Board index ‹ Bible

[Taro Cardmaster]

I’ve recently learned that at least many scholars believe that the Bible was first written while the people of Israel were in captivity by Babylon. My ESV archaeology Bible supports this indirectly, too, in telling that the first extra-biblical evidence of mention of Israel doesnt come about until the time of captivity in Babylon.

With this, in combination with the realizationthat some of the OT stories are suspiciously similar to the stories of even older peoples (like Flood myths shared by many cultures; and my ESV archaeology Bible tells of how Moses’ birth and placement in the reeds is pretty much copy/paste of an Egyptian tale about.. Horus i think it was? Amongst other shared myths), it seems to me that much of the OT is folklore of a people rather than a unique Word of God or a historical account.

In addition, there is no archaeological evidence that the Exodus occurred (and with the movement of hundreds of thousands of people over 40 years there absolutely should be), no evidence of the plagues in Egypt occurring in record by Egypt or other nations Egypt would have been doing trade with, and science disproves a young earth as found in a literal view of Genesis, so there’s just a lot that makes me skeptical of the truth of the OT.

So, if much of at least the Pentateuch is folklore, written far after the timelines of the stories contained, this leads me to question the validity of the rest of the Bible, too. Especially since a lot of the NTs points are regarding how God keeps covenants (did Abraham or Moses or the others that God made initial covenants with even exist? Again, Moses’ birth story is a literal Egyptian myth, no evidence of the Exodus, etc.), and a lot of OT scriptures about Abraham and Moses for example are used to justify NT testaments like with the writings of Paul.

What are your thoughts on these things? It seems that so much weight is put on what occurred in the OT, but if the OT is just folklore then how can the teachings in the NT that reference the OT as evidence just wouldnt be based on truth? It’d be “if for/then” justification when the “if for” is false.

Thanks in advance!

[jimwalton]

Glad to talk.

> at least many scholars believe that the Bible was first written while the people of Israel were in captivity by Babylon.

Some scholars to believe this. I happen to not believe this. There is convincing evidence that at least some parts of the Bible are much older than the exile. I think the evidence that the Bible was first written during the exile is circumstantial at best. I have reasons to believe many parts were written before that time, though editing was going on during the exile and in the post-exilic era.

> in telling that the first extra-biblical evidence of mention of Israel doesnt come about until the time of captivity in Babylon.

This is not true. The first extra-biblical mention of Israel is the Merneptah Stele of c. 1230-1214 BC.

> some of the OT stories are suspiciously similar to the stories of even older peoples (like Flood myths shared by many cultures

Though the biblical flood stories shares a few elements with the flood myths such as the Enuma Elish, the differences are dramatic. Another explanation besides copying, however, is that the event actually did happen and it was recorded differently by the different cultures according to their theological beliefs.

> Moses’ birth and placement in the reeds is pretty much copy/paste of an Egyptian tale about.. Horus

It's actually Sargon, and that tale is from the 8th c. BC. But similarity doesn't require derivation. Possibly, just possibly, Sargon copied the Bible, eh? Again, there are important differences in the stories. While several ancient stories include a common literary feature that a royal personage discarded to his fate and raised by commoners, Moses, under careful supervision, was rescued and is raised in privileged circumstances. There is no reason to assume that this daughter of Pharaoh would have been in a position of power or influence, like the Sargon story. Harem children by the score existed in every court, and daughters were considered less highly than sons.

> it seems to me that much of the OT is folklore of a people rather than a unique Word of God or a historical account.

There's no reason to jump to this conclusion unless you are assuming the worst. As I've briefly shown, perhaps it was the other way around. Perhaps the Bible was written earlier than the exile, perhaps a flood actually did happen and two cultures recorded it similarly, and perhaps the Sargon story postdated the Moses story. Don't just jump quickly to false conclusions.

> there is no archaeological evidence that the Exodus occurred

Correct, but neither is there evidence showing the narrative to be false. Every detail in the Exodus story that is confirmable has been confirmed to be true, so there's no stunning reason to assume the narrative is legendary. There's so much historicity in the story we actually have reason to lean towards historicity rather than fiction or legend.

> and with the movement of hundreds of thousands of people over 40 years there absolutely should be

The number of Israelites in the Exodus is more like 25,000, but I don't want to dump that explanation on you unless you want it. Glad to talk about it more.

> no evidence of the plagues in Egypt occurring in record by Egypt or other nations Egypt would have been doing trade with

And I wouldn't expect there to be.

> science disproves a young earth as found in a literal view of Genesis

Genesis doesn't require a young earth. If we take the text literally, it is literally about how God ordered the world to function, not about its material manufacture. But that's a longer conversation, too. It's not necessarily at odds with science. I think it easily allows for science to tell us what science does: The Earth is old, and evolution happened.

