Asha'man

The Exodus is a prime example of an event that is flat out refuted by the archaeological evidence. However, the utter lack of evidence, in both the Sinai desert and Egyptian records, is only half the story.

The other half of the story is the positive evidence about what did happen in the land that was then called Canaan. And what did happen is that they were not invaded and conquered by the escaping Hebrews.

Archeology is particularly good at detecting mass migrations of people and culture. It's easy to look at successive layers of garbage and detect changes in pottery style, architecture, writing, etc. And there are museums full of evidence that no sudden influx of Egyptian-influenced culture arrived sometime around the 13th century BCE. If the Hebrews had arrived and conquered Canaan, killing and replacing all the potters, then we would certainly see a sudden shift in pottery styles towards the Egyptian. The lack of a shift in this situation is simply impossible. So we have solid evidence that it simply didn't happen, and that evidence is provided by the continuity of culture in the artifacts that we do have.

We can also look at the ruins of Canaan cities and detect when in their history they experienced significant warfare. Canaan simply never had a short period of time when most of the cities were attacked by Joshua. Amazingly, the famous city of Jericho was barely occupied and didn't even have walls during that time period.
In fact, the evidence gives us an even better picture of what did happen. There was no invasion of Canaan by the Hebrew people in the 13th century BCE because the Hebrew people didn't exist yet. The evidence shows a gradual evolution of the Hebrew culture out of native Canaanites across the 10th thru 7th centuries. A clearly pantheistic culture slowly graduated towards the primacy of YHWY, demoting and then excluding other gods and goddesses in the process.

The pattern of religious artifacts in temple ruins demonstrates this quite conclusively. Older temples would have artifacts devoted to multiple gods side by side, while later temples separated and excluded them.

In addition to disproving the Exodus and subsequent conquest of Canaan, the evidence strongly demonstrates that the unified Kingdom of David and Solomon didn't exist. First, we start with a lack of evidence that the wealth of the kingdom ever existed. But again, a lack of evidence is supplemented by actual evidence in the form of government buildings from the 10th century and onwards. It's very clear from that evidence that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah had different levels of economic development and government control. If they had ever once been unified under a single wealthy government, the observed levels of disparity would be exceedingly unlikely.



In short, claiming that the OT is entirely supported by archaeological evidence is a flat out lie. Everything from Genesis up until the two kingdoms period appears to be purely fictional. There is no single artifact that proves this, but a massive collection and body of knowledge that builds a picture entirely different than the stories provided by the OT.

hatsoff

Mdd, you're not understanding his reasoning, and you're thus refuting an imaginary argument that was never presented here. (This is of course the straw man logical fallacy.)

Perhaps I can present the idea more clearly: You seem to be arguing that because the evidence is incomplete, we can't trust the evidence that we *do* have. And you would be correct in this assertion, *if* we were talking about absolute, 100% trustworthy knowledge. However, you don't seem to be acknowledging the fact that an argument from silence can provide a historian with rough probabilities and likelihoods.

That said, let's look at the argument itself: Millions of people living in a region over a period of several decades should be expected to leave some clear, undeniable archaeological evidence. However, no such evidence exists, even though we know where to look and what to look for, and that great amounts of time and effort have been spent doing so. Now, does this lack of evidence prove absolutely that the exodus never happened? Of course not. However, the lack of evidence sends up a red flag, and demands explanation.

And thus we have our big question: Which is more likely, that the exodus did happen and through some strange twist of events we can find no evidence for it, despite our best efforts? Or that the exodus didn't happen, and that a religious book is *gasp* not perfect? Christians have deeply personal reasons to trust the Bible, and so it makes sense for them to assign different odds when answering this question. From a secular perspective, however, the extant evidence *best fits* the explanation that the exodus did not actually occur. That doesn't mean we know absolutely, but we can be reasonably sure about it.

First of all, your focus on this guy's credentials implies that his education gives us license to trust his statements wholesale. That's not how scholarship works. However, in this particular quotation I would have to agree with what he said. And I fully agree with his conclusions about the existence of God as stated in said quotation. However, his comments on the argument from silence apply in a different way to the situation of the exodus. Consider:
The difference between the two situations is that an absence of evidence for the boulder's existence constitutes evidence of absence because we should expect to see evidence where there is none.

