6 million Jews at Mount Sinai? (prophecy, women, believe, Catholics)

[NY Jew]

Originally Posted by SeekerSA

I never claimed I did.

Perhaps you should actually read what I post instead of drawing your own convolutions, might help to not make you look so silly. As for the word you now link to, kofer you said kofriem, that is why I found nothing googling. Furthermore, the link does not explain the term/word.

yes it does

• The spelling "כופר" (with the stress on the e, which stands for צירה which is a long vowel) can mean an unbeliever, similar to the Arabic kafir.

I never claimed you claimed to know hebrew but you never answered my question about weather or not you know it.


in regards to the the rock at Horeb according to jewish tradition it was movable and we have proof of that tradition before there was a mass non jewish Christianity (look up Baer Miriam)

Perhaps point me to the correct English translation of the Hebrew bible. It seems that Jews accept the headings of the xian bible in that if I say genesis, exodus, deuturonomy etc. you know what I am talking of, hence your appeals to something like an oral tradition would invalidate the Jewish bible and being able to withstand scrutiny and historical accuracy by someone like Whoppers and me.

1. the oral tradition was already starting to be written down in the first few centuries of the common era
2. there are statements in josephus confirming that there was a ancient oral tradtion even in his time.

If you claim my challenge is based on literacy of the Jews, I do not recall making that inference.

Let us continue on that premise.

Perhaps your definition of literacy and mine differ. If one accepts you learn language like you do as a child before entering school as it is nowadays, then back then it is fair to assume that folk were fluent in their language even w/o schooling in the now traditional sense; that takes no rocket science to deduce. However if you claim every single male Jew say from the time of Abraham was literate in reading and writing, that requires proof.

I never claimed every single male, I claimed overwhelmingly majority of jewish males.

This anyway plays into my assertions that the exodus event (if it happened) was a very small band of nomads and as such this would be par for the course in a small community. However 2M-6M (whichever figure is believed to be true) folk requires schools and not ones that were mobile as the folklore might suggest.

the facts are that throughout mass recorded jewish history male jews were able to read at rates only surpassed in recent times by any other nation. there is ample evidence that that was true in Roman Times. I critiqued whoppers comment by Bar IIlan due to his trying to distort the facts that there was jewish literacy during the Roman era. My point after dismissing that goes back to my original point that counteracts this statement you said.

History is written by the victors and we shall probably never know all truths barring the snippets that managed to survive. Mass literacy is only a recent phenomenon so prior to the mid 19th to early 20th centuries, much of what folk learned was by hearsay and what the literate deemed appropriate for us commoners to hear/understand.

Because literacy was for so long restricted to nobility and the affluent, it stands to reason, the few decided what we should know or believe.

Any alleged word of god should stand up to any scrutiny and hold its own but sadly it does not. One has to really do mental gymnastics to try and get some semblance of seeing it as sensible. The mere fact we have apologists apologising for the bible's obvious lack in consistency and accuracy should tell us there is something amiss. Also these apologists cannot seem to agree either so that should lead one to question their alleged divine influence/inspiration.

People are generally lazy and take it on faith what their pastor is telling them is truth(tm) the few that actually bother to critically examine scripture for themselves usually come away with a whole different perspective.

this statement is why responded to this thread because this show a complete lack of understanding of the facts and in addition completely contradicts your current hypothesis.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by NY Jew

yes it does


I never claimed you claimed to know hebrew but you never answered my question about weather or not you know it.


in regards to the the rock at Horeb according to jewish tradition it was movable and we have proof of that tradition before there was a mass non jewish Christianity (look up Baer Miriam)



1. the oral tradition was already starting to be written down in the first few centuries of the common era
2. there are statements in josephus confirming that there was a ancient oral tradtion even in his time.




I never claimed every single male, I claimed overwhelmingly majority of jewish males.



the facts are that throughout mass recorded jewish history male jews were able to read at rates only surpassed in recent times by any other nation. there is ample evidence that that was true in Roman Times. I critiqued whoppers comment by Bar IIlan due to his trying to distort the facts that there was jewish literacy during the Roman era. My point after dismissing that goes back to my original point that counteracts this statement you said.

this statement is why responded to this thread because this show a complete lack of understanding of the facts and in addition completely contradicts your current hypothesis.