> so there’s just a lot that makes me skeptical of the truth of the OT.

Then let's talk more. I obviously don't see it that way.

> So, if much of at least the Pentateuch is folklore

I don't think it is. I think we're dealing with a theological perspective on history, and true to fact.

> did Abraham or Moses or the others that God made initial covenants with even exist?

I'm of the perspective that Abraham and Moses are historical.

> Moses’ birth story is a literal Egyptian myth

As I clarified, no it's not. So let's talk some more.

[Jerry Springer]

> There is convincing evidence that at least some parts of the Bible are much older than the exile.

There are very few scholars who believe that the Pentateuch was completely written in exile. The mainstream view, also held by many (perhaps a majority?) of evangelical scholars (Waltke, Longman, Long, etc.), is that it was compiled during the exile...a process that also included editing and stitching together similar stories (i.e., the two creation narratives).

That idea forms one of the foundations of the Documentary Hypothesis.
​
> Though the biblical flood stories shares a few elements with the flood myths such as the Enuma Elish, the differences are dramatic.

It shares more than "a few elements." That is a dishonest assessment.
​
> Another explanation besides copying, however, is that the event actually did happen and it was recorded differently by the different cultures according to their theological beliefs.

Another explanation is that all of the written stories that are currently extant reflect a shared mythology.
​
> Possibly, just possibly, Sargon copied the Bible, eh?

Is there even the tiniest shred of evidence that this could have been the case? One notable scholar who holds this view?
​
> Correct, but neither is there evidence showing the narrative to be false.

There's no evidence to prove that there isn't an invisible hippo wearing a tutu floating above my head right now, but I don't believe that either. Something being "unfalsifiable" is not a mark of historical veracity.

[jimwalton]

> There are very few scholars who believe that the Pentateuch was completely written in exile.

Agreed. I also believe that it was probably compiled (and even edited) in the exile or post-exilic. I believe, for instance, that Moses is the authority behind the Pentateuch, and he may have even written a bunch of it, but it was put together later by others assembling his writings, much like I might, for instance, assemble a collection of Abe Lincoln quotes. Abe is the author, but I'm the author. Abe is the authority, I'm the assembler.

> > Genesis account and Enuma relish

> It shares more than "a few elements." That is a dishonest assessment.

It is not. Speiser says, "It is clear that Hebrew tradition must have received it material from a separate source than the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic."

In these accounts the chief god, Enlil, becomes angry at humankind (the Atrahasis Epic portrays him as disturbed over the "noise" of humankind) and, after trying unsuccessfully to remedy the situation by reducing the population through things like drought and disease, persuades the divine assembly to approve a flood for the total elimination of mankind. The god Ea manages to forewarn one loyal worshipper, a king who is instructed to build a boat that will preserve not only him and his family, but representatives skilled in the various arts of civilization. The other people of the city are told that the gods are angry with the king and he must leave them. The pitch-covered boat has seven stories shaped either as a cube or, more likely, a ziggurat. The storm lasts seven days and nights after which the boat comes to rest on Mt. Nisir. Birds are sent out to determine the time of leaving the ark. Sacrifices are made for which the gods are very thankful since they have been deprived of food (sacrifices) since the flood began.

While there are a few similarities between the biblical flood and the Gilgamesh Epic & Atrahasis, the differences are significant.The biblical flood is written with a strong moral motivation, while Gilgamesh & Atrahasis fail to suggest even a plausible cause. I can't agree that there is "high resemblance." It seems, however, that the accounts may refer to the same event with different theological worldviews, giving credibility to the truth of the event itself.

> > Possibly, just possibly, Sargon copied the Bible, eh?

> Is there even the tiniest shred of evidence that this could have been the case? One notable scholar who holds this view?

The source of the Sargon story is completely unknown, though it is known to date from the 8th century. the Moses story, however, has many components that would lead one to conclude its source material was c. 1300 BC. It contains elements we know from archaeology that were most likely unknown in the 8th c. and following. The linguistic and culture evidence we have leads us to a source prior to Sargon.

> There's no evidence to prove that there isn't an invisible hippo wearing a tutu floating above my head right now, but I don't believe that either. Something being "unfalsifiable" is not a mark of historical veracity.

You've missed the point. There is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Ignorance." It is when someone notices a lack of evidence and concludes the negative, and that's a fallacy. Here's how it goes:

1. No one has proved that the Exodus is true.
2. Therefore the Exodus never happened.

It's a fallacy of weak induction. Instead, the proper conclusion is as follows:

1. No one has proved that the Exodus is true.
2. Therefore we can't know from the available evidence whether the Exodus happened on not.

