The Making of a Legend

Perhaps one of the most inspiring and enigmatic figures known in the Old Testament is Moses. His story, and that of the Exodus from Egypt, has been told in many varying mediums of communication including at least two Hollywood movies that I can think of. In this post I will be taking a closer look at the origins of this famous figure in the Bible. First, I would like to say that this post is based heavily upon primary sources which I have put directly into the body of the post. I realize that sometimes this can be some heavy reading, unfortunately for those of you who usually skip over these passages, I think it is important to slug your way through so that you can see for yourselves what they say and not simply take my word for it (and for those of you who continue to refuse, I will summarize).

The birth story of Moses is so well known that it is of little use repeating it here, yet for the sake of clarity, here it is.

Exodus 2
1 Now a man of the house of Levi married a Levite woman, 2 and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. When she saw that he was a fine child, she hid him for three months. 3 But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. 4 His sister stood at a distance to see what would happen to him.
5 Then Pharaoh's daughter went down to the Nile to bathe, and her attendants were walking along the river bank. She saw the basket among the reeds and sent her slave girl to get it. 6 She opened it and saw the baby. He was crying, and she felt sorry for him. "This is one of the Hebrew babies," she said.
7 Then his sister asked Pharaoh's daughter, "Shall I go and get one of the Hebrew women to nurse the baby for you?"
8 "Yes, go," she answered. And the girl went and got the baby's mother. 9 Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Take this baby and nurse him for me, and I will pay you." So the woman took the baby and nursed him. 10 When the child grew older, she took him to Pharaoh's daughter and he became her son. She named him Moses, saying, "I drew him out of the water."

The image of Moses being placed into the basket and sent careening down the Nile is an image familiar to most people in this generation. Yet, was this story true? A closer look at some of the other literature of the Ancient Near East sheds some interesting light upon this legend.

The first story I would like to look at is the birth of Cyrus (576-530 BCE), the founder of the Persian Empire. He, like many others in the Ancient Near East, has an interesting tale of his birth and upbringing. Herodotus (a Greek historian c. 490-420 BCE) wrote regarding Cyrus origins in his classical work dubbed, ‘The Histories’.

Astyages, the king of Persia, had a daughter named Mandane who was married to Cambyes. One day, Astyages had a dream regarding his daughter. “This time it was that a vine grew from his daughter’s private parts and spread over Asia. As before, he told the interpreters about this dream, and then sent for his daughter, who was now pregnant. When she arrived, he kept her under strict watch, intending to make away with her child; for the fact was that the Magi had interpreted the dream to mean that his daughter’s son would usurp his throne. (Book 1, 108)”

Astyages then ordered his steward, Harpagus to keep an eye on Mandane, and when the child was born, he was to take it home and kill it. When the child was born, Harpagus took the child home but could not bring himself to kill it. So, he sent for one of the king’s herdsman, Mitradates, and ordered him to expose the child in the wild. “The king’s orders are that you must expose this infant in the wildest spot you know of amongst the hills, where it may soonest die. I am to tell you, moreover, that if you disobey and find some means of saving the child, the king will have you put to death in a way not pleasant to think of. I am commanded to see for myself that the child has been exposed. (Book 1, 110)”

Mitrades as well found it difficult to do away with the child and brought the baby home to his shack and spoke with his wife regarding the affair. His wife suggested an alternative. “‘My own child,’ she said, ‘was born today-and it was born dead. Take the body and expose it, and let us bring up Mandane’s son as our own. If we do this, no one will find out that you have disobeyed your masters. Moreover, we shall have managed pretty well for ourselves too: our dead baby will have a royal burial, and this live one will not be killed.’ (Book 1, 112)”

Thus it occurred that Cyrus was saved and brought up by the herdsmen until his true identity was later revealed and through a series of events which will not be discussed here, came to power.

This example of Cyrus reveals a common thread in the development of a hero, king, or leader in a community within the Ancient Near East. In this case, Cyrus, who was to be king, was saved as an infant through some rather extreme circumstances from being killed by the ruler of the time who believed him to be a threat. The boy was then raised in a home other than his own, until he discovered his true identity. He grew up to be the powerful ruler of the Persian Empire known as Cyrus the Great. Although the parallels to Moses are not exactly the same, the general situation is remarkably similar.