So where is this evidence you keep talking about concerning literacy? You keep talking about it, and that's about it.
Your "disproval" of one scholar's approach is not accurate, as I pointed out in an earlier post. You are now faced with the task of "disproving" the rest of his work, and the other scholars who have worked on the issue. I think I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that they have a bit more experience concerning this issue than you do.

So - lay it on the line. Give some evidence to back up your claim, and make sure it takes into account the vast work that has been done on the subject by modern scholars AND ancient scholars. Seeker was correct - so far you have offered little, except platitudes. Throughout this entire thread you have insisted that the vast majority of jewish males were literate, yet not once have you offered the slightest shred of evidence for this. Do you expect people to believe you on your personal merit? That would require respect, and that is hard to get when one is insulting other people constantly.

So - what's the evidence for your claim? Forget who knows Hebrew, who is a kindergartener, and who is [insert name-calling here]: just try to back up your claim concerning ancient jewish literacy levels.

[NY Jew]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Doesn't really matter if he knew it or not, for knowledge of Hebrew is only important if your next point is entirely valid.
I was aware of your name-calling, as usual.
To be technical, since the Hebrew is related to the Arabic - then he was fully aware of what you were saying, as evidenced by his mentioning of the relationship.

his response was indicating a secondary (colloquial) meaning of the arabic not based in the origin of the word.

Not sure what you're trying to say - "to properly [?] something, you need to read it in the original". Do you mean [comprehend] or [know]? If so - I would add that to FULLY understand something, a knowledge of the original language is required. However, with this said - there are many fine translations that, with the help of a translators note or two, can faithfully give an approximation of the original. If can never fully reach the original, but it can come very close in scope or meaning. With the advent of modern literature on the subject, the knowledge of the original language is no longer needed for the average person. A scholar needs to know it, of course.

depends what your trying to prove

In the end - the observations on the Exodus and its number of participants does not stand or fall on Seeker's analysis (I don't meant that to insult, Seeker heh heh) - he is rightly building on the work of scholars fully trained in the language of the Torah, in addition to adding his own observations. I, for one, gave several citations of scholars who have worked on the issue - so even if Seeker is not fully fluent in biblical Hebrew, the work has already been done to a large degree by those who are fluent.

quoting to someone who understands why so called scholars are wrong is irrelevant unless you can build yourself the same conclusion they made, other wise I might as well argue with Kugel himself for example

1. - You originally said that there was a high literacy rate of jews in the Roman era. Now you're saying that "there was jewish literacy in the roman era". The two statements are different. Which one is it?

literacy rates by jews

2. - The citations (there were multiple ones) were not meant to show that there was not "jewish literacy in the roman era" -they were meant to show that there was not a high level of jewish literacy in the roman era. Big difference.

you can't just read the final conclusion of such citations you have to read how they got there. I read the Illiteracy in the Land of Israel in the First Centuries C.E and have to say that it is not worth anything. The steps he takes to reach his final conclusion have many holes in them and are clearly not true. as evident in my previous post.

3. - Showing one mistake from one scholar (and I don't think it's a mistake, as he is fully aware of his approach) does not invalidate the rest of his work, nor does it invalidate the other citations given.

depends on the mistake if it's such a elementary mistake then that would dismiss everything he says on certain subjects.

As to the ABCs of Jewish Roman history - as I said above, there are those experts who are familiar with Jewish history under the Romans. I cited just a few - there are many more. To the contrary, you have unfortunately not cited any of your own experts or evidence.