With the existence of a god or other supernatural being, I agree (although there is no consensus to this matter, it should be noted) that there is no reason we should expect to see evidence for it--or, if there is a reason, I have not yet heard one. And thus an argument from silence is not good evidence that no god exists, in my opinion. However, in the case of the exodus, there *are* clear and demonstrable reasons we should expect to see evidence, and therefore lack of such evidence does indeed fit the bill for "evidence of absence."

This is a weasely statement, and I am disappointed Dr. Albright would make it. Certain historical claims of the Bible have indeed been confirmed by secular evidence such as archeology. You could call it "substantial" if you wished, though that is an entirely subjective and meaningless term in this context. Yet a lot of the Bible has failed the test of objective evidence, which Albright conveniently declines to mention here. And there has been excessive skepticism shown towards the Bible, which have unsurprisingly been discredited. But just because such extremism exists doesn't mean that extremism on the opposite side of the issue is appropriate. So, while technically there is nothing false in Albright's statements, as you quoted them, the overall implications behind them are not accurate.

Unlike Albright's statements, which are technically correct but misleading, this little gem by Dr. Wilson is just plain wrong. The Bible is not a textbook, period. It therefore cannot be an "accurate" textbook. Besides, this guy has clearly allowed his religious biases to overtake his scholarship, as evidenced by a belief in young-earth creationism. I wouldn't trust a single word from his hand.

That is not what anyone here has argued. You have made a slight but key error when you confused "no evidence has been found" for "no evidence exists." The second premise as you phrased it is indeed false, but it was never our contention that it was true. #3 isn't even close to our conclusion, which is not that "there is no evidence to support an exodus," but rather that "the exodus *probably* did not happen."

Derec

Smithsonian claims that archaeological evidence proves the infallibility of the Bible? Hardly. Read Sauron's post again.

Derec

No, tons of it matches generally. Besides, Sauron said that archeology refuted Biblical inerrancy. That is certainly not in conflict with anything in the Smithsonian quote.

diana

Just a technical point: the COC doesn't ordain ministers. That's something denominations do, and the COC is non-denominational.

He's a COC preacher, and I suspect a very good one. He has COC doctrine, all its circular reasoning and its straw men down cold. In my experience, members of the COC tend to have little or no education, so they usually aren't capable of spotting the dizzying array of circular arguments that is that group's bread and butter. They've often been actively sheltered from any exposure to even the basics of evolution or geology. They learn in church from the time they are children to apply circular reasoning and affirming the consequent to prove their position.

Their preachers are not even required to graduate from high school; their preachers are required only to "know the bible" and preach the COC's interpretation of it. mdd, though, has more education than that, so he is an exception (in my experience, which admittedly is dated; I left the COC 21 years ago at 18). Evangelical positions aren't "rewarded," per se; the preacher usually does a sermon or three for the congregation who is thinking to hire him, and the congregation's elders decide whether he teaches what they believe is right, and hire him or not. He's a free agent.

d

diana

For the record, I can see how some of your responses simply reinforce his belief that you reject his sources because they are believers. To wit:

This looks like you're begging the question: Meier doesn't know about things that would (coincidentally) disprove his position and prove yours, so you reject him as an "expert." I'm quite sure mdd will look at this and decide he's been right all along that you reject him because of his position on the argument, not because he's apparently ignorant of basic things an expert in the field would know.

Judging from mdd's performance so far, he skips most of the actual arguments and reasons we reject his sources, and jumps on anything that will confirm that we're rejecting his sources because we don't want to accept their conclusions. I agree that an expert would know the things you say he should know, and that the fact that he doesn't know makes his "expert" status suspect. However, mdd seems incapable of seeing such finer points.

(This is one of the reasons I avoid using "expert" arguments if I can, because too many people do not realize that they must consider even the arguments of experts critically.)

This also looks like you're rejecting the citation because you got it from an apologist and you've known apologists to misrepresent ideas using strategically placed elipses in the past. Basically, it looks like you've reject his argument because an apologist made it. A better response would have been to request the full citation so you could determine context, but not jump to the conclusion that he misrepresented the information because he's an apologist and "apologists do that." Essentially, you just reinforced his conviction that you aren't listening to him because he's an apologist, and that your rejection of his ideas has nothing to do with his actual arguments or evidence.