It is irrational to claim that the lack of evidence proves a historical occurrence to be false. Instead, we can only say there is no evidence pro or con.

[Skrewed]

> Correct, but neither is there evidence showing the narrative to be false. Every detail in the Exodus story that is confirmable has been confirmed to be true, so there's no stunning reason to assume the narrative is legendary. There's so much historicity in the story we actually have reason to lean towards historicity rather than fiction or legend.

Which parts are confirmed to be true?

[jimwalton]

1. Archaeologists have uncovered the well-preserved village of Deir el-Medina, showing us the exact conditions under which Egypt’s own laborers worked, and it matches the conditions described in the Exodus. This village was inhabited for over 400 years, which is also how long the Israelites were in Egypt. It confirms that large groups of ethnic slaves (corvee labor) worked in Egypt for centuries.

2. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrants such as the Israelites regularly entered and settled in Egypt. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (1850 BC). The best known large-scale immigration involves a group of Asiatics we know as the Hyksos who actually ruled Egypt, at least over the northeast Delta, as Dynasties XV & XVI (1650-1550 BC). Their position did not differ much from that of Joseph as described in the Bible. It confirms that immigrant populations settled in Egypt and even rose to power.

3. About 400 years after the Hyksos, Dynasty XIX came to power in Egypt, including Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The 430-year Egyptian sojourn could have spanned the era from Hyksos to Ramesses. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta (where the Israelites stayed) and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate, the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice, just as the story of Joseph relates. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic roots, as indicated by the choice of the name Seti. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

4. In the 13th c. BC, during the reign of Ramesses the Great (aka Ramesses II), the old Hyksos capital of Avaris in the northeast Delta was rebuilt and expanded under the new name of Pi-Ramesses (Ex. 1.11). This confirms the Exodus account.

5. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region. This confirms the Exodus account.

6. The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the 2nd millennium BC. The ark of the covenant may be compared with the portable clothes chest found in the tomb of King Tut (1336-1327 BC). There is no reason to believe that such an artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites, confirming the truthfulness of the Exodus account.

7. The accounts of the Exodus accurately describe nomadic life: nomads living in the Nile delta who were exploited for cheap labor, Moses's flight to Midian was a common escape route, Bedouins knew how to find water in the wilderness, even by striking certain rocks, Matzah had origins in Bedouin life, etc. These give credibility to the narrative and confirm the details of it.

8. A pillared, 4-room Israelite house has been found along the Nile near the biblical city of Ra'amses. It bears no similarity to any Egyptian structure, but is identical to the houses of Canaan after the Israelite presence is known. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC. This gives credibility to the narrative.

9. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area, confirming the truthfulness of the account.

10. The Merneptah stele clearly shows that before the last quarter of the 13th century BC there existed an "Israel" as distinct from Egypt and outside of it, though there is a strong Egyptian presence in the land of Canaan.

11. There is abundant evidence in all eras that Egyptians were slave owners. Scholars previously thought that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures. Foreigners, captured in war, were enslaved. Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) brought back almost 90,000 prisoners from his campaign in Canaan.

12. In a surviving Egyptian document called Leiden Papyrus 348, orders are given to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the 'Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." This brings to mind Exodus 1:11, which says the Hebrews "built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh." While hotly debated, 'Apiru is believed by some scholars to refer to the Hebrews, the 'Ibri. If a future discovery of an inscription could link this word to the Hebrews, this document would prove to be our first direct extrabiblical reference to the children of Israel in slavery in Egypt.

13. Recent discoveries of military outposts on a road leading from Egypt into Canaan, built by Pharaoh Seti I and earlier kings in the 13th c. BC, shed new light on why a northern route for the Exodus would have meant war for the Israelites. Exodus 13:17 states: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, 'If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.' " Instead, the Bible explains, "God led the people by the roundabout way of the wilderness." The Bible tells it correctly.

14. While it is virtually impossible 3,000 years later to retrace the footsteps of a people who escaped over a sand swept wilderness, an Egyptian letter (Anastasi III) from guards at a "border crossing" between Egypt and the Sinai helps explain Moses's insistent cry, "Let my people go!" The text indicates that in the 13th c. the Egyptians maintained a tight border control, allowing no one to pass without a permit. The letter describes two slaves who—in a striking parallel to the Israelite escape—flee from the city of Rameses at night, are pursued by soldiers, but disappear into the Sinai wilderness. "When my letter reaches you," writes the official to the border guard, "write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them." Another inscription from the same cache of documents (Anastasi VI) records that an entire tribe gained permission to enter Egypt from Edom in search of food.