Contra Apion doesn't make much sense with out a mass literacy. The expert you brought from Baar Illian stated things that made him lose credibility I can cite many proofs that he is wrong in the process that led to his conclusions (and if you read and understood what I wrote you'll see that). The fact that you didn't respond to those points and just responded where are your "experts" makes this conversation pretty much mute because you are relying on them either with out understanding or the ability or will to defend what they wrote. I might as well argue with the paper it's written on because that is what I seem to be doing with you.

if you don't understand the whole in his argument that I stated provided you actually want to truly discuss it then I'll do so

The last point is easily seen to be false from the multiple citations (in addition to the vast literature on the subject) given concerning jewish literacy rates - why do you forget this and keep saying "zero proof"? Plenty of "proof" has been given (if a concrete answer can really be reached), and there is no shame in admitting this. What does it matter if experts be correct in this matter? Do I need to give some actual biblical references that highlight the level of illiteracy and knowledge of Hebrew? One could begin with Ezra, for example, and the reading of the scroll to the people, and the need to translate it into Aramaic to be read aloud to the people. This isn't to say that this implies illiteracy because it was read outloud, but it shows that a knowledge of Hebrew was definately not a common thing by that time. The scribes knew it, for they had the time and financial resources to be trained in such an undertaking - but the common people did not. Your average farmer was not spending hours per day learning Hebrew....

Aramaic was the mass language spoken and read at that time (the reasons it was read aloud has nothing to do with weather or not they could read it in the original)

[NY Jew]

one indication of the fact that there was mass literacy is in the 16th perek of shabbos in which they banned reading kisuviem at a certain time of the week because people (the reasons are specifically for common people) would have not attended the bais medrish. a minority opinion is so they wont read other documents.

another example in bava metzia if you find a book you should read it every 30 days and if you can't read then you should roll it. if only 3% of the population could read this never would have been written this way

I can give you many more such statements that imply mass literacy.

[SeekerSA]

Originally Posted by NY Jew

yes it does

I see my original guess was right then when I assumed it to mean kaffir (the English rendition used by the British) Try using that word in Africa, you will get beaten up or at minimum a fine for defamation of character. Not even Jews or muslims here would dare use the word. But the point I made stands in that it was a simple ad hom attack.

(Mods, please leave word as is so folk can actually learn from this.)

I never claimed you claimed to know hebrew but you never answered my question about weather or not you know it.

Geez how many times do I need to tell you. I am not going back to look where I said it but folk here that know me, they know I make no claims I cannot support and/or are truthful.

in regards to the the rock at Horeb according to jewish tradition it was movable and we have proof of that tradition before there was a mass non jewish Christianity (look up Baer Miriam)

No need to, this is the same take christians use yet we have sooo many folk identifying the rock of Horeb as the real Macoy. Granted I have never been there personally but I have examined these claims and folk are not really refuting it (their claims) The christian "type of christ" and the Jewish tradition seem to to be co-supportive.

1. the oral tradition was already starting to be written down in the first few centuries of the common era
2. there are statements in josephus confirming that there was a ancient oral tradtion even in his time.

You know what would be nice here? Citations. Claiming an oral tradition that has been around for eons, well the Catholics claim that too. As far as I am concerned, this is a baseless claim as oral tradition is anyway the way we learn. We learn age appropriate like parents "lie" to their kids as to where they come from (stork stories) and then later we actually learn the truth and the real mechanics behind this. One then has to take the Jewish oral tradition as infallible just like the catholic one is allegedly infallible. The oral traditions came about as folk became literate like in the last 150 years and could actually read bibles in their native tongue.

I worked with a Scotsman here in SA who converted to Judaism and he was not required by the Rabbi to first learn Hebrew. I am sure in other countries the same holds true.

I never claimed every single male, I claimed overwhelmingly majority of jewish males.

I still hold to that this was parrot recitation w/o actually knowing the linguistics. Whoppers has already dealt with this and I agree with his points.

the facts are that throughout mass recorded jewish history male jews were able to read at rates only surpassed in recent times by any other nation. there is ample evidence that that was true in Roman Times. I critiqued whoppers comment by Bar IIlan due to his trying to distort the facts that there was jewish literacy during the Roman era. My point after dismissing that goes back to my original point that counteracts this statement you said.

This was written in the context of 70CE to present. I bolded the key point I was trying to make and stand by it.

this statement is why responded to this thread because this show a complete lack of understanding of the facts and in addition completely contradicts your current hypothesis.

It is not a hypothesis, it is a challenge. My lack of understanding has yet to be shown other than your claims that I lack this understanding.

