For instance, I think that most folks would characterize my rejection of sola scriptura and acceptance of scientific evolution as significant developments within anyone's belief system. Like many who have turned their back on religion, you seem to be denigrating the sincerity and value of anyone's research who happens to reach a conclusion that is different from your own. I'm honored that you have taken the time to evaluate all of my posts which touch on the uniqueness of the Judeo-Christian conception of God ("none of which stand up to scrutiny" - according to you). Nevertheless, whether or not my beliefs (or Byker Bob's) can withstand your scrutiny is immaterial to the point of this exchange, what is relevant is some acknowledgement/acceptance of the fact that we (almost everyone who has commented in this thread) are all a long way from the Christianity that we were nourished on as children.
DeleteIn fact, Miller, since most of us do not know one another in real life, the reactions from and comments by other posters to our beliefs inform us more about those posters and the inner workings of their minds, than they tell us about our own beliefs and the processes which produced them. I like Skeptic, because he expresses his thoughts in a kind and patient manner. He also seems to be comfortable from an intellectual standpoint in his current world view. Both admirable qualities, and a breath of fresh air, because there have been others who assume that anyone who admits to being a believer is automatically the staunchest, fundamentalist young earther who has come to the blogs to consign everybody else into eternal hell fire. Hence, these other people end up debating not in the first person, but with an imaginary cartoonish caricature that is the creation of their own mind. It ends up being an aside, not a real part of the discussion, and they don't even realize it!
DeleteWhat is often missed is that the prevailing attitude or vibe of a given era is a symbiosis. Many factors, ideas, teachings, and science become ingredients, or influences, and since things are constantly changing, it is also an evolutionary process in which Christianity has been an integral factor for the past 2,000 years. Some Christians have stated that if the Greek philosophers had not come first, the world at large would not have been properly prepared for the teachings of Jesus Christ. Others have stated that Jesus basically taught the world Buddhism. These are extreme statements, certainly with a degree of validity, but bound to cause a reaction. However I believe that the basic law of love (not the legalism that some contend was the message) enjoys universality, in that it can be applied as a guiding factor to a wide variety of philosophies and cultures. It was never intended to "perfect" Pharisaic Judaism, which is really just a human willpower thing, rather than spiritual enlightenment or qualification process for salvation. That Pharisaic type of "understanding" would keep Christians in the unpleasant and often violent mindset of the 1200 AD period, as would Old Covenant conquest mentalities infect Christians with a Crusade mentality.
Basically, all humans are on an individualized path. Each of us is in a somewhat unique maze, and unique in our approach to our maze. The process of life will automatically produce differences of opinion and senses of validity.
BB
Bob, I don't personally know you, Skeptic, Gavin or the others who have commented here. Is it, however, unreasonable for someone who has followed this blog for over a year now to propose that the posts and statements here suggest a long and complicated journey for those who made them away from childhood indoctrination? I respect all of the views expressed here, including those of Skeptic (maybe he does too). Nevertheless, my own personal experiences make me very wary of anything that smacks of arrogant superiority in the realm of ideas (especially those related to religious beliefs). After all, it is hard to see a statement that attributes ALL of one's arguments as having been marshalled to support ones preconceived opinions in a positive or kind-hearted light. As you suggest, the entire process is evolutionary in nature. Hence, it is not helpful to dismiss (or even seem to dismiss) anyone's views without a patient, thorough and generous consideration of them (and that applies to any subject - even a discussion of the historicity of Moses). Moreover, my original comment referring to the uniqueness and relevance of Christianity was an aside in a comment related to whether or not DNA evidence supports the existence of Aaron (I didn't start this thread). I guess you're right, sometimes the comments and reactions to them reveal much more about the thinking of others than they tell us about ourselves.
DeleteMiller, I meant no disrespect. I originally reacted to the statement "the Judeo-Christian tradition is unique among the religious mythologies of the world and continues to offer a relevance to the world that is lacking in the others". Taking away the fancy wording, what that sounds like to me is "my religion is the best". A similar view one hears often in the USA is "my country is the best". These thoughts amount to tribalism.
DeleteI don't mean to question your religious beliefs. I realize we all hold our respective sets of beliefs because we need to. Life is hard on each of us. If your beliefs help you through life, by all means cling to them.
Skeptic, I can see how someone who is completely unfamiliar with my blog could interpret that statement as an arrogant assertion that "my religion is the best." However, I have a very good understanding of some of the philosophical and moral problems that encompass the Christian religion. I don't think that anyone has all of the answers - including myself. Like you, I'm on a quest, and I'm not clinging to anything that doesn't make sense to me.
DeleteI am not sure to whom Skeptic has addressed his response - not me apparently. I did not grow up a Christian.
ReplyDeleteOne must recognize that the Muslims are cognate to the Judeo-Christian Tradition. They would be using the same traditions and ideas derived from the same traditions. So their arguments are not any better at all. I am not sure why you would assert that.
Some of my ancestors believed in a god named Tirawa and his wife Atira. Their religion was fabulous. But they felt deep conviction concerning this religion. But we are not talking about how people feel about their religion. They all feel like it is the best in the world. We are instead talking about credibility, rationality and relevance. But, alas, this is a snipe hunt. If you want to believe in a pantheon containing a god who is a elephant, nobody could possibly dissuade you from it.
