From my earlier posts, it would not be difficult to guess my doubt regarding the historicity of the patriarchs named in the biblical record Noah (there was no worldwide flood, but rather as the geologists are wont to tell us the mountains once sat beneath the oceans and emerged therefrom by tectonic activity to form the mountain ranges), Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses.
But to help grasp the way that I view the actual development of how the Hebrew Scriptures (and eventually their Christian counterpart) came to be, I would like to take a moment to back up into Egyptian history of their glyphic language. The glyphs that form the earlier Egyptian language are pictograms, where each glyph conveys an idea (ideograms) rather than sounds or “phonemes.”
When I realized that there was indeed an Egyptian glyph existing prior to the Hebrew Scriptures for “the Word of God,” and that many of the ideograms (glyphs) of the Egyptians showed up in the biblical record translated into specialized phrases each with its own meaning (Like the Hebrew idioms of the Proverbs), it began to dawn on me that the Egyptian gallery of glyphs actually engineered the Old Testament.
This makes sense if the Hebrews actually did spend some time in Egypt (a claim for which there is currently no real evidence), but not as foreigners kidnapped and enslaved by some Pharaonic mischief, but rather as native Egyptians (the poor class) put to excessive labors who rebelled and then left Egypt, forming their own new identity as former Egyptians turned desert nomads at the first and then Hebrews after adopting new cultural features along the way over the next two centuries or so.
This would also serve to explain why the scriptural memory has Solomon clinging to all things Egyptian, including the proverbs themselves, which tradition seems to have begun with an Egyptian named Im-Hotep, at least in the Mediterranean region. Thus, the patriarchal narratives were later constructed as a prefix to the “Miraculous Exodus” account and tradition, which after they left, came to explain the Hebrew identity (retrofitted as leaving Egypt by a series of divine miracles). But these were originally constructed in the manner of thinking (glyphic-arranged narrative, translated later into idioms (specialized phrases of unique meaning, e.g. the “open hand” means charity or generosity to the poor) of the Hebrew tongue, since the 2d commandment forbids these images.
This glyphic backdrop permeates the thought-forms of both Testaments, and it became a kind of hallmark of Semitic writing. It seems to create the false impression of real or historical description because of its orderliness, simplicity (Ockham’s razor friendly) and empirical-access language (many concrete references to the physical world, easily grasped by the five senses). This would make the narrative very persuasive of its truthfulness even when it represents mythology and legend only.
This is how I believe the “meta-mythology” called the Bible came to be so popular and generally accepted as accurate, even where no evidence supports its spurious claims, such as with the generally-assumed (probable) historical existence of the patriarchs (Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses), which I hold to be nothing other than pious fiction.
In any case, if the reader bears in mind this theory of the Egyptian-glyphic construction of the biblical record, it becomes far easier to orient the readers’ outlook to understand this blog’s skepticism toward all things biblical.