Odd you avoided my question on the interpretation plus the assertion I made that if you were schooled in the original language as claimed, you should be able to show me the error of my ways.

The sectarianism that obviously exists within the Jewish community also suggests to me that you folk differ little from the christians with their many sects and interpretations.

As for my intellect, I hold three engineering degrees so I really do not think I am stupid. They do not make me a biblical scholar either, that I got from my own studies and could write a thesis for a doctorate in religious studies if that were an aspiration of mine. There is very little any theologian could actually teach me that I do not already know but I still am open to new information.

But of course, conveniently you folk are not allowed to teach us goyim

[theflipflop]

one cannot simply hide ones head in the sand, and hope that their tradition can just ignore the conclusions.

He he, we Religious Jews have been doing that for 2,000+ years, and quite successfully. A religious Jew really has no business being a part of the scholarly discussion we're currently having. When it comes to secular viewpoints on the Torah, this isn't and shouldn't be our specialty. We do much better when be bury our head's in the sand. And i think Seeker will understand this when I say: this is one of the keys to the survival of the Jewish people over the last 2,000 years of persecution and pograms. Perhaps this is a great time to quote a famous Mark Twain quote:

If statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of stardust lost in the blaze of the Milky way. properly, the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world’s list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and had done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it.

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed; and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other people have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?”

- Mark Twain
(“Concerning The Jews,” Harper’s Magazine, 1899)

[NY Jew]

I see my original guess was right then when I assumed it to mean kaffir (the English rendition used by the British) Try using that word in Africa, you will get beaten up or at minimum a fine for defamation of character. Not even Jews or muslims here would dare use the word. But the point I made stands in that it was a simple ad hom attack.

except this word in hebrew has nothing to do with race and would just be calling you in hebrew atheists. Only someone who doesn't is clueless into Judisim would think of this a racial slur (it is mostly used against jews not gentiles).

No need to, this is the same take christians use yet we have sooo many folk identifying the rock of Horeb as the real Macoy. Granted I have never been there personally but I have examined these claims and folk are not really refuting it (their claims) The christian "type of christ" and the Jewish tradition seem to to be co-supportive.

except we have this jewish tradition recorded way before Christianity took off.

No need to, this is the same take christians use yet we have sooo many folk identifying the rock of Horeb as the real Macoy. Granted I have never been there personally but I have examined these claims and folk are not really refuting it (their claims) The christian "type of christ" and the Jewish tradition seem to to be co-supportive.

except there was an oral tradition even when we have clear proof that most people could read.

This was written in the context of 70CE to present. I bolded the key point I was trying to make and stand by it.

this has never been true amongst jews in fact in roman times the more you likely were of nobility or affluence the less likely it would be that you would be able to read Hebrew or Aramaic and understand scriptures (see Yoma with a basic understanding of life and politics in the times of the end of the second temple)

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by theflipflop

He he, we Religious Jews have been doing that for 2,000+ years, and quite successfully. A religious Jew really has no business being a part of the scholarly discussion we're currently having. When it comes to secular viewpoints on the Torah, this isn't and shouldn't be our specialty. We do much better when be bury our head's in the sand. And i think Seeker will understand this when I say: this is one of the keys to the survival of the Jewish people over the last 2,000 years of persecution and pograms. Perhaps this is a great time to quote a famous Mark Twain quote:

Interesting quote, though I doubt it was their strict adherence to Torah that enabled them to make a name for themselves outside the "hole in the sand". Spinoza, as one famous example, was extremely influential in the area of philosophy, politics and biblical scholarship; yet it was his own people who ostracized him for this, because his findings didn't jive well with the traditional Judaism that he came from. It was their loss, and the rest of the world's gain. Of course - his Pentateuchal criticisms were built upon the observations of the famous Ibn Ezra, who was aware of the problems but counselled that those who saw them remain silent. Spinoza came out of the "hole" - since we're using that analogy - and the rest is history.

I find it strange that you provide a quote of Twains' that is so opposite to your central position. The jews that Twain is praising are the ones who stepped outside of traditional views of the world, and embraced newer views that helped further mankind.

