Apologies in advance this will be long. I've spent quite a bit of time researching the evidence for and against the Biblical accounts of the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt, their Exodus from Egypt, and their Conquest of Canaan. I have found that substantial evidence exists for all 3 events, despite the well-publicized statements from prominent archaeologists that no evidence exists for any. I'd like to summarize what I've found in a series of posts (it may take a while to get them all written) so that Christians will be encouraged in the trustworthiness of the Biblical accounts and that non-Christians might be willing to give them a second look. I'll post these to both the History and Religion & Philosophy Boards.
First I'd like to address the claim that "no evidence" exists to support the accounts and then, in perhaps a later post, summarize the evidence that does exist.
The claim of "no evidence" is a ridiculous claim and underscores the agenda that the skeptics have. The claim is ridiculous because first because lots of evidence does exist. Just as importantly, it is unrealistic to expect that much evidence would exist, because archaeology is not suited to ensure that all evidence that does exist is found, and because lots of other reasonable explanations exist for the supposedly "missing" evidence. I'll go through each of those last 3 points individually.
It is not reasonable to expect much evidence to exist of any of those three events because:
William Dever, who is a very, very prominent archaeologist, surprisingly let the cat out of the bag when he wrote that he is not satisfied with mere evidence, but he demands "irrefutable evidence". That is a level of archaeological evidence that is not demanded or expected of any other historical event.
Archaeology is not adequate to ensure that we can find the evidence that does exist.
In my next post, I'll summarize some of the evidence that does exist for the Sojourn, the Exodus, and the Conquest.
First I'd like to address the claim that "no evidence" exists to support the accounts and then, in perhaps a later post, summarize the evidence that does exist.
The claim of "no evidence" is a ridiculous claim and underscores the agenda that the skeptics have. The claim is ridiculous because first because lots of evidence does exist. Just as importantly, it is unrealistic to expect that much evidence would exist, because archaeology is not suited to ensure that all evidence that does exist is found, and because lots of other reasonable explanations exist for the supposedly "missing" evidence. I'll go through each of those last 3 points individually.
It is not reasonable to expect much evidence to exist of any of those three events because:
- It's been 3,500 years! C'mon, do you really expect much to survive for that long?
- Archaeology does not uncover complete history, but only discarded scraps from ancient cultures. Ancient Egypt has been dug up and studied more than any other ancient culture, yet what we've uncovered of it has been described as "merely a collection of rags and tatters."
- Archaeologists who rely on the lack of written records of the Hebrews in Egypt are being disingenuous. There aren't many written records from Egypt of anything.
- The Hebrews most likely lived in the Delta region of Egypt, a very wet and humid environment and where the bulk of Egypt's population lived. We know that the Egyptians kept voluminous records in two Delta cities, Heliopolis and Pi-Ramesse. Yet no record at all has survived from the Delta, not even a single scrap.
- Egypt did not keep censuses.
- Most of the writings from ancient Egypt we do have are in the form of monumental inscriptions on the tombs of the pharaohs. As such, those inscriptions were propaganda and never, ever mentioned anything negative or any defeat of a pharaoh (except when they recharacterized those defeats as victories).
- Egyptians viewed writing as supernatural. To not record something, or to remove references to something, was to eradicate it as if it had never occurred. A prime example of this ancient Egyptian practice is the attempt to chisel out and otherwise remove all references to or depictions of Hatshepsut, the female pharaoh. (Scholars still do not know why the attempt to eradicate her occurred. However, she could well have been the daughter of Pharaoh that adopted Moses. The timing fits perfectly.)
- Skeptics point to the lack of evidence in the Sinai of a large group of people traveling through it. However, it is now almost universally acknowledged that nomadic groups leave virtually no archaeological trace.
- There are virtually no written records of anything from that time period from Canaan. No papyrus records survive, and archaeologists have been unable to find libraries of clay tablets that they are almost certain existed at one time (Hazor, the largest and wealthiest city in Canaan, is the prime example).
- Erosion, destruction, decay, looting, mining, and similar activities over the millennia have removed much of the evidence. For example, Kenyon, who excavated Jericho, lamented that the entire Middle and Late Bronze Age layers (the Ages during which the Biblical events occurred) on top of the Jericho tell had been lost to such factors.
William Dever, who is a very, very prominent archaeologist, surprisingly let the cat out of the bag when he wrote that he is not satisfied with mere evidence, but he demands "irrefutable evidence". That is a level of archaeological evidence that is not demanded or expected of any other historical event.
Archaeology is not adequate to ensure that we can find the evidence that does exist.
- Archaeologists rarely dig up an entire site due primarily to lack of time and money. Rather, they more commonly dig up only narrow trenches and pits.
- As a result, the data collected at a particular archaeological site is only a tiny portion of the evidence available at that site and an even smaller portion of the evidence available from an entire region or era.
- Archaeologists focus almost exclusively on cities, ignoring any evidence that may exist in the vast swaths of land between.
- While a dig itself may be conducted "scientifically", most archaeologists will readily admit that archaeology itself is not a science:
- It relies on interpretation by the archaeologist of what is found. Archaeology has been said to be about 10% data and 90% interpretation.
- Archaeology is non-replicable. Archaeologists alter and destroy the evidence in their excavations. Kenyon, in her excavations at Jericho, actually destroyed all of the sherds she discovered and failed to record their locations. Her "findings" are thus useless to subsequent archaeologists.
- Archaeology has been unable repeatedly to find evidence that everyone knows exists.
- For example, Megiddo and Ashkelon are known to have had walls at particular points in their history, yet archaeologists have been unable to find those walls.
- The Israelites encountered a city named Dibon in the trans Jordan region during the Exodus, but archaeologists have not been able to find anything at that time period at modern Dhiban, which they assume was ancient Dibon. Yet we know for sure that there was an ancient Dibon in the trans Jordan because it appears on multiple maps in ancient Egyptian records.
- If archaeology is the arbiter of ancient history, then we'd have to conclude that the early Mongol empire did not exist, and that the Saxon, Norman, and Muslim invasions did not occur, because no archaeological evidence of those historical events has ever been found.
In my next post, I'll summarize some of the evidence that does exist for the Sojourn, the Exodus, and the Conquest.
