Notice, I have never denied that certain aspects of Greek mythology were true. Remember Heinrich Schliemann. I don't know enough about the Egyptian stuff, although if the Bible is any witness, the God of Israel was doing what he did for several purposes, one of which was to show the weaknesses of Egyptian religion. But I can't pass judgement on it myself. Obviously a lot of it was fantastical, like gods with the head of a falcon, or that of a cat,or what-have-you. This is the kind of thing Erich von Daniken believes in, but not me.
Their scholarship is shoddy because they had bubkis, and they pulled "Q" out of their arse. When they were asked to explain what it was, they said "it must have been some collection of the sayings of Jesus". Where did they come to that conclusion? Moses, when he wrote the Exodus, had participated in the events he describes. Why the 2 million figure instead of a more believable smaller figure? I don't know, although I suspect there may be Kabbalistic meaning, or we all may be full of it, and reading badly garbled texts. The Masoretic Text is said to be the best we have, and that's what we all use. But is it possible, that however well preserved, somebody got numbers wrong? That Numbers recorded 600,00 men over the age of 20 when it should have said 60,000? Now, I am NOT making that claim. I just pulled that number out of MY arse to make a point. Or maybe there was a point to make using gematria (the art of using Hebrew letters to write numbers, each letter representing a number, much like Roman letters).
Now, PLEASE note, I am NOT claiming to know the answer. I am merely claiming that the Exodus occurred, and we will one day find evidence of that. Whether it involved 2 million persons or 60,000 persons, or 600,000 military age men, or 60,000 military age men (which is quite different than 60,000 persons total), I don't know. I have recently heard a claim for 60,000 total. But I don't remember where, and its not really important. Again, I merely claim, the Exodus occurred, and we will find proof of that eventually, just as Schliemann did with Troy.
On the other hand, good luck finding proof of a "Q", which NO ONE ever talked about until somebody invented the idea in their pea-brain in the 19th Century to explain how Mark came to be written first (which is crap; I expect the Catholic Church is right when they say that Matthew was first, and possibly originally in Hebrew, although the oldest copies that Christians possess are in Greek).
All it does is complicate matters to try to explain that Mark wrote first and that Matthew and Luke then plagiarised from not one, but TWO sources, one of which nobody has even heard of until the 19th fucking century, and even then, only in theory! You have to go back to Ockham's Razor. The simplest answer is the true one.
In both the Exodus AND in the question of the writing of the Gospel, Ockham's Razor can be applied. In the case of Exodus, our Forefathers 3500 years ago bound our culture together by the celebration of the Passover. Even the Christians celebrate the Sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb (Jesus). Easter would have no meaning if it weren't for the background of the Passover, the passing from bondage to freedom. Even the Muslims in the Qur'an acknowledge that it happened. They tell the story a bit differently, and inaccurately, but they do tell it.
Now, I won't convince you, and that's fine. I don't care at this point. Obviously it is much easier to apply Ockham's Razor to the Gospel. Which is easier to believe? That Matthew wrote first, or that Mark wrote first, and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from him and a document that some guy just made up in his head because no one has ever seen the damned thing?
Well, I've prattled on enough. Time to wait for responses. Enjoy.