I understand the importance of what you're talking about - I'm no stranger to the jews' plight in the face of the world's animosity; but this separation unto themselves and ethnic/religious self-defense does not stand or fall upon strict Torah observance alone, as has been shown by many millions of jews who are proud of their heritage, but not strict jews. In the late 1800s this was a central issue among jewish philosophers - whether to keep separate or whether to integrate; another group went even farther when they insisted that the only answer was a jewish homeland once again. While this group has gained a homeland, it's safe to say that the vast majority of jews have not embraced this homeland completely and choose to remain outside of it. This happened even during the biblical account of the Bablyonian Exile and the Diasporic conditions that many jews embraced (following Jeremiah's advice) and continued to embrace even after Cyrus allowed them to return to their previous home. In this Diasporic world - jewishness became a debated essence, and a concrete definition of what made someone jewish became nebulous and difficult to define. This "outsiderness" of jewishness helped form Judaism (for after all, Judaism had to deal with life without a Temple since the many jews continued to live away from Jerusalem) into the many strands that it has taken since that time.

To pick just one form of Judaism, though, and insist that all others are hybrids or worse - ignores these facts. There has been sectarian and inner-traditional debate and schism since the beginning. Even within the bible this is evident, especially in the matter of Nationalism.
And to use this "one Judaism" as a shield against rational investigation of the Bible seems to be just as I said: I wilfull sticking of one's head in the sand. We may wax poetic and insist that this is how the jews survived, but I think the analogy is being stretched. "Ignoring the facts" (another way of saying "sticking one's head in the sand") is not how I would like to sum up how the jews survived these 2000+ years. Sticking to ones own kind is different from this, don't you agree?

[whoppers]

The mysterious moving rock, or Miriam's Well.

I've noticed some references to this mysterious water-giving rock and its ability to move around. This is the perfect time to engage in an analysis of how traditum changes at the hands of traditio, how the biblical text came to be interpreted away from its plain sense reading, and how later thinkers would deal with the issues implied by the plain sense reading.

Traditum
The Exodus Account is full of miracles, more than many other parts of the Bible. One of the miracles is Gods' sustaining of the Israelites with water and food during their long trek (40 years). Along with the very familiar "manna from heaven" that rained down from heaven, and the quail, there are several accounts of water being provided. The Israelites are exceedingly good at "grumbling", and this results in a three-fold account of grumbling which results in the following items being supplied: water, food, water; there are also themes of testing or "proving", by both parties. The first comes shortly after their escape from Egypt. Notice the etymological explanation of Mara. Words-connected-like-this indicate the presence of a single word in the Hebrew, in case anyone is interested in rhythm and syntactical details; the Divine Name is represented by its consonants, without vowels - to help facilitate reading by those who would be offended by the alternative - normally, an observant jew would read Adonai outloud when faced with this Name.

Moshe had Israel move on from the Sea of Reeds,
and they went out to the Wilderness of Shur.
They traveled through the wilderness for three days, and found no water.
They came to Mara,
but they could not drink water from Mara, because it was mar/bitter.
Therefore they called its name Mara.
The people grumbled against Moshe, saying:
What are we to drink?
He cried out to YHWH,
and YHWH directed him (to some) wood
which he threw into the water, and the water became sweet. -
There he imposed law and judgment for them, and there he tested them.
He said:
If you will hearken, yes, hearken to the voice of YHWH your God,
and what is right in his eyes will do,
giving-ear to his commandments
and keeping all his laws:
all the sicknesses which I have imposed upon Egypt, I will not impose upon you;
for I am YHWH, your healer.
(Exodus 15:22-26, SB)

So the first water miracle is done by Moses casting wood into the water at God's command. The next "grumbling" section has the account of God's providing manna and quail for the people. If anyone reads it (for I will not reproduce it here), notice again the themes of grumbling and testing. Ask yourself - who is testing who? The next grumbling section begins in chapter 17, immediately after the manna/quail episode.