Next we will examine the famous legend of Romulus, the traditional founder of the Roman Empire. His birth story, as related by Plutarch (a roman historian, 46-100 AD) is very similar to that of Cyrus. Amulius was the king of Alba and had taken the kingship from his brother. He feared that his brother’s daughter would have a son and this son would take his kingdom away. As such, he made her a priestess of Vesta, which bound her to a life of celibacy. However, she did indeed become pregnant. The punishment for this was death, but the king’s daughter, Antho, interceded on her behalf and she was spared. However she was kept under constant vigil so that the boy would be destroyed upon birth.

“Delivered she was of two boys, and their size and beauty were more than human. 4 Wherefore Amulius was all the more afraid, and ordered a servant to take the boys and cast them away. This servant's name was Faustulus, according to some, but others give this name to the man who took the boys up. Obeying the king's orders, the servant put the babes into a trough and went down towards the river, purposing to cast them in; but when he saw that the stream was much swollen and violent, he was afraid to go close up to it, and setting his burden now near the bank, went his way. 5 Then the overflow of the swollen river took and bore up the trough, floating it gently along, and carried it down to a fairly smooth spot which is now called Kermalus, but formerly Germanus, perhaps because brothers are called "germani."
4 Now there was a wild fig-tree hard by, which they called Ruminalis, either from Romulus, as is generally thought, or because cud-chewing, or ruminating, animals spent the noon-tide there for the sake of the shade, or best of all, from the suckling of the babes there; for the ancient Romans called the teat "ruma," and a certain goddess, who is thought to preside over the rearing of young children, is still called Rumilia, in sacrificing to whom no wine is used, and libations of milk are poured over her victims. 2 Here, then, the babes lay, and the she-wolf of story here gave them suck, and a woodpecker came to help in feeding them and to watch over them.”
………….
6 As for the babes, they were taken up and reared by Faustulus, a swineherd of Amulius, and no man knew of it; or, as some say with a closer approach to probability, Numitor did know of it, and secretly aided the foster-parents in their task.

In this case it is twin boys who are exposed to the wild and left to die for the same reason Cyrus was; the king feared that they would take over his kingdom. Again the future ruler is saved, in this case miraculously by some she-wolves who then took and nursed the babies. Plutarch himself acknowledges that likely this is a fantastical embellishment of the truth and that probably they were saved by other less magnificent means. It is apparent from this example of Romulus as well, which is very close to that of Cyrus, stories of miraculous rescues of babies from a nervous and somewhat paranoid ruler were not uncommon.

Our last ‘hero’ we will be looking at is Sargon the Great. Sargon was the first Semitic King to conquer the Sumerian city states and to create what could be called the first Empire of Mesopotamia from roughly 2270-2215 BCE, long before Moses was even a twinkle in his father's eye. There are two texts which I will present here. The first is in Sumerian and was written somewhere between 1800 and 2000 BCE. It is a portrayal of how Sargon gained control over the city ruled by Ur-Zababa, presumably Kish. The tablet is a difficult read and is fragmented as well. I have provided the translation below, but I will summarize it in order to aid in the reading.

In this text, Sargon is the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa. During his time in this position, Ur-Zababa has a dream which he assumes means that Sargon will take his kingdom. Sargon as well has a dream confirming Ur-Zababa’s suspicions. Ur-Zababa then decides to have Sargon killed by sending him with a letter to Belish-tikal ordering Belish-tikal, upon receiving the letter, to kill Sargon by means of ‘throwing him into the mould like statues’. Inana intervenes and warns Sargon not to enter the house. Thus Sargon lives. Ur-Zababa tries to have Sargon killed a second time, but is unsuccessful (we do not know exactly what happened due to fragmentation of the tablet). The last part of the tablet is extremely fragmented and broken off but it is apparently describing some type of conflict between Sargon and Ur-Zababa. The Sumerian King list tells us that Sargon did eventually take control of Kish (although he took it not from Ur-Zababa, but from Unug).