He's amazingly good at simply ignoring all actual, solid arguments against his position and focusing on one or two things like this so he can claim you aren't being objective. Not that he even needs any specific examples to make that claim (as experience has taught us), but they certainly help him avoid having to deal with the actual arguments and evidence against his position.

It isn't really your fault. I just thought I'd point out where you might have done things better--not that I believe they'd really help. You're trying to catch a fly with chopsticks, here.

And...watch...there go the goalposts again!

d

Amaleq13

No, we always have to work with the available evidence when assessing claims and that evidence is almost never complete. This does nothing to change the fact that certain biblical claims are without any supporting evidence.

No supporting evidence = rejection of the claim.

Quite simple.

I would think by now that the expectation of supportive evidence for claims would be as familiar to you as "our" tendency to dismiss those which lack it. :huh:

Sauron

The problem with mdd344's approach is that if scientists, historians or archaeologists were to actually follow his example, then we could never state anything definite about science, history, or archaeology.

For example, assume someone at an archaeological conference got up and gave a speech, saying "the ancient Egyptians actually discovered America. They sailed out the Mediterranean, past the straits of Gibraltar, and across the Atlantic. They landed in modern day Massachusetts, at the location of the town of Boston, in fact. They took 2.5 million people with them, set up camp, and stayed for 38 years." Anyone making that statement would be laughed out of any archaeological convention.

Yet by mdd344's reasoning, such a claimant would have a point. After all, we haven't dug up *all* the archaeological evidence in Boston, Massachusetts, have we? Of course not; it's a big city. People are finding Revolutionary War treasures there all the time.* Until the entire city (and the state) is dug up, every square foot of it, then -- according to mdd344 -- nobody should be laughing at the idea that ancient Egypt settled Massachusetts, long before the Pilgrims did.

I hope everyone sees where this is leading.

mdd344 doesn't understand how science, history, or archaeology are conducted. In his attempt to rescue the bible history from the scrap heap, he has proposed a standard of evidence without thinking it through carefully to its ultimate conclusion.

------------------------

Just FYI - the state of Massachusetts is about the same size as the Sinai peninsula. I picked it for that very reason. Using the city of Boston is the same thing as saying that the Hebrews were camped at Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years.

* But never Egyptian artifacts - just like in the Sinai, where artifacts are discovered all the time, just never anything related to a mythical Exodus of Hebrews.

mdd344

Sauron,
Your statements such as "rescue the bible history from the scrap heap" still reveal your bias.

So to does your treatment of the hordes of archaeological finds that DO support the Bible, incredibly so in a great many details. Here is how I see your reaction:

These numbers are made up for this illustration:

1. 1000 artifacts have been found that completely corroborate the Bible

2. 1 artifact that the Bible mentions has never been found

3. Conclusion you draw---the Bible is a scrap heap

Too many variables exist for you to determine, based on absence of evidence, that the Bible is erroneous. That, and the fact that you are ignoring wealths of information that HAVE been found and DO support the Bible. I don't guess I'll call it manipulating the evidence for your own purposes, but I think it is close.

I at least say that if no evidence has been found where Israel wandered for 40 years in circles that I cannot say 'yea' or 'nay' about it. You determine that since you haven't seen anyone else find any that it is absolutely 'nay.'

If you wanted to be truly objective you would say something like this:

1. The archaeological evidence that has been found really supports a great deal of the Bible record. But there is not yet evidence that has been found to support the account the Bible gives of the Exodus. Yet, discoveries are often made unexpectedly and so in the future evidence may or may not be found that supports the Exodus.

Now in that, I would agree. But you are not (yet) doing that. What you are doing is declaring the Bible erroneous because of something that doesn't exist, and in truth, you cannot know whether it exists or not till it is found.

A consistent consequence of your position--i.e. arguing because something isn't yet found that is thousands of years old means it doesn't exist and the Bible is flatly wrong--merely reaffirms to me that your preconceived notions are affecting your ability to reason correctly.

Sven

No, no, this guy has to write a book first which contains the claim that it's from god!