They moved on, the whole community of the Children of Israel, from the Wilderness of Syn,
by their moving-stages, at YHWH's bidding.
They encamped at Refidim,
and there is no water for the people to drink!
The people quarreled with Moshe, they said:
Give us water, that we may drink!
Moshe said to them:
For-what do you quarrel with me?
For-what do you test YHWH?
The people thirsted for water there,
and the people grumbled against Moshe, and said:
For-what-reason then did you bring us up from Egypt,
to bring death to me, to my children and to my livestock by thirst?
Moshe cried out to YHWH, saying:
What shall I do with this people?
A little more and they will stone me!
YHWH said to Moshe:
Proceed before the people,
take some of the elders of Israel with you,
and your staff with which you struck the Nile, take in your hand, and go!
Here, I stand before you there on the rock at Horev,
you are to strike the rock, and water shall come out of it, and the people shall drink.
Moshe did thus, before the eyes of the elders or Israel.
And he called the name of the place: Massa/Testing, and Meriva/Quarreling,
because of the quarreling of the Children of Israel,
and because of their testing of YHWH, saying:
Is YHWH among us, or not?
(Exodus 17:1-7, SB)

Immediately after this is the war against Amalek. The above account is fairly easy to read: the people grumble, Moses complains to YHWH (and utters one my most favored lines of his: "A little more and they shall stone me!"), Moses assembles some elders (their number is not given), YHWH antrhopomorphically stands upon the rock at Horeb, and water comes out of it after Moses strikes it. One would be hard-pressed to find a moving-rock at this point, but the account is nevertheless miraculous. Much later, when they come to a place called Kadesh, virtuall the same thing happens - albeit in the Book of Numbers. It is the famous account which explains why Moses and Aaron cannot enter the Promised Land. Notice the death of Miriam, for it will be important later for our purposes; also notice the more-detailed accounting of time, as well as the similarity between the Wilderness of Syn and Tzyn - the initial consonant has a relationship, linguistically, in many Semitic languages. All in all, take note of the similarity of the Account to the previous one, but notice the different language used and other elements of style.

Now they came, the Children of Israel, the entire community,
(to the) Wilderness of Tzyn,
in the first New-Moon.
The people stayed in Kadesh.
Miryam died there,
and she was buried there.
Now there was no water for the community,
so they assembled against Moshe and against Aharon;
the people quarreled with Moshe,
they said, saying:
O would that we had expired
when our brothers expired before the presence of YHWH!
O why did you bringthe assembly of YHWH into this wilderness,
to die there,
we and our cattle?
O why did you make us go up from Egypt
to bring us to this evil place,
not a place of seeds and figs, vines and pomegranates -
and water (there is) none to drink!
Moshe and Aharon came away from the presence of the assembly
to the entrance to the Tent of Appointment,
and flung themselves upon their faces.
The Glory of YHWH was seen by them,
and YHWH spoke to Moshe, saying:
Take the staff
and assemble the community, you and Aharon your brother;
you are to speak to the boulder before their eyes
so that it gives forth its water,
thus you are to bring out for them water from the boulder,
that you may give-drink to the assembly and to their cattle.
So Moshe took the staff from there before the presence of YHWH,
as he had commanded him.
And Moshe and Aharon assembled the assembly facing the boulder.
He said to them:
Now hearken, (you) rebels,
from this boulder must we bring you out water?
And Moshe raised his hand
and struck the boulder with his staff, twice,
so that abundant water came out;
and the community and their cattle drank.
YHWH said to Moshe and to Aharon:
Because you did not have-trust in me
to treat-me-as-holy before the eyes of the Chilrden of Israel,
therefore:
you (two) shall not bring this assembly into the land that I am giving them!
Those were the waters of Meriva/Quarreling,
where the Children of Israel quarreled with YHWH,
and he was hallowed through them.
(Numbers 20:1-13, SB)

Oops! It appears our intrepid heros have made the biggest blunder of their lives (well, Moses did anyways and Aharon had to take the fall with him heh heh!). The story is basically the same, minus the elders and some other important differences: the people grumble, Moses AND Aharon appeal to YHWH (rather than Moses complaining), YHWH tells Moses to speak to the boulder (notice: the Hebrew "boulder" differs from the previous "rock") rather than striking it (and YHWH is not standing on top of the "rock" this time), Moses calls them rebels and strikes the boulder twice (for good measure; perhaps out of habit?), water comes out, Moses and Aharon get the shock of their lives.

