Hebrew Scriptures:with Benjamin Leon
In 2001, a storm of debate erupted in the Jewish world, following the assertion by Rabbi David Wolpe of Los Angeles that “the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.” Wolpe made his declaration before 2 000 worshippers at the Conservative Sinai Temple, and the speech was reported on the front page of the Los Angeles Times. The article, entitled “Doubting the Story of Exodus,” asserts that archaeology disproves the validity of the biblical account.
While people don’t usually get worked up about archaeology, the debate about archaeology and the Bible is often passionate and vitriolic.
Biblical Archaeology is often divided into two camps: The “minimalists” tend to downplay the historical accuracy of the Bible, while the “maximalists,” who are in the majority and are by and large not religious, tend to suggest that archaeological evidence supports the basic historicity of the Bible text.
As a science, we must understand what archaeology is and what it isn’t.
Archaeology consists of two components: the excavation of ancient artifacts, and the interpretation of those artifacts. While the excavation component is more of a mechanical skill, the interpretive component is very subjective. Presented with the same artifact, two world-class archaeologists will often come to different conclusions — particularly when ego, politics and religious beliefs enter the equation.
In the subjective field of Biblical Archaeology, anyone making a definitive statement like “archaeology has proven…” has probably chosen to take sides and is not presenting the whole picture. When the Los Angeles Times writes that “the rabbi was merely telling his flock what scholars have known for more than a decade,” it is revealing an anti-biblical bias.
Admittedly, however, there is a shortage of Egyptian documentation of the Exodus period. Why?
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
We need to understand how the ancient world viewed the whole idea of recorded history. The vast majority of inscriptions found in the ancient world have a specific agenda — to glorify the deeds of the king and to show his full military power.
The British Museum in London displays inscriptions from the walls of the palace of the Assyrian Emperor, Sancheriv. These show scenes from Sancheriv’s military campaigns from the 8th century BCE, including graphic depictions of destroyed enemies (decapitations, impalings, etc.). Sancheriv himself is depicted as larger than life.
But one element is missing from these inscriptions: There are no dead Assyrians! That is consistent with the ancient “historical” style — negative events, failures and flaws are not depicted at all. When a nation suffers an embarrassing defeat, they usually whitewash the mistakes and destroy the evidence.
The earliest known “objective historian,” in our modern definition of the term, was the Greek writer Herodotus. He is generally considered the “father of historians” for his attempt to compile a dispassionate historical record of the war between the Greeks and Persians – 800 years after the Exodus (dated 13th century BCE).
This does not mean that early civilisations did not record events. It’s just that their purpose was more propaganda than creating any kind of objective historical record.
This idea has significant ramifications for archeology and the Exodus. The last thing the ancient Egyptians wanted to record is the embarrassment of being completely destroyed by the God of a puny slave nation. Would the Egyptians ever want to preserve details of the destruction of fields, flocks, and first borns — plus the death of Pharaoh and the entire Egyptian army at the Red Sea?
In other words, we wouldn’t expect to find prominent attention to Moses’ humiliation of Pharaoh — even if it certainly occurred.
In one major event, the battle of Kadesh on the Orantes River between the Hitites and the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses II, both sides record it as a major victory, and is depicted as such.
Interestingly, the Torah is unique among all ancient national literature in that it portrays its people in both victory and defeat. The Jews — and sometimes their leaders — are shown as rebels, complainers, idol-builders, and yes, descended from slaves. This objective portrayal lends the Torah great credibility. As the writer Israel Zangwill said: “The Bible is an anti-Semitic book. Israel is the villain, not the hero, of his own story. Alone among the epics, it is out for truth, not heroics.”
Another factor here is that the archeological process is tedious and expensive. To date, only a tiny fraction of archeological sites related to the Bible have been excavated.
This thin archeological record means that conclusions are based on speculation and projection. Archeology can only prove the existence of artifacts unearthed, not disprove that which hasn’t been found. Lack of evidence… is no evidence of lack.