Segment B
1-7. One day, after the evening had arrived and Sargon had brought the regular deliveries to the palace, Ur-Zababa was sleeping (and dreaming) in the holy bed-chamber, his holy residence. He realised what the dream was about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone. After Sargon had received the regular deliveries for the palace, Ur-Zababa appointed him cupbearer, putting him in charge of the drinks cupboard. Holy Inana did not cease to stand by him.
8-11. After five or 10 days had passed, King Ur-Zababa …… and became frightened in his residence. Like a lion he urinated, sprinkling his legs, and the urine contained blood and pus. He was troubled, he was disturbed like a fish living in brackish water.
12-24. It was then that the cupbearer of Ezina's wine-house, Sargon, lay down not to sleep, but lay down to dream. In the dream, holy Inana drowned Ur-Zababa in a river of blood. The sleeping Sargon groaned and gnawed the ground. When King Ur-Zababa heard about this groaning, he was brought into the king's holy presence, Sargon was brought into the presence of Ur-Zababa (who said:) "Cupbearer, was a dream revealed to you in the night?" Sargon answered his king: "My king, this is my dream, which I will tell you about: There was a young woman who was as high as the heavens and as broad as the earth. She was firmly set as the base of a wall. For me, she drowned you in a great river, a river of blood."
25-34. Ur-Zababa chewed his lips, he became seriously afraid. He spoke to ……, his chancellor: "My royal sister, holy Inana, is going to change (?) my finger into a …… of blood; she will drown Sargon, the cupbearer, in the great river. Beliš-tikal, chief smith, man of my choosing, who can write tablets, I will give you orders, let my orders be carried out! Let my advice be followed! Now then, when the cupbearer has delivered my bronze hand-mirror (?) to you, in the E-sikil, the fated house, throw them (the mirror and Sargon) into the mould like statues."
35-45. Beliš-tikal heeded his king's words and prepared the moulds in the E-sikil, the fated house. The king spoke to Sargon: "Go and deliver my bronze hand-mirror (?) to the chief smith!" Sargon left the palace of Ur-Zababa. Holy Inana, however, did not cease to stand at his right hand side, and before he had come within five or 10 nindan of the E-sikil, the fated house, holy Inana turned around toward him and blocked his way, (saying:) "The E-sikil is a holy house! No one polluted with blood should enter it!" Thus he met the chief smith of the king only at the gate of the fated house. After he delivered the king's bronze hand-mirror (?) to the chief smith, Beliš-tikal, the chief smith, …… and threw it into the mould like statues.
46-52. After five or 10 days had passed, Sargon came into the presence of Ur-Zababa, his king; he came into the palace, firmly founded like a great mountain. King Ur-Zababa …… and became frightened in his residence. He realised what was it about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone. Ur-Zababa became frightened in the bed-chamber, his holy residence. He realised what was it about, but did not put into words, did not discuss it with anyone.
53-56. In those days, although writing words on tablets existed, putting tablets into envelopes did not yet exist. King Ur-Zababa despatched Sargon, the creature of the gods, to Lugal-zage-si in Unug with a message written on clay, which was about murdering Sargon. unknown no. of lines missing
Segment C
1-7. With the wife of Lugal-zage-si ……. She (?) …… her feminity as a shelter. Lugal-zage-si did not …… the envoy. "Come! He directed his steps to brick-built E-ana!" Lugal-zage-si did not grasp it, he did not talk to the envoy. But as soon as he did talk to the envoy ……. The lord said "Alas!" and sat in the dust.
8-12. Lugal-zage-si replied to the envoy: "Envoy, Sargon does not yield."After he has submitted,Sargon …… Lugal-zage-si ……. Sargon …… Lugal-zage-si ……. Why …… Sargon ……?

In this story we see briefly how Sargon, from relatively humble beginnings, was able to establish the first Semitic Empire. Likely there are some embellishments to this story which helped to show Sargon in a more heroic light. In the Sumerian King list, it is emphasized that Sargon was the son of a gardener, which is somewhat out of place from the rest of the document which is very rigid in format.

266-296. In Agade, Sargon, whose father was a gardener, the cupbearer of Ur-Zababa, became king, the king of Agade,

It is obvious again that Sargon, being a very important figure in the Mesopotamian culture, was given the typical rags to riches story (perhaps truthfully, or perhaps not).

Our last legend that we will take a look at is perhaps the most striking of the ones we have looked at, especially when compared to the birth story of Moses. It is the birth story of Sargon. This tablet was written somewhere between 700-1000 BCE.