Again - we have our miraculous story, but nowhere do we find a walking or moving rock. The "Testing-Theme" is absent, as well, though it was found in Exodus and also in Psalm 78, which has an interesting summation of the Exodus Account and some of its stories (go read it!). It appears that the Psalmist was at least familiar with the Exodus version of the story, if nothing else. Our attention, however, is not on the Israelites and their grumbling - but on the horrific fact that Israel's greatest Prophet ("there arose no further prophet in Israel like Moshe, whom YHWH knew face to face...." - Deut. 34:10) and liberator was now forbidden to enter the Promise Land, and would die before the Israelites entered it. This account commends itself to further study just for that reason, though this is beyond our purview at the moment.

So - I have supplied the traditum, and I am tired of typing, and I now give the floor to traditio to explain how these two accounts came to be interpreted into a tradition of a moving rock, one that accompanied the Israelites on their journeys, and how this rock/boulder came to be known as Miriam's Well. I do this because the "moving rock" seems to be a topic of discussion currently, and its' miraculous qualities are part of what sparked this thread, no doubt; I also do this to help bring tradition into the conversation in a productive manner, rather than in a combative manner. The above post is not a scholarly post, in my opinion, but a posting of the stories and some details about them which should be sufficiently non-controversial and self-evident from the text of the traditum. In this post, I deliberately stayed away from modern biblical scholarship and science and how they view these accounts - this can come later. I first offer it in the order of its original reception - from traditum to traditio - in the hopes that we might glean something from all of this.
Hopefully, I will not have to supply the traditio (hint hint!).

[SeekerSA]

The moving rock is inferred I think as there are the accounts of the pillar of smoke and pillar of fire to guide them so it is not a stretch to simply take the rock was always there with them.

20 So they took their journey from Succoth and camped in Etham at the edge of the wilderness. 21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night. 22 He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day or the pillar of fire by night from before the people.

The entire account from them leaving after the plagues and the death of the first born of Egypt (the idea that after all this they found favour with the Egyptians and the Egyptians surrendered gold and silver et al. for a people that were allegedly enslaved seems a real tall tale seeing they suddenly depart in haste at night)

They depart to Succoth where they bake unleavened bread as they had no time to complete this but time enough to plunder the Egyptians. The water tale comes much later but this exodus account does not appear to follow a chronological order of events as one would expect it to be were it actually based on real history.

The need for water comes very early in the tale yet no one seems to mention it. 2M folk and livestock wandering in the wilderness not requiring water seems a stretch at best.

The tale is set up for the calf of Aaron later with the silver and gold taken but one has to ask, they had no provisions and the trek from Goshen to Succoth was not a small trek. ±200 miles and at herd pace one would not imagine covering more than 10-20 miles a day. Of course we do not know of how many livestock they had so water calculations are difficult to determine. Working off a minimum of 10 miles per day, accounting for the livestock, that would be a 20 day journey
20M x 2L x 20 = 800 mega litres of water = 800 mega tonnes of water just for minimal human consumption. That would be 40,000 of those water trucks.

(see map not actual rout but close enough) Their unleaved dough must have had some real cool preservatives to last 20 days but of course facts like these are not really of concern as it all happened magically. Google maps does not illustrate anything other than desert which is not conducive to herds of great numbers nor people travelling at a determined pace.

The easiest way to refute this is to actually do this in real life. We have a marathon event here between two cities and that is about 60 odd miles and the folk manage this in 12 hours and there is a lot of water every 2 km or so and there are no livestock and these folk are very fit, do not carry their own water etc.

Each person would be required to carry their own water and that is 40 litres per person which is 40kg (88 lbs), the more you carry the slower you move and so the simple math just keeps refuting this over and over.

If one were making a trek by foot, one would expect to do this by way of watering holes/wells/rivers etc. but we are talking of a mass of two million folk plus livestock.

I think I am being generous with a time span of 20 days.