15. No one knows the exact location of Mt. Sinai, and archaeological remains are scarce in the Sinai Peninsula. There is in Midian, however, a "holy" mountain surrounded by literally THOUSANDS of artifacts and carvings relating to the time period and the situation of the Exodus. Perhaps, as scholars are still evaluating, Moses led the people in their wanderings through Midian (a theory that would make sense given that he had spent 40 years there) rather than the Sinai Peninsula, and perhaps these abundant remains are exactly what people are looking for.

The conclusion of the matter is that the Exodus is an incredibly believable narrative. The text is loaded with cultural and historical accuracies. There's so much historicity in the story that we actually have reason to lean towards historicity than fiction or legend.

My follow up question to you: Has anything ever been discovered that disproves the Exodus account?

[Taro Cardmaster]

Thank you for your responses! The response you mentioned was deleted wasn't from me-- but ironically your subsequent conversation with that poster was helpful for me too haha. I'll be reflecting on the things you've said-- thanks again. It seems like you've had dialogue like this in the past-- do you have any books you'd recommend that might help me with questions like these?

[jimwalton]

I've had plenty of these dialogues, for sure. As far as a book is concerned, your comments spanned subjects such as the Documentary Hypothesis, Bible history, Noah's Ark, whether the Bible derived from Mesopotamian/Canaanite culture, and the Exodus. What kind of book are you looking for? I doubt you'll find one (a single volume) that covers all of these.

[Skrewed]

Archaeologists have not found a single Egyptian record of the 2 million Israelites (conservative estimate) that lived there. No mention of the locusts, or the sea turning into blood, which would have completely devastated the country. The old testament is also largely unspecific. Why did the book not mention the name of the Pharaoh? Why are there chronological errors in the myth?

[jimwalton]

> Archaeologists have not found a single Egyptian record of the 2 million Israelites (conservative estimate) that lived there.

You're correct. I think the number is wrong. In Moses, the word for “thousand” was vocalized “elep” but was written “lp” (Gn. 20.16). But a similar word vocalized “alup” (meaning clan, or troop, or chief) was also written “lp” (Gn. 36.15; Judges 6.15). If the word is "groupings" rather than "thousands," we end up with a size of Israel about 25,000 people, not over 2.5 million, a much more reasonable and explaining idea.

1. With only 5,550 fighting men they would certainly have had reason to fear the Egyptian army. If they had a population of 2.5M and an army of 600K, Egypt would have been easily conquerable.

2. The land of Goshen, where the Israelites lived, could support survival for no more than 25K people.

3. Israel crossed the Reed Sea in one night (Ex. 14.12)—impossible if they are 2.6M people.

4. The path to Sinai is rugged, with many places where only a few people abreast could walk. If they were 2.6M, the line would be over 100 miles long. There's no sense in this, but there is if they are 25K.

5. Water from the rock (Ex. 17) would make a massive large lake to quench the thirst of 2.6M. More sensible if it was 25K.

6. Jericho is only 4 miles from the Jordan River. There is absolutely not enough room for 2.6M campers. It doesn't make sense that 2.6M is the accurate figure.

7. Ancient Jericho was only 10 acres. The entire population of 2.6M could not have marched around it 7 times on the 7th day (Josh. 6.5).

8. Ex. 23.29-30; Dt. 4.37-38; 7.7 say that Israel couldn't occupy the whole land all at once because there weren't enough of them. If they were 2.6M, it would have been simple.

Everything points us to a mistranslation by the Masoretic text. If we simply go with different vowels (which were not part of the original), we end up with a completely reasonable picture.

> No mention of the locusts

The devastation from locusts was a common occurrence in the ancient world, and is even to this day. They often struck in March/April when the prevailing winds brought them. There's no expectation that every locust catastrophe of history was recorded somewhere.

> or the sea turning into blood

If you're familiar with ancient records, they didn't record things that made the king or the gods look bad. Temple inscriptions were publicity and praise, not the evening news. There are various natural explanations: a volcano, an infestation of red algae bloom, red clay, etc. Any thick red fluid would fit the bill. The changing of the water into blood is to be interpreted in the same sense as in Joel 3.4 where the moon is said to be turned into blood. It doesn’t require a chemical change, but a change in color as to assume the appearance of blood (2. Ki. 3.22). I wouldn't expect such an event to be recorded on the wall of the temple.

> Why did the book not mention the name of the Pharaoh?

Good question. We'd all like to know. But it was normal for people in Egypt to refer simply to "the pharaoh" in the New Kingdom period, when the Exodus presumably occurred.

> Why are there chronological errors in the myth?

What are the chronological errors to which you are referring?