I am Sargon the great king, king of Agade.
My mother was a high priestess, I did not know my father.
My father’s brother dwells in the uplands.
My city is Azupiranu, which lies on Euphrates bank.
My mother, the priestess, conceived me,
She bore me in secret.
She placed me in a reed basket,
She sealed my hatch with pitch.
She left me to the river, whence I could not come up.
The river carried me off, it brought me to Aqqi,
Drawer of water.
Aqqi, drawer of water, brought me up as he dipped his bucket.
Aqqi, drawer of water, raised me as his adopted son.
Aqqi, drawer of water, set (me) to his orchard work.
During my orchard work, Ishtar loved me.
Fifty-four years I ruled as king,
I became lord over and ruled the people of this land,
………….

It is within this legend we find the strongest parallel to that of Moses. Sargon’s mother was a high priestess, and thus, like the mother of Romulus, was forbidden to have children due to her vocation. This is the reason why when she bore Sargon, she did so in secret and then proceeded to place him in a reed basket and sealed it with hatch and pitch (which is almost the identical construction of the basket which bore Moses on his rocky trip down the Nile) and set him in the Euphrates River. The oldest copy of this legend of Sargon we have was written approximately 1500 years after his death, thus, it is generally thought among Assyriologists that this is not an historical account of Sargon’s birth, but was likely composed by Sargon I or Sargon II during their reigns as a way of making their ancestor more glorious and thus legitimizing their reign and increasing their power in the eyes of their subjects and enemies.

As for the composition of Exodus, there are basically two camps. The first is that Exodus was written by Moses himself which would date its writing to around 1400 BCE. The second opinion, which is the one I tend to side with, was that the book of Exodus was likely written by several authors and then put together later by a separate redactor. The final composition was then put together somewhere during the exilic or post-exilic period (approx. 500-300 BCE). One of the reasons I tend to lean towards the later dating has to do with the information we explored above. Like their Mesopotamian neighbours, the birth of Moses and his upbringing was likely written long after his death and changed and bolstered to turn him into a greater hero. Giving him a miraculous birth and rescue was almost a way of legitimizing his leadership and his anointing by God.

The historicity of the Bible is one that is often discussed and I have made my opinions known regarding the reliability of Genesis and particularly the first few chapters. As is already obvious, I believe that stories such as the creation, the flood, and the nephilim were myths that were designed to teach us something about God. As we examine the birth of Moses, the term myth does not really apply. I believe that Moses did exist, which discounts any use of the term myth. Rather, I prefer to apply the term legend, or folk-history as Robert Drews has done in his article, “Sargon, Cyrus, and Mesopotamian Folk History”. The legend of Sargon that we read above was written long after he lived and is not believed to be historically accurate. Yet, we as human beings have a tendency to elevate those people in the past who did great things (in Sargon’s case, he created the first Semitic Empire). In order to do that, there are certain ideas and motifs that often apply within a culture that help to elevate a person to the status of legend. In the cases of Sargon, Cyrus, Romulus, and Moses, the theme of ‘rags to riches,’ a motif which was used incredibly often to create a hero, was used. Although the births of Sargon and Moses offer a very clear example of syncretism between the two cultures, the rags to riches theme in general is found throughout the Bible (Joseph, Moses, David, just to name a few).

Of course we enter the slippery slope so often talked about among evangelicals. If the birth of Moses isn’t historically accurate, then how can we know if any of the Bible is accurate? Did the Exodus happen? If none of that stuff happened, how can I possibly have a Christian faith? It is true that we can likely never know for sure exactly how historically accurate the Bible is. There are many Christians who make it their mission to try and prove the historicity of the Bible in a vain effort to preserve a faith based on a perception that the Bible must be perfect in historical and scientific accuracy. It is my personal opinion that there are many aspects of the Bible which reflect the history of Israel in a way that can be trusted. However, I also believe that there are some embellishments, and perhaps some of their great leaders over many centuries became not just people, but legends. Therefore, to have a legend, there must be certain aspects which must be applied to that person. In Moses' case, the common Ancient Near Eastern motif of rags to riches was applied.

It is much easier to build a Christian faith with your mind open to the fact that the Bible is not historically accurate and was edited and composed with the agenda of the author than it is to try and build a faith on the historical accuracy of the Bible. Those who try to prove its historicity will ultimately fail. Those who accept the Bible with its flaws, although their faith may look differently than the fundamentalist, will, in the end, have a version of Christianity no less valid, and no less strong, than those who base their faith on accuracy.