GOD The Bible makes it seem like this was Moses' God.
-
Is this your God?
-
The idea that Mt Sinai was a volcano is an old one - Sigmund Freud suggested it, and he was by no means the first. However, the traditional locations of Mt Sinai have no volcanoes and adherents of the volcano theory have to locate Sinai in north-western Saudi Arabia.
-
Well Mt. Sinai is used in the story most likely because it was the location of one of the first Israelite settlements. But none of the major events of Exodus have ever been shown to have happened. Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University Quote:This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. There are several volcanoes throughout the Middle East, so it is very much possible that the location specified in the Bible is wrong. Which to me makes more sense considering the accuracy of the rest of Exodus.UpdateAccording to Josephus, Mt. Sinai was within the Arabia Petraea province which does have volcanoes which include those in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria.
-
interesting that you mention Freud. I just recently found out that he had many thoughts and theories about the ancient world. He pondered the relationship between Moses and Akhenaten and how it relates to the birth of monotheistic theories.
-
I think Herzog is deducing further than the facts permit when he claims all those negatives. To prove a negative is notoriously difficult and the rest of the article gives little support to his claims. It concentrates mainly on the Canaanite military campaign issue, which is perhaps the most amenable to archaeology, but is heavily dependent on chronology, which for this Biblical period is very uncertain.I can well believe that there was a good deal of official hyperbole about Israel's power. Official hyperbole was certainly normal in all kingdoms, making it not surprising that little evidence of the Hebrews would come from the Egyptian side. There were few independent historians in Egypt, and only 'good news' was published. A defeat was only mentioned if it could be described as a victory.However, the findings at Khirbet Qeiyafa, found after Herzog's article and carbon-dated, do suggest a more powerful kingdom around the time of David than a mere tribal chiefdom.There may also be supporting recent findings at Jerusalem, in the 'Large Stone Structure' and some walls, though the dating of these is less sure and has been disputed. They do, however, show the difficulty of arguing from mere lack of findings - later work may find them.The Bible doesn't really specify a location of Mt Sinai. The present Sinai peninsula is called that because it is the traditional location of Mt Sinai; but that tradition may not go far back. Even within the Sinai peninsula there are competing traditions as to the actual mountain. Its location may well have been uncertain in New Testament times. Arabia Petraea was a large area (which included the Sinai peninsula) and doesn't pin the location down, and Josephus may not have known much. The NW Saudi Arabia idea is the most plausible of the volcano sites, but there are many other theories.