-- Neo
It seems Skeptic was addressing Miller Jones and Bob, but also you -- indirectly -- since you opened up the idea of Judeo-Christianity as unique, and Jones took your cue with his comment. Not that it matters, really. I think he or she is mostly right, though Muslim arguments aren't qualitatively any better than any other religion -- and just exactly who would get to be the final judge on that anyway? No -- wait, don't answer that. lol. Bob's implication that being born into a Christian "system" (as opposed to Buddhist, etc.) actually justifies the point Skeptic made about favoring a religion because we're "born into it." Even though Bob hated Xtianity all those years, it seems it still holds the rank of "likely the best to be born into" in his view. Otherwise, his question makes no point. Quality of life is too subjective to propose that a religious system (apart from democracy, capitalism, etc.) is the determining framework for such am easure. But, that's how it works, by and large. You can disown your "family" because they are detestable, but in the end, they're still YOUR family and it's hard to lead life with any other tribe. It's all a fascinating study in the power and expression of the human psyche -- nothing to do at all with a "right" religion.
DeleteNeo - I have no idea what your beliefs are. My comments were not directed to you. I was not trying to assert that Muslim arguments are better (ugh!). I was just trying to make the point that Christian tradition is no better than other religions.
DeleteTruth Only - thanks for answering for me. You said it better than I could have!
Gavin poses:>Oh dear, can't you just hear the choking sounds from the fundagelical fringe?<
ReplyDeleteYes, those sounds may well be being heard amidst screams of blasphemy! But what sounds are you making, as you have repudiated all that you once believed to be true?
Still beating that dead horse, Tom? Just because we once believed something to be true doesn't mean it really was! We've learned, grown and moved on. You're still stuck believing a lie.
DeleteBoy, will you be surprised after you die, when it turns out nobody ever gets resurrected!
You may be surprised to learn that, that "dead horse" is very much alive!
DeleteI am sure that on the subject of the resurrection, the terrifying surprise will be yours, as you are resurrected and hurled into the lake of fire to be tormented with the devil and his angels for ever!
Neo wrote, " I have examined many mythologies and Judaism is very different from these mythologies. These mythologies tend to be overtly fabulous."
ReplyDeleteNeo, I'm not entirely sure what your definition of "overtly fabulous" is in those mythologies, but I take it to mean something like "hard to believe"- which I'd also ascribe to stories like the creation story, talking snakes and donkeys and burning bushes, the flood and all the animals on the ark, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah with God's holy man Lot giving his virgin daughters to be raped and later his wife being turned into a pillar of salt, the story of the day when the sun and time stopped when the Israelites were fighting in in Canaan, David collecting twice the number (200) of Philistine foreskins needed in exchange for a daughter’s hand in marriage. These are a few that come to mind, and there are so many more .
The Moses stories alone provide many more "overtly fabulous" examples, as the Cecil B. DeMille/Charlton Heston movie attests.
I read the wiki page, "Y-chromosomal Aaron", but does it really show in any way that there's an ancestral "Aaron"- or just that, as can be expected, specific living Jewish groups have common ancestral heritages?
That gets me into comments by Byker Bob. He wrote, "Could there be any such evidence of a hypothetical Akkadian nomad leader, whose main work encompassed a 40 year time period spent largely meandering about in circles in a desert? It is doubtful."
If the person of Moses were to be described as a leader, "whose main work encompassed a 40 year time period spent largely meandering about in circles in a desert", I would disagree, because, clearly, in the story of Moses his main works were after the fabulous story of birth, him becoming an Egyptian of prominence after being found floating in a basket in a river, his ascension to power, the Israelites building the pyramids, Moses' confrontation with the Pharaoh, all the amazing plagues which were like witchcraft- and finally, after killing all the firstborn of the Egyptians, the big successful Exodus with the parting of the sea for their escape and the Egyptian army being swallowed up and drowned when it closed.
Now, that's the kind of stuff you'd expect to have some evidence of!
(It's not just some unknown tribe wandering around in circles in a big desert .)
Also, Byker Bob, please be aware that there are countless other people, who "did spend a considerable amount of time investigating other religions and philosophies" for whom it was "all a personal thing", and who have also made religiously oriented decisions, and those decisions "over the past several years have not been easy, and were not casually or trivially made.", who have come to conclusions that are different than yours.
I think that many if not most people who were once believers in a religion, have moved on from it and have sincerity - and not without easyness or trivial conclusions.
Moving on has led them to a variety of places, belief-wise.
These are my opinions, and it makes me cringe when some folks say that they possess the "TRUTH!"
It's sad how so many people are so full of themselves that they're not able to say, "Well, this is my best understanding of this subject"
There's something wrong when someone tries to convince people of his or her superiority in the conclusions they come to. Such a person might as well be a Nazi 'uber-something' of the Third Reich.
No historical or archeological evidence?
ReplyDeleteSheesh, what do you want? Proof?
So, if Moses wasn't really the man featured in the Old Testament, that would mean British Israelism is a total flop.
ReplyDeleteGood news, everyone!
We can now prove that the United States and British Commonwealth are the Lost Samaritans!
Exodus: gods and kings -- pretty good science fiction, particularly good and spectacular in 3D -- a sort of combination of Dune with undertones of Prometheus: Lots of sand and grit with those plagues, created by a petulant 10 year old child with lots of power without much in the way of social skills, Moses training the Fremen -- and, by the way, if you are planning to cross the Red Sea, keep your wonderful towel with you, only always. The movie gave a few realistic touches to the original Pharaoh and Moses the General, the rest you can ignore. As I say, it's science fiction.
ReplyDeleteI highly recommend it for the Armstrongists. It will anger them. They won't see the humor in it. Be prepared with paramedics standing by.
And speaking of that, if you are a young adult, you might want to bring a walker, because the movie's so long, you might be a member of the geriatric crowd before it ends. Highly recommend endurance training with high impact aerobics and a good probiotic nutrition regimen because this is a one movie marathon. It's well done though, just long.
For a mythic character, it's really exciting and some of the scenes (like Moses killing the Egyptian task masters) is wonderfully understated to offset the 'in your face' action of the rest of the movie.
Did Moses exist?
If you aren't convinced before the movie, you